EIR: Appendix K: Correspondence •
APPENDIX K
•
CORRESPONDENCE
•
•
15750 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No 5£3 / Monday. March 27, 1995 / Notices
Adjusted twelve-month Impact Statement (EIS) to support a dikes in the nearshore would be
Category limit' cost-shared feasibility study with the evaluated as to their feasibility as shore
• . City of Rancho Palos Verdes,California protection measures.It should be noted
870 27 553,177 kilograms. for shoreline protection along the City of that the Corps will not•analyze Qr
'The limits have not been adjusted to ac- Rancho Palos Verdes coastline.The address a solution to the landslide
count for any imports exported after December purpose of the feasibility study is to problem,and will not develop Corps
31, 1994. evaluate alternatives for reducing position on whether the landslide is
2Category 340-Z: only HTS numbers erosion,sedimentation,and turbidity stabilizing,or is expected to stabilize.
6205.20.2015, 6205.20.2020, 620520.2050
and 6205.202060. along the Rancho Palos Verdes based on shore protection.
a Category 670-t_ onlyHTS numbers coastline. A Corps-recommended plan S
4202.12.8030,, 4202.12.800, 4202.92.3020. would include construction of shore coping Process
4202.92.3030 and 4202.92.9025. protection measures to reduce ongoing The scoping process is on-going and
The Committee for the Implementation of damages to the shoreline from coastal has involved preliminary coordination
Textile Agreements has determined that erosion by storm,wave,and tidal with Federal,State,and local agencies.
the,e:actions fall within the foreign affairs • events,and continued deposition of A public scoping meeting is scheduled
exception to the rulemaking provisions of seroded materials in the adjacent marine at the Fred Besse Community Park
U.S.C:.553(3)(1). environment.The EIS will analyze Building,29301 Hawthorne Blvd..
Sincerely. Rancho Palos Verdes,CA at 7:30 pm.
Rita D. Mayes. potential impacts of the recommended 26, 1995.The purpose of th
plan and a range of alternatives on theAprilP P
Chairman.Committee for the Implementation environment. meeting is to gather information from
of Textile Agreements. -
the general public or interested
)ER Doc.95-7423 Filed 3-24-95:8:45 am) ADDRESSES: Commander,U.S.Army
Corps of Engineers,Los Angeles District, organizations about issues and concerns
BILUNG CODE 3510-OR-F Environmental Support Section.P.O. they would like to see addressed in the
1
EIS.Commentsmaybe delivered in
Box 2711,Los Angeles,CA 90053-2325.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: writing or verbally at the meeting or
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSEMr. Rey Farve,Project Ecologist,(213) sent in writing to the Los Angeles
•
894-5510,or Ms.Anna Zacher,Study District at the address given above.
Department of the Air Force Kenneth L.Denton,
Manager,(213)894-2028.
USAF Scientific Advisory Board SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:The study Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
Meeting area is located along the coastline of the (FR Doc.95-7457 Filed 3-24-95:8:45 am)
•
Palos Verdes Peninsula in the City of BILLING CODE 3710-KF4
The New World Vistas Information Rancho Palos Verdes.The topography
Applications Panel of the USAF consists primarily of a shoreline backed
• Scientific Advisory Board•will meet on by steep slopes below a pronounced sea
cliff,and is also characterized-by •
Department of the Navy
25-26 April 1995 at the Air Intelligence
Agency,San Antonio,TX from 8:00 a.m. rocky •
Office of the Deputy Assistant
headlands,and gravelly,narrow Secretaryof the Na (Conversion and
to 5:00 p.m.
beaches. Redevelopment);Community
purpose of this meeting will be to P )�
Previous shoreline surveys indicate Redevelopment Authorityand
provide information applications P'
assessments on issues relating to New that the nearshore,in the recent past, Available Surplus Buildings and Land
has experienced significant accretion at MilitaryInstallations Designated for
World Vistas. and a seaward advance of more than 150 g
• The meeting will be closed to the Closure: Naval Training Center,
feet.Since 1956,when a contemporary
public in accordance with Section 552b P y Orlando,FL—Herndon Annex
of Title 5"United States-Code, landslide began, the shoreline has been
specifically subparagraphs(1)and(4) accredit and extended by earth AGENCY;Department of the Navy.DOD.
thereof. movement into the surf zone. ACTION:Notice.
