HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS3 - Dredging the Lower BayDredging the Lower Bay
Options & Alternatives
Newport Beach City Council
June 24, 2008
Puied to RGP,q. but madmt* M*h4M �H�- in Fed--A:
Ct .... I =*'.ts Like:y m be addressed in amph:pod mdY. Wm:d
Rombly
ready tz dredge = ZOO
Psssel:[?.GP.5:
Cbx=e:samp:eL L,.ke.,iobeadd-e;Ad¢snVmpods,-Ad.v 'Xon:j
Diq.-A
rr,ourW- -Aqo:te : v.-'%wntodete e tw:essj;lzod)
cim If 'L' s wu a wp l PrToc� wea. om
hw.c rtnua= would be repred.
Pmwd mRGP 4. ph5seddwrogfe&ml(hannel Mer. 7"
(NwF reds :006: Llel ympss&forecmdjspotmlbura .,
TeTain hCamunwatift msmr ;cs ub'.N -wh to &edre :t
, em -lops
Pi-,.*d foiv,=,- in Rlr,44. bu p ranrmaanam "1 0
i-alia toy 3 'L, Uely to pieveat Nm tlzpou:
option C.Lim:: ' v tnui.,.mf ximcal and hon=ml ex�. Ma)
De able rc ms=g#,4pW -.5ft �cmd-- tsa Aod
op-ot te;=e i io 2 yem rc de�.uune
Puied to RGP,q. but madmt* M*h4M �H�- in Fed--A:
Ct .... I =*'.ts Like:y m be addