The meeting initially focused on the functions and concerns of the Interim Advisory Committee and similarities between it and a Dredged Material Management Office (DMMO). Some of the issues discussed included the following:

• The CSTF needs a repository for the sediment database. We need to consider long-term management of such a database in order to make it useful and effective when we evaluate projects.
• The plans that get developed should not be fixed. We need to be given the opportunity to revisit and refine them, as necessary.
• The Task Force should develop a "forward-looking" support management strategy.

• Maybe the DMMO should be part of implementing the sediment management plan and be created at a later stage.
• Perhaps the Implementation Subcommittee should define how a DMMO would be structured and recommend to the Task Force that a DMMO be implemented.
• We could include the DMMO as one of the Streamlining Report recommendations.

• We need to go back and review the written guidelines for the current Interim Advisory Committee.
• We should review and refine the Interim Advisory document and have well-defined objectives.
• There is no lead person for the Interim Advisory Committee and this has frustrated some members when follow up is needed.
• Some believed that the applicant involved serves as the lead person and should be responsible for follow up if he/she wants the project to be approved.
• Some members recommended that the Interim Advisory Committee continue to meet on an "as needed" basis.

• We need more involvement from the resource agencies. Perhaps we only bring them into the process when there are hot topics.
• We could consider getting agreements beforehand. For example, the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Ventura office has provided a programmatic consultation and conference to the Corps for specific species. Also, Port of Los Angeles has a nesting site agreement with FWS.
• We should consider identifying potential options and hot topics.
• Some members supported informal consultations versus formal ones.

1. Clarify objectives of the Interim Advisory Committee.
2. Review the Interim Advisory Committee plan.
3. Reconvene a meeting with the "Gang of Six" (now seven if we include Corps-Regulatory) who originally developed the structure of the committee – Coastal Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, Corps of Engineers, Port of Los Angeles, Port of Long Beach, and the LA Regional Board.

Note: Lauma, Steven, Terri, Ralph, Stacey, Michael, and Tony will meet again on 8/11- 1-3 pm, Port of Los Angeles.

Port of Los Angeles –

• location: Main channel
• clean sediments present
• between 3.7-7.8 million cubic yards (cy) total (depending on depth of dredging: -50 ft and –55 ft, respectively)
• between 350,000-500,000 cy of contaminated sediments
• inbay disposal sites for clean material (some fine material possibly going to LA-2 and/or LA-3)
• upland disposal (Anchorage Rd) for contaminated sediments (but if opportunity exists, may dispose of material to a confined site, such as a new landfill; no confined aquatic disposal site being proposed)
• also some sediments associated with maintenance
• project expected to begin in January 2001

Marina del Rey –

• 750,000 cy total (Corps’ maintenance)
• 400,000 cy (300,000 cubic meters) of contaminated sediments (Corps’ maintenance)
• more detailed sampling required for advanced dredging
• area also designated by LARWQCB as a moderate priority hot spot (50,000 – 100,000 cy of contaminated sediments = soft number, not based on design depth)
• clean up numbers identified by LARWQCB not included in Corps’ estimate of contaminated sediments (which represents maintenance dredging)

Port of Long Beach –

• Project: Naval Station – Slip 2/Pier E disposal
  • "Pier T" permitting done
• Project: Naval Shipyard – North Energy Island Borrow Pit disposal
  • sediment testing done
  • no permits yet
  • project in increments – not one dredge project
• Project: Queens Gate
  • 3 million cubic meters
  • sediments clean and fairly coarse
  • potential uses: PV Shelf capping, beneficial uses for port, or aquatic capping
• Navy project
  • no numbers
  • if remedial dredging, POLB would do it
• Channel 2 Deepening Project (north part of harbor)
  • permitting not done

Los Angeles River –

• Navigation channel (Corps)
  • 100,000 cubic meters (130,000 cy) removed during Spring 1999
  • dredging funding dependent
  • dredging recommended once every 3 years
  • potential for LAR pilot cap project – source for confined aquatic disposal instead of MDR material
• Flood control channel (controlled by LACDPW)
  • located upstream of navigation channel
  • more effective to deepen navigation channel than to remove sediment from flood control channel
  • need to look at source control
  • about 4 million cy of sediment build up outside of navigation channel (not included in the Corps’ dredging estimate).

Based on the project summaries, the Corps might need to reassess how much contaminated sediment would most likely be dredged.

In addition to the above-mentioned projects, the Port of Long Beach has subsequently added the following to the list:

• Pier S Wharf Reconstruction and Dredging
  • approximately 500,000 cy of material proposed for disposal at LA-2 (assuming material is clean/suitable)
  • no sediment data
  • finalizing draft Sampling and Analysis Plan
  • sampling proposed for September 1999
  • no permits obtained to date for this project

• Pier J, Berths J245 - J247 Deepening and Dredging
  • disposal of approximately 25,000 cy of clean dredge material at LA-2
  • all permits issued and approved
  • proposed to commence in Fall 1999.