For further information,contact the Thousands of tons of material have been
washed away from the shoreline and SUMMARY:This Notice provides
Scientific Advisory Board Secretariat et information regardingthe
(703)697-4648. deposited in the nearshore basin,
offshore,or carried downcoast.As much redevelopment authority that has been
Patsy J.Conner, as 30 inches of sediment have been established to plan the reuse of the
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer. deposited over rocky bottom areas Naval Training Center,Herndon Annex,
IFR Doc.95-7456 Filed 3-24-95:8:45 amt which historically supported a rich and Orlando,FL,the surplus property that is
BILLING CODE 3010-01-P diverse intertidal and subtidal biological located at that base closure site,and the
• community near the toe of the landslide timely election by the redevelopment
berm._Up to 6 inches of sediment have authority to proceed under new
Department of the Army Corps of been measured,in certain areas,as far procedures set forth in the Base Closure
Engineersoffshore as 300 feet. Community Redevelopment and
• Homeless Assistance Act of 1994.
Notice of intent to Prepare an Proposed Action and Alternatives FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:John
Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) The Los Angeles District will J.Kane,Deputy Division Director,
for the Rancho Palos Verdes Shore investigate and evaluate all reasonable Department of the Navy,Real Estate
Protection Feasibility Study alternatives to address methods to Operations,Naval Facilities Engineering
AGENCY:U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, reduce shore erosion,sedimentation. Command,200 Stovall Street,
Los Angeles District,DOD. ' and turbidity along the Rancho Palos Alexandria,VA 22332-2300,telephone
III ACTION•Notice of intent. Verdes coastline.In addition to the NO (703) 325-0474; or E.R.Nelson Real
ACTION alternative,the construction of Estate Division,Southern,Division,
SUMMARY:The Los Angeles District structures such as revetments or gabions Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
intents to prepare an Environmental along the shoreline or breakwaters or 2155 Eagle Drive,North Charleston,SC
ZMEOF Ty
- .m United States Department of the Interior
g-
!
'.f-' a FISH AND WILDLIFESERVICE
Ecological Scr,iccs
4/�RCH 3 °O Carlsbad Fidd Officc
2730 Lokcr Avcnuc Wcsr
• Carlsbad,California 92003
June 13, 1995
Colonel Michal R. Robinson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Los Angeles District
P.O. Box 2711
Los Angeles, California 90053-2325
Attn. : Anna Zacher, Study Manager
Re: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
for Rancho Palos Verdes Shoreline Protection Feasibility Study,
Los Angeles County, California
Dear Colonel Robinson:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the referenced
• Notice of Intent (NOI) received by the Service on May 8, 1995 regarding the
referenced action. As currently proposed, the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) will address all reasonable alternatives to reduce
shoreline erosion, sedimentation, and turbidity along the Rancho Palos
Verdes shoreline. However, stabilization of the landslide primarily
responsible for the high rates of sedimentation and turbidity will not be
addressed.
The Service has four primary concerns regarding the referenced action: 1)
the Corps' decision to not address landslide stabilization as one of the
remediating alternatives; 2) the Corps' decision to not address the
indirect and secondary impacts of the proposed action and alternatives on
the landslide and the terrestrial species that inhabit that area; 3)
potential'resuspension and exposure of marine resources to toxic substances
trapped in the sediments; and 4) direct and indirect impacts to marine
resources in the study area.
The Corps asserts that the primary cause of increased sedimentation in the
study area is a contemporary landslide that began in 1956. If this is
correct, stabilization of the landslid is a rl.a_ onable alternative to
reduce shorertrre eLosi , se imentation, and turbidity a on ncho
Palos Ver es s o ' e. This is contrary to the Corps' position stated in
the NOI: 'It should be noted that the Corps-will not analyze or address a
solution to the landslide problem' . Alternatives that do not slow or stop
the landslide will not be addressing the root of the sedimentation problem
• and will likely require high levels of maintenance as the landslide
continues to advance, damaging and burying the structures and/or filling
the artificial impoundments. The Service believes, based on information
previously provided by the Corps, that an alternative that seeks to slow or
•
Colonel Michal R. Robinson 2
stop the landslide could redlirp rhe P-c-essive levels of �dimen��haware •
currently entering the marine system in the study area and should be
const ere as one of the proposed alternatives.
The Corps has identified several structural alternatives that will be
evaluated during the preparation of the EIS. The Corps also asserts in the
NOI that ' the Corps . . . will not develop Corps [sic] position on whether
the landslide is stabilizing, or is expected to stabilize, based on shore
protection' . However, any structures , such as gabions or revetments, are J
likely to have some stabilizing_effecton the landslide. If they do not
have any stabilizing effect and the landslide is still moving, they will
not be successful at preventing the continued flow of sediments into the
nearshore environmnt. In compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) , the Corps must address the direct, indirect and
cumulative impacts of each of the p s on the landslide and
the terresIT —rusuurces_ in the landslide area and the marine resources
along the nearshore Palos Verdes Shelf.
