THE OUTDOORS : EPA’s Proposal Has Fishermen Concerned : Dump Site Affects Key Local Areas

Southland fishermen fear they’re about to be dumped on.

The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed designating a spot near a prime coastal fishing area as a permanent dump site for dredged material from Los Angeles and Long Beach harbors.

Further, the fishermen say, they were never consulted by the EPA about the possible negative impact on the area, which they say would be considerable. Their evidence is the aftermath of sporadic dumping at the same spot along the shallow-water San Pedro Shelf--designated as LA-2 on charts--over several years.

“Every time they dump, the bite shuts down until the water clears after 3 or 4 days,” said Bill Nott of Long Beach, president of the Sportfishing Assn. of California. “The dump drifts down to us over 5 to 8 miles. All you have to do is get in an airplane to see it and it makes you sick.”

The dump site is 600 feet deep 6 miles south of Point Fermin and just outside the fishing area, Nott said. But prevailing westerly currents carry the dumped material into such popular fishing spots as the Horseshoe Kelp, the Rockpile and the area around three outer oil rigs.

“The majority of it goes out in a plume as it goes down to 600 feet,” Nott said. “I doubt that much solid gets to the bottom.”

Harry Seraydarian, director of the EPA’s Water Management Division in San Francisco, said the EPA’s intent is not to increase dumping at the site but merely to change the designation of the site from interim to permanent to meet new federal regulations.

He said that his office had issued a draft Environmental Impact Study on the matter last October, but Nott said he learned of the proposal only about 2 weeks ago from Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, which represents commercial fishermen.

“We didn’t even know it was happening,” Nott said. “Nobody contacted us.”

Grader said: “We found out about it not because of the EPA or (Army) Corps of Engineers but because Congressman (Mel) Levine’s (D-Santa Monica) office called us.”

The Corps of Engineers is the authority for issuing permits for offshore dumping.

“That would be terrible for our fishery,” said Dottie Cummins, manager of the 22nd Street Landing in San Pedro. “No wonder they were trying to keep it quiet.”

Cummins said the sportfishing operators have spent considerable time and money over several years, creating artificial fish habitats in the area by tying old tires together and, in one case, dropping the concrete remains of the old San Pedro viaduct bridge to the bottom.

“We’ve really been working to develop that area,” she said.

As soon as he heard of the proposal, Nott wrote to Wendy Wiltse, who just last week left her position as chief of the EPA’s Oceans and Estuaries section.

Nott wrote: “In areas to the east of the proposed dump site are many highly productive rocky areas . . . and many more hard-bottom spots which have produced many hundreds of thousands of tons of fish over the decades since I entered the local fisheries in 1935.”

Nott listed “users of the outer San Pedro Shelf (as) 30 gill-net boats, 27 large-purse seine boats, 30 large public sportfishers, 6 vessels catching live bait for the public from Redondo to Dana Point (and) 200-400 private boats on a good fishing day.”

Both sport and commercial fishing groups would prefer that the dredged material be dumped at a site 11 miles offshore in 3,000 to 4,000 feet of water, where they say it would have little impact on fishing.

But the EPA thinks the shallow spot would be better.

Daniel W. McGovern, regional administrator for the EPA, recommended the LA-2 site for permanent designation because, according to Carrie Frieber, EPA public affairs officer, “it has a historical use (as a dump site) and would have little impact to major fisheries. The deeper site would cause significant impacts.”

If that’s a direct contradiction to the fishermen’s opinion, Frieber added, “Bear in mind that this went through an Environmental Impact Study.”

Assemblyman Gerald Felando (R-San Pedro) was skeptical--and irate.

“It was an environmental study done on paper,” said Felando, who grew up in San Pedro. “I come from a long line of fishermen. I know that area. Even today, I’ll go out fishing there. That (dumping site) is absolutely ridiculous. Anybody with any brains would know that’s an out-and-out lie.

“They don’t want to go out farther because it would cost more. They’re not going to get away with it. If we have to, we’ll stop ‘em from doing that through some legislation on the state level.”

Wiltse indicated that the fishermen may be unduly alarmed, and that all the EPA was trying to do was what its name implies: protect the environment.

“If anything, there will be even less (dumping) than in the past,” she said.

If the fishermen get their way, there won’t be any at all.

According to Wiltse and other EPA personnel, the dump site, long designated as interim, became an issue only when the National Wildlife Federation in February of 1980 forced the EPA to drop the interim designations of all offshore dump sites and declare them permanent.

Wiltse said, “We’re very concerned about materials that are dumped into the ocean, and we wanted to take a closer look at that (site).”

The EPA agreed to complete its studies on such sites by the end of this year--thus, the recent process of environmental studies and permits, during which, Seraydarian said, “We didn’t get any strong comments either way.”

Perhaps because the fishermen didn’t know about it?

While a reporter was on the phone, Seraydarian checked his mailing list and said that Grader’s name was on it but that Nott’s wasn’t.

Apparently, the State Department of Fish and Game has had little input. Dick Nitsos, a marine biologist in the Long Beach office who investigated the matter, was on vacation and unavailable.

But his superior in Sacramento, Peter Phillips, the environmental services supervisor, said if Nitsos had any concerns with the issue, he probably would have filed a report.

“It sounds like we’ve had no comments,” Phillips said.

The EPA said that an average of about 200,000 cubic yards a year are dumped on the site. “And I know there has been some projects with up to a million cubic yards,” Wiltse said. “It has been used at least since the 1970s for the dumping of dredged material.”

And the fishermen have grudgingly tolerated periodic shutdowns.

Said Cummins: “The Horseshoe Kelp is our prime fishing area. That’s where all of our half-day and three-quarter-day boats go. On a Sunday, with all the private boats, they’ll number in the hundreds.”

Species in the area include calico bass, sand bass, yellowtail, bonito, barracuda, white sea bass, blue perch, halibut and sculpin. When the water clouds, they disappear.

But Frieber said that dumping in the deep-water site proposed by the fishermen could increase problems in that area, which EPA studies show is “already stressed by low dissolved oxygen contamination. (Additional dumping) could result in an extreme anoxic condition.”

Which means?

“Fish would die,” Frieber said.

Cummins’ response to that: “What fish do they have in deep water?”

Wiltse pointed out, “This is a proposal. It is not a final decision. The process requires that we look at all the information first.”

And now, it seems, the fishermen will be heard.

The EPA’s public comment period was scheduled to close earlier this month but was extended until Oct. 4, upon request of the National Oceanic Society.

Also, the Long Beach City Council, spurred by Councilman Warren Harwood, has asked for a public hearing, which has not yet been granted, although Seraydarian indicated that it might be.

In the end, the fishermen could come out better than before, now that the issue has been brought to a head. If their wishes are granted, there will be no more dumping on LA-2.

Frieber said: “We wish we didn’t have to dump anything into the ocean, but this stuff has to go somewhere, and we try to put it where it will do the least harm to the environment.”