Introductions

Lauma Jurkevics is working with the Coastal Commission staff on contaminated sediment and federal consistency issues.

Mitsy Taggart is the new staff scientist for Heal The Bay.

Executive Committee

The Executive Committee will meet on December 3, 1998, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at the Port of Long Beach. Catherine Tyrrell presented a draft outline for that meeting:

1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Slide show on the scope of the problem and potential solutions
3. Review and Approval of the Report to the Legislature
1. MOU
2. Action Plan
3. Subcommittee Chair Reports
4. Public Meeting
5. Next Steps
6. Challenges
4. Comments by Key Stakeholders and the Public (Port of Los Angeles, Port of Long Beach, Los Angeles County Beaches and Harbors, Heal The Bay
5. Adjourn

The Task Force discussed the preparation of a slide show for the Executive Committee and agreed to establish a new committee to develop this slide show. The committee consists of the following people:

1. James Raives, Coastal Commission
2. Michael Lyons, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
3. Russ Kaiser and Joe Johnson, Corps of Engineers
4. Catherine Tyrrell, Regional Board
5. Tom Johnson, Port of Long Beach
6. Ralph Appy, Port of Los Angeles

One of the agenda items for the Executive Committee meeting is the scope of the problem report. Michael Lyons, RWQCB, completed an initial draft of the report and it is available for comments. The major focus of the Executive Committee meeting will be the Legislative Report. James Raives, Coastal Commission, prepared a draft outline for that report. Several Task Force members recommended beginning the report with a discussion of the Karnette legislation that includes a summary of the bill and identifies its requirements. Then throughout the report, it should discuss compliance with the requirements of the legislation. Additionally, several Task Force members believed that the report should include a brief discussion of the Palos Verdes Shelf Superfund site. Finally, Task Force members recommended that the report conclude with a discussion of the next steps.

Sub-Committee Work Plans

Each sub-committee should prepare a work plan that describes the projects that that committee will complete for the Strategy and timeline for completion. The sub-committees should complete the work plans by the next Management Committee meeting, October 8, 1998.

Report on the Los Angeles River Borrow Pit Study

The Corps of Engineers funded a study of the borrow pit at the mouth of the Los Angeles River evaluating its value as a sediment trap. The results of that study were presented to the Task Force. The consultant measured currents and sedimentation at the mouth of the LA River during both storm flows and non-storm conditions. The borrow pit appears to collect most of the sediment transported by the Los Angeles River. Although the existing dredge disposal mound within the pit appears to have eroded, most of that sediment is contained within the borrow pit. The study concludes that the borrow pit is an effect sediment trap.

Report on Sediment Treatment Alternatives

A consultant for the Corps presented an assessment of contaminated sediment treatment alternatives. The first alternative, physical separation would work for sediment that contains a significant amount of sand. The process would separate sand from finer grain material and allow the sand to be placed on the beach, and the contaminated fines would be disposed of at an upland site. The second alternative presented is cement stabilization, which is appropriate for finer grained sediments. The process requires the dredge material to be mixed with portland cement and the resulting material is suitable for construction projects. The final alternative presented was physical dilution, where a small amount of fines are mixed with sandy material to create construction grade material. Because of mixing concerns, this alternative appears to be infeasible.

Sediment Criteria Committee

Steven John, the chair for the Sediment Criteria Committee, summarized the first meeting of that committee. The Committee concluded that development of sediment criteria is too expensive and time consuming of a process to be completed in the context of the CSTF. The Committee could develop sediment thresholds or guidance for the different alternatives after the various sub-committees develop the standards for those alternatives. An alternative goal, proposed by the Committee, would scope the process for developing sediment criteria including lessons learned form others and develop standard data gathering and reporting techniques in order to assist in future efforts to develop sediment criteria. To this end, the Committee proposes a workshop with Federal and State representatives from Washington State (Corps of Engineers, EPA, and Department of Ecology) to discuss development of the PSDDA. Additionally, the Committee will invite Ed Long from NOAA to participate in the Workshop.

Logos

The CSTF was asked to vote on various logo designs. The results will be presented at the next meeting.

Public Comment

Questions were asked regarding the status of the MOU. The only parties that have not yet signed the MOU are the Corps of Engineers and the County of Los Angeles.