The Service is concerned that DDT, PCB's and other toxic chemicals trapped
in the lower sediments on .the Palos Verdes Shelf could be released into the
water column if current sedimentation rates are decreased. Release of
these trapped contaminants into the water column may affect marine
resources including endangered and sensitive species in the area.
Intertidal and subtidal species are often very sensitive to minute levels
of chemical contamination. Any introduction of these chemicals into the, : .. •
studyarea could �`
preclude the "natural recovery" process. In addition,
brown pelicans , a Federal endangered species, have been identified as using
the nearshore waters in the study area for foraging. The initial cause of
population decline in brown pelicans was closely tied to DDT contamination.
of the food source. With the banning of DDT and PCB use, brown pelican
populations and species of predatory birds are recovering. The study area
remains a crucial foraging area for resident and juvenile birds dispersing
from the nearby channel islands.
Sediment samples need to be collected throughout the study area and
analyzed for the presence of contaminants. For each identified
contaminant, the e - . • ' ' distributio• w' •• the stud area and any
other areas to be affected by the proposed project needs to be •e ermined.
Any alternative that results in the uncoverinpof contaminants must inc ude
mitigation provisions.
Several Federal endangered and threatened species have been recorded using
portions 'of the study area for breeding, foraging, and as migratory
corridors. Each alternative and the resulting chanes in land use will
undoubtedly have impacts on several of these species ani result in the
direct loss of habitat. The Service recommends that the Corps quantify the
impacts of each alternative on terrestrial and marine resources and
`thre-atened and endangered see If the selected alternative may affect
a threatene. or en.angered species the Corps should initiate formal
ill
...
-,,, -
..„..„.„.
_ ._
_,yrs.':
•
• Colonel Michal R. Robinson 3
consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Mark
Pavelka at this office at (619) 431-9440.
Sincerely,
Ga 1 C. Kobetich
' eld Supervisor
•
•
•
/ST Os.
74 = off, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
744. �,'•,'�I� � �j; LOS ANGELES DISTRICT.CORPS OF ENGINEERS
f(4yri'�C', P.O 00%2711
• IQ i �5��y(T,•I LOS ANGELES.CALIFORNIA 90053-2325
2
4.87 o 1. August 9, 1995
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF.
•
Office of the Chief
Environmental Resources Branch
Mr. Gail Kobetich
Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Southern California Field Station, Carlsbad Office
2730 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mr. Kobetich:
This responds to your letter of June 13, 1995, on the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the Rancho Palos Verdes Shoreline Protection and Environmental
Restoration and Feasibility Study. Your letter conveyed some concerns that we address
below.
Your first concern was that a solution to the landslide will neither be analyzed nor
addressed by the subject study. The Corps, however, has no statutory provisions that
establish a Federal interest in stabilization of landslides (see COE 1992:89, 97, and 98).
Therefore, however reasonable landside stabilization might appear as an alternative for
reducing shoreline erosion, it cannot not be considered in the proposed Feasibility Study.
Regarding environmental impacts you feel the Corps should address in the early
phases of this Study, the Corps has and will continue to solicit your active participation,
as well as that of the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the California Department
of Fish and Game. We have already conducted several inter-agency meetings to
negotiate the scope of proposed marine-biological surveys for this project, and are
transferring funds to support your continued involvement to include: (a) preparation of
Planning Aid Letters; (b) participation in review of SOWs for terrestrial and marine
biological surveys; and (c) preparation of a Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act Report.
Another concern you expressed was that we "...must address direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts of each project alternative on the landslide and terrestrial resources
in the landslide area...." Because the Corps, again, has no authority to stabilize
• landslides, none of the proposed alternatives are intended to serve that purpose. We
disagree, specifically, with your claim that gabions and revetments are: "...likely to have a
stabilizing effect on the landslide." The gabions the City installed in 1989 had no effect
on the Portuguese Bend landslide, and wave action later destroyed them.
The alternatives the Corps will identify and pursue for this project, nonetheless,
will take account of the moving Palos Verdes land mass, and will include cost estimates
for periodic repair of any structural damage incurred by these land movements.
Although we expect that none of the proposed alternatives will have any effect
whatsoever on terrestrial resources, we have also programmed funds for you to assess the
habitat of selected terrestrial species, as specified in the Scope of Work.
