Michael Lyons, LARWQCB
Lauma Jurkevics, CCC
Rick Cameron, Port of Long Beach

Attendance has been low at the last few meetings, perhaps due to summer vacations. We have made excellent progress so far, but we still have a few things to complete, so we need participation from all members of the subcommittee. Please note that the next meeting is scheduled for OCTOBER 14^th (1-3 pm at the Coastal Commission’s office in Long Beach).

In reviewing the data gaps report, we appear to have reached a consensus that our first priority is to fill data gap #5 (gather information on upland disposal/beneficial reuse projects in other parts of the country). To this end, the Port of Long Beach has developed a draft scope of work and has committed funds to hire a consultant to perform the work over the next few months. Michael and Lauma agreed to review the draft scope of work and provide comments to Rick Cameron so that he can revise it. The revised scope of work will be sent to the subcommittee members for review and comment and we will move forward with completion of this task.

There was some discussion concerning the need to fill data gaps 1-4 (siting study for treatment/rehandling facility and technical questions re specific reuse methods). Although there are some treatment/reuse technologies that appear to be technically feasible, cost factors would seem to limit their chances for actual implementation at this time. However, costs may drop in the future, so it would be useful to continue to fill in the missing pieces. Completion of the project discussed above to fill data gap #5 may shed some light on the desirability of spending additional funds on items 1-4.

A workplan for the Upland Subcommittee was developed a couple of years ago, but the Year 3 tasks are pretty vague and generic. We need to decide what the subcommittee should accomplish this year. Task 3.1 is listed as "Complete additional studies/demonstration projects", i.e., fill the data gaps. This task still seems valid, but we can expand it to reflect the actual data gaps that we have identified and perhaps indicate our priorities. Task 3.2 is listed as "Develop operation, management and monitoring plans and recommend funding mechanisms for each disposal/reuse alternative". We need to separate this into at least two different tasks. On the one hand, the subcommittee needs to start talking about the criteria for use of each alternative and any monitoring requirements associated with a given alternative. On the other hand, we also need to determine funding mechanisms for each alternative. Although we have talked about this a little, we need to pin down some specifics. In addition, we need to consider whether we will have any regional or multi-user sites, and what sort of conditions would be placed on their use, how to pay for management and monitoring, and how to handle liability issues.

I plan to distribute a draft Year 3 workplan prior to the next meeting so that we can spend time discussing it on October 14^th.

Rick Cameron and I looked for information on the use of contaminated dredged material for wetlands creation or restoration, but could not find any examples of this (although clean sediments have been used in many areas). There have been cases where contaminated material was used to create habitat, such as the shallow water habitat project by the Port of Los Angeles, but this type of project would fall under the jurisdiction of the Aquatic Disposal group. In most cases, wetlands restoration projects involve converting land that is at too high of an elevation, so the need is to remove material from a site, rather than importing new material.