To: United States Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District (USACE) and Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region
From: Sally Tobin, Vice President, Citizens for East Shore Parks (corresponding author) and cosigned by (in alphabetical order; see Signature Page): 350 Bay Area, Citizens for East Shore Parks, Extinction Rebellion San Francisco Bay Area, Golden Gate Bird Alliance, Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice, Marie Harrison Community Foundation, Our City SF, Point Molate Alliance, San Francisco Baykeeper, Richmond Southeast Shoreline Area Community Advisory Group, Rise South City, Sierra Club Sea Level Rise Committee (Bay Alive Campaign), and Urban Tilth.
Re: Opportunity for Public Comment on Draft Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Report for USACE Navigational Dredging, found at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/public_notices/#section401
Date: December 30, 2024
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter recognizes the important role of USACE in maintaining federal navigational channels and the role of the Water Board’s review of this application. However, this application, as written, has defects and needs modifications to protect public health and the biological environment. Richmond community advocates argue strongly for testing of sediment before approval of any plans to relocate sediment from the Richmond Inner Harbor or the Richmond Outer Harbor.
MODIFICATIONS REQUESTED
We request two main modifications to this application:
- Institute a dedicated sediment testing protocol for contamination by DDT, its derivatives, and other organochlorines, so that sediment from the Richmond Inner Harbor and the Richmond Outer harbor is not relocated for shoreline use until areas proposed for dredging have been cleared by testing for contamination.
- Either develop a detailed description of a proposed Stege Marsh sediment deposition plan or institute a complete exclusion of Stege Marsh from this application as a prospective recipient of sediment. Stege Marsh can be addressed more effectively in a future document that deals with all the challenges of that location and includes community outreach.
- In addition, because of the application’s incomplete proposals relevant to the Richmond shoreline, a public comment period is requested to review the final draft of the EA/EIR.
CESP Board of Directors: Shirley Dean (President), Norman La Force (Vice President), Sally Tobin (Vice President), Marge
Atkinson (Recording Secretary), Alan Carlton (Treasurer), Ellen Barth, Helen Burke, Brennan Cox, Kelly Hammargren, Alix
Mazuet, Doris Sloan, Pam Stello, Tony Sustak
CESP Executive Director: Robert Cheasty, CESP Manager: Roberta Wyn
Emeritus: Dwight Steele (Emeritus Co-Chair, 1914-2002), Sylvia McLaughlin (Emeritus Co-Chair, 1916-2016)
DETAILED DISCUSSIONS
Our main concerns are listed below, and each will be explained in detail:
- There are apparent inconsistencies between the USACE characterization of sediment contamination levels in the Richmond Inner Harbor (no concerns are noted) and the USEPA’s findings of contaminated sediment near the United Heckathorn Superfund site. The United Heckathorn Superfund site is located between the Lauritzen and Parr Channels as they open into the Richmond Inner Harbor and includes five acres of land and about 15 acres of marine sediments. The USEPA is in charge of cleaning up the United Heckathorn Superfund site. There are also inconsistencies in results of contamination testing throughout the entire process of cleaning up the United Heckathorn site (see below). The draft EIR (San Francisco Bay Federal Channels Operation and Maintenance Dredging and Sediment Placement Activities, Dredging Years 2025-2034, dated October 2024) for this proposed project does not resolve this discrepancy, and the community is concerned that reuse of sediment from the Richmond Inner and Outer Harbors will spread contamination. We note that there may be sources of contamination yet to be identified.
The United Heckathorn site is designated as a Superfund site because it is massively contaminated with DDT (and its derivatives), plus dieldrin and BHC (lindane). These contaminants are toxic to humans and other animals and persist in aquatic ecosystems with a half-life estimated at 150 years. The site was used to process, package, and load chlorinated pesticides onto ships for transport, and apparently spills were common from the 1940s to 1960s. DDT is especially “sticky” to sediment, and is “mostly found in the sediment on the bottom of bodies of water” (1, 2). Shorebirds ingest sediment as they hunt for food, so deposition of DDT-contaminated sediment in marshes or similar areas can contribute to reproductive failure due to weakened eggshells. Fish and shellfish also ingest sediment, and shorebirds and humans ingest fish and shellfish. The site was first placed on the US EPA National Priorities List in 1990. Since the first cleanup of the United Heckathorn site was designed in 1994, there have been many USEPA tests of contamination at the site, along the Lauritzen Channel, Santa Fe Channel, Parr Canal, and into the Richmond Inner Harbor.