You also expressed concern with the possible release of toxic chemicals that may
lie buried under accumulated Rancho Palos Verdes sediment. This repeats a point in
your letter, dated January 31, 1994, on the Initial Project Management Plan for this
study. The Corps, however, does plan to use existing data plus results from sediment
sampling conducted for this study, to clarify the extent to which sediments eroded from
Rancho Palos Verdes sediment cover the ocean floor in the study area. This study will
measure the horizontal extent and vertical depth of such sediment, and will use predictive
modeling to determine the probable extent of sediment coverage after construction of the
proposed shoreline protection measures. The Corps will also use existing information
and new sediment chemistry results to identify and evaluate the chemical fingerprint(s) of
the subject sediments.
The final point in your letter was to remind us that direct and indirect impacts of
the proposed action, and all alternative actions, on environmental resources should be i
addressed, as stipulated under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). It
goes without saying that we shall comply with this and all other pertinent Federal laws
and regulations in preparing this, as well as all of our General Investigation Studies.
We look forward to continuing our work together on this project, as well as with
the National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Game,
and appreciate your scrutiny of the unusual issues associated with it. Such hands-on
participation of environmental resources agencies is invaluable to us, and critical to the
success of our projects.
Sincerely,
ild'e"64
Robert S. Joe
Chief, Planning Di ' on
•
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON Govcrnor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000 ../7,-.1-. c,
• SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219 April 28, 1995 /�.
VOICE AND TDD (415) 904.5200 •
✓
h-
U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers l .,\
Los Angeles District0
P.O. Box 2711
Los Angeles, CA 90053
Attention: Anna Zacher, Study Manager, CESPL-PD-CS
RE: Rancho Palos Verdes, California Shore Protection and Environmental Restoration
Feasibility Study
Dear Ms. Zachcr:
The Commission staff has received the Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement for the above-referenced project. The Commission staff believes that
that project has the potential to affect coastal resources. As such, the Corps should
evaluate the project for effects on public access to the shoreline, recreational resources,
sensitive habitat and species, marine habitat, water quality, air quality, commercial and
recreational fishing and fisheries, shoreline processes, and visual resources. (For a full
description of coastal resources and the state policies protecting those resources please
• see Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act, Public Resource Code 30200 et seq.)
Pursuant to Section 307(c)(1) of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA) (16
U.S.C.'Section 1456(c)(1)), the Corps should prepare a coastal consistency determination
for this activity. That determination should evaluate the project's effects on coastal
resources and its consistency with relevant policies of the California Coastal Management
Program. The Corps should submit that consistency determination to the Commission for
its review and concurrence. For a full description of the federal consistency procedures,
see the federal regulations implementing the CZMA, 15 C.F.R Part 930 Subpart C.
Thank you for the notice on this project. Please keep the Commission staff on the
mailing list for any future environmental documents relating to this activity. If you have
any questions, please call me at (415) 904-5292.
Sincerely, -
• g .
James R. Raives
Federal Consistency Coordinator
cc: South Coast Area Office
• Lesley Ewing
JRR/
C:\AMSOFFICEIW INW ORDURRUURISDICTIOMCOERP V.DOC
. To: <rfarve@splgate.spl .usace . army.mil> , <mark_pavelkamail . fws .a
From: John.Steven@epamail .epa.gov
Cc :
Bcc :
Subject : Portuguese Bend issues
Attachment :
Date : 7/16/95 11 : C9 AM
Rey and Mark -- Fred Schauffler (EPA' s PV Shefl $fund project manager) and
I finally connected and discussed the PV Shelf issues relative to the
Portuguese Bend. Here ' s the information Fred provided to me :
EPA does not think that the material from the Portuguese Bend landslide
settling out on the PV Shelf makes any significant contribution to the
stabilization of contaminated materials on the Shelf . The general
conclusion by EPA' s $fund office is that this is a minor amount of
material, subsequently it does not do much to isolate the contaminated
layers . Additionally, the $fund office does not anticipate that the Corps
project -- either if it is constructed or if it isn' t constructed, would
have any signficiant influence on any action EPA might take (including
capping) on the PV Shelf .
Regarding the resuspension question raised by Mark -- Fred was not sure
that the nearshore materials have DDT levels quite so high. Generally, the
more problematic (higher contaminated) sediments are further off shore, not
in the immediate nearshore environment . It ' s not clear that, if in fact
• these are the levels, and the Corps project following a storm event would
allow for resuspension of these materials, that there would be a
significant problem. Certainly the amount of resuspension, the level of
contamination, and the how much of the resuspension was actually
contaminated to such elevated levels, would be factors . Either way,
suspension of the sediments would not necessarily, in and of itself,
increase bioavailability (particularly if the contaminants are currently
available to benthic species) .
I hope this is helpful . If you need addtional information, please don' t
hesitate to ask (telephone at 213/452-3806; e-mail at
john. steven@epamail . epa.gov) .
Steven