The final revised version was distributed to all signatory parties in July. There are no anticipated obstacles to the signing of the MOU Amendment by all parties. As soon as all parties have signed, the MOU Amendment will become effective (final signed copies will be distributed to all task force members and we may issue a press release.

1) The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted a resolution at its August 3rd Board meeting authorizing the Executive Officer to sign the original MOU and the amendment (as well as subsequent amendments). Both documents have been signed by the LA Regional Board. 2) The City of Long Beach has scheduled approval of the MOU Amendment for the August 11th Board meeting.

3) The Port of Los Angeles has scheduled approval of the MOU Amendment for the August 26th Board meeting.

4) The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will submit the item shortly to the new general for his signature.

5) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has signed the Amended MOU.

6) The Port of Long Beach plans to sign the MOU Amendment soon.

7) Los Angeles County Beaches and Harbors plans to submit the item for approval in early September.

8) The Coastal Commission plans to sign the MOU Amendment shortly.

Approval of Work Plan [Catherine Tyrrell]

The work plan was approved with a few minor changes. A final copy will be distributed to all task force members shortly.

Task force members inquired about the Interim Advisory Group meeting scheduled for August to plan for upcoming dredging needs. The meeting is scheduled for 1 pm, August 21st, at the Port of Long Beach.

The task force discussed the initial meeting of the Executive Committee. Originally, this group was scheduled to meet for the first time in September, then again in November. Task force members agreed that the September meeting would be unnecessary. After some discussion, it was agreed to devote the November task force meeting (November 12th) to a short briefing of the Executive Committee (heads of the Los Angeles Regional Board, California Coastal Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) on progress to date and discussion of each task force agency's concerns. Staff will check on the availability of their agency heads for a November 12th meeting; if this date does not work, we will reschedule the meeting.

The first public workshop (required annually by the Karnette legislation) will be held as part of the Coastal Commission's November meeting in Agoura (first week of November).

Subcommittee Status Reports

Updates were presented by the chairs of each of the five subcommittees (in Tony Risko's absence, Michael Lyons presented the update for the Aquatic Disposal Group). The task force members were quite interested in the progress of each committee and wanted more information than we could present in the limited time available. We will schedule more detailed presentations for the October Task Force meeting, which will allow each committee to meet again and complete some of their initial work assignments.

A list of upcoming meeting dates for the subcommittees and the task force will be sent to everyone.

1) Watershed and Source Reduction [Mark Gold, Catherine Tyrrell]

The group has held two meetings. A work plan was prepared and a number of work assignments were made at the first meeting. A mini-workshop was held at the second meeting, with presentations from Michael Stenstrom, UCLA, (in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and Bill DePoto, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works) to discuss monitoring and model development for tracking of sources and loadings of pollutants associated with stormwater runoff. We need to make sure that the models are based on the same assumptions.

2) Upland Disposal and Beneficial Reuse [Michael Lyons]

The group has met once. We discussed a number of promising treatment and reuse alternatives, as well as some of the constraints associated with disposal at landfills or constructed fill sites. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provided a useful summary of their analysis of many of these options. We made several initial work assignments, which will help us to develop a work plan at the next meeting.

3) Aquatic Disposal and Dredging Operations [Tony Risko]

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provided a summary of their analysis of the various disposal options, based on work done in conjunction with the Marina del Rey project. We made several initial work assignments, which will help us to develop a work plan at the next meeting.

4) Sediment Criteria [Steven John]

The group will hold its first meeting following the end of today's task force meeting.

5) Implementation [Jim Raives]

The group has met once. We agreed that we absolutely need participation from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Group and that we would like to have Los Angeles County Beaches and Harbors' participation, but this would be less critical. We began drafting a workplan. We made assignments to begin describing the existing regulatory process and potential methods for adoption of the final management plan. We need to coordinate with the Watershed/Source Reduction Group to determine if regulatory or legal changes will be required to implement their recommended actions.

Marina del Rey Alternatives Analysis [Andrew Kadib]

The May conference held by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers discussed baseline conditions at Marina del Rey and possible disposal alternatives; based on this meeting, the Corps screened the possible alternatives down to 5 or 6 for detailed consideration. The evaluation report should be available soon; the Corps intends to select a preferred action plan by November.

Los Angeles River Estuary Borrow Pit Study

This item was deferred to the next meeting, to provide Moffat and Nichol with additional time to complete their report.

Upland Disposal [Gretchen Honan]

Gretchen Honan, CH2M-Hill, presented a brief summary of a study conducted for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate disposal of dredged material at landfills. Sediments would not be classified as hazardous wastes, allowing them to be taken to a Class III landfill. However, there appear to be no available landfills in Los Angeles County, due to capacity problems (and chlorides may be a concern). Of the 5 Class I or II landfills in the western United States with available capacity, ECDC in Utah is the preferred alternative. The costs of dredging, handling and shipping to Utah by rail and disposal was estimated to be approximately $106 per cubic meter; however, discussion by task force members suggested that the handling costs might be lower; CH2M-Hill will look into this, but costs would still remain around $75 per cubic meter.

Port of Long Beach Pier T Marine Terminal [Tom Johnson]

The Port is currently permitted to take @ 1 million cubic yards of material unsuitable for unconfined aquatic disposal (metals, PAHs) to a shallow water habitat/CAD site to be constructed within the Port. The Port is in the process of planning for remediation of the Pier S site for development into a terminal. It may be possible to incorporate the contaminated dredged sediments into this constructed fill site or another nearby site (Pier E). There are some timing and regulatory issues to be resolved if this option is to be pursued. Tom will present a more detailed presentation at the Interim Advisory Group meeting on August 21st.

Public Comment

Jim Edberg and Margie Homer, Caltech Jet Propulsion Laboratory, attended the task force meeting. They have an interest in technology transfer. They have been working with a company in Hawaii to develop a real-time contaminant sensor for some organic compounds (not metals) and would like to share this info with the task force. Michael Lyons and Jim Raives will obtain more information and coordinate a presentation to the appropriate subcommittee or the task force.

Task Force Logo Design [Jim Raives]

Although we were running out of time, we briefly viewed some potential designs for the Contaminated Sediments Task Force logo. Most task force members felt that the proposed designs were too busy. Jim will revise the designs and present more information at the next meeting.