Please see the letter submitted by the Community Advisory Group for the Richmond Southeast Shoreline (CAG; chartered by Cal EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)) for a detailed historical review of highly variable testing data that consistently demonstrate levels exceeding EPA standards for health and safety in the Richmond Inner Harbor, a proposed dredging site in this application. A second cleanup of the Heckathorn site is currently being designed by the EPA, given the unfortunate failure of the first cleanup.
Consequently, it was a surprise to read in section 5.1 of this application that “There are no known contaminated areas within the action area.” And then because USACE does not recognize the existence of contaminated areas, no testing for contamination is proposed for sediment relocation programs. The USACE above all should recognize that sediment is constantly redistributed by ship traffic, tidal currents, and wave action because that is precisely why channels become too shallow for ships and need to be dredged periodically to keep them open.
The variability in testing results through the decades and the proposal statement that testing is unnecessary are very concerning because contamination is a sensitive issue for City of Richmond residents. Testing is an appropriate step in evaluating disposition of sediment, and it is possible that licensed contaminated waste landfills may be required for sediments from some areas. In addition to its toxicity to humans, DDT is perhaps most widely known for its effects on the thickness of eggshells, making any deposition of DDT-contaminated sediment for marsh restorations completely inappropriate. Given the variations in locations and levels of contamination in and around the United Heckathorn site, testing of sediment is of critical importance, and the best science must guide comprehensive sampling and site characterization. In its comments on this application, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) estimates that “less than 5% of the sediment has contaminate levels that prevent some form of beneficial re-use.” Then the important question is where these contaminated sediments might be located, and that would seem to require testing. High levels of contamination would trigger transport to an appropriate secure and licensed waste facility. Ideally, the USACE and the USEPA would confer to resolve discrepancies in data and develop a coordinated plan that will be released to the public. How can USACE fulfill its stated goal that “levels of contamination are substantially similar at the extraction and disposal sites” without testing? A scientifically validated testing program needs to be integrated into plans for dredging the Richmond Inner Harbor and the Richmond Outer Harbor.
- The application proposes that sediment is to be moved to a location called “Stege Marsh Nearshore,” but Stege Marsh itself has two components, and the map does not delineate the exact location. The Stege Marsh area is relevant to the Superfund-qualified Zeneca site nearby, as well as to potential habitat damage during deposition.
Richmond’s Superfund-qualified Zeneca Site is contaminated with heavy metals like arsenic, radioactive materials, volatile organic compounds, and agricultural products. It is called a Superfund-qualified site because the US EPA allowed the Responsible Party to enlist in a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VCA) as an alternative to the US EPA Superfund List program. A previous City Council approved the construction of 4000 residential units on the site following an incomplete cleanup. The Stege Marsh area is very controversial due to the level of community concern (3), documentation of the toxic materials at the Zeneca site and other contaminated sites nearby (4), scientific reports of developmental abnormalities in mudsuckers (5), and silverside fish data showing elevated levels of PCBs (6). Stege Marsh is also identified as a toxic hot spot in the SWRCB Consolidated Toxic Hot Spot Cleanup Plan, due to contamination with dieldrin (7). It is critical for the application to provide more exact information on the targeted locations so that the community can comment. Alternatively, all references to Stege Marsh Inshore could be removed from this application and addressed in a future application that provides the community with adequate information and outreach.
The sediment relocation at Stege Marsh Nearshore is described as potentially providing “additional habitat” for the salt marsh harvest mouse and Ridgway’s rail. Community advocates request additional detailed information on how these shy animals will be protected during the proposed sediment deposition. Ridgway’s rail and the salt marsh harvest mouse are both endangered species, fully protected under California and federal law. Two breeding pair territories of Ridgway’s rail were observed in West Stege Marsh, as noted by DTSC in a monitoring report for the USEPA in 2021, and juveniles have also been seen. We were not able to find a report of sighting the salt marsh harvest mouse in Stege Marsh, though they are found in similar marshes elsewhere along the Bayshore. While it makes good sense to plan for additional habitat for both species (as the application states), the community needs to review specific plans that avoid disturbing these rare animals during sediment deposition or similar activities.
Certainly, the decline in numbers for both of these endangered species correlates with loss of habitat. Perhaps there is also a correlation with exposure to contamination. It would be advantageous to involve scientists and the local community in looking at options for protecting rare species while assessing current contamination levels in Stege Marsh and planning for cleanup of Stege Marsh before approving a plan to deposit sediment from an unknown location into an area that cannot be identified from the information supplied in the application materials.
LOCATION AND CONTEXT
Richmond is an environmental justice city with a substantial legacy of industrial contamination, much of which is along the shoreline, including a coal shipping terminal, the United Heckathorn Superfund site, the Zeneca site (a Superfund qualified site), the Liquid Gold Superfund site, and the Chevron refinery. This situation is now complicated by sea level rise, which threatens to spread shoreline contamination both inland and into the Bay. While the community recognizes the positive aspects of sediment relocation programs, they have extreme concerns about how shoreline contamination is handled to protect public health and living Bay ecosystems. In addition, the community is very protective of the existing biodiversity along the 32-mile Richmond shoreline and seeks to have it enhanced, rather than exposed to risk.
REFERENCES
- DDT, DDE, and DDD - ToxFAQs. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) CDC
https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/ToxFAQs/ToxFAQsDetails.aspx?faqid=80&toxid=20
- ATSDR’s Toxicological Profile for DDT, DDE, and DDD
https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/ToxProfiles/ToxProfiles.aspx?id=81&tid=20
- Richmond Shoreline Alliance, “Toxic Tour of the Zeneca Site:”
https://discover.stqry.app/tour/26414
- Hwang, Hyun-Min, Peter G. Green, and Thomas M. Young (2013). Pollution: Persistent Organic Contaminants and Trace Metals, in Arnas Palaima (ed.), Ecology, Conservation, and Restoration of Tidal Marshes: The San Francisco Estuary, California Scholarship Online.
https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520274297.003.0004
- Final Report: Pacific Estuarine Ecosystem Indicator Research (PEEIR) Consortium: Biological Responses to Contaminants Component: Biomarkers of Exposure, Effect, and Reproductive Impairment
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/INDEX.cfm/fuseaction/display.abstractDetail/abstract_id/6116/report/F
- Greenfield BK, RM Allen (2013). Polychlorinated biphenyl spatial patterns in San Francisco Bay forage fish. Chemosphere 90: 1693-1703.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23123115/
- San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (2012). Stege Marsh. Toxicity: dieldrin in sediment
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2012state_ir_reports/00110.shtml
SIGNATURE PAGE:
In alphabetical order by organization:
Laura Neish, Executive Director
350 Bay Area
Robert Cheasty, Executive Director
Citizens for East Shore Parks
Albany, CA
Leah Redwood
Extinction Rebellion San Francisco Bay Area
https://extinctionrebellionsfbay.org
Glenn Phillips, Executive Director
Golden Gate Bird Alliance
Berkeley, CA
Bradley Angel, Executive Director
Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice
Arieann Harrison, Executive Director
Marie Harrison Community Foundation
Eric Brooks
Our City SF
http://our-city.org
Pam Stello, Co-Chair
Point Molate Alliance
Richmond, CA
San Francisco Baykeeper
Oakland, CA
baykeeper.org
Maggie Lazar, Chair
Richmond Southeast Shoreline Area
Community Advisory Group
Julio Garcia, Executive Director
Rise South City
Arthur Feinstein, Chair
Sierra Club Sea Level Rise Committee
Bay Alive Campaign
Doria Robinson, Executive Director
Urban Tilth
Richmond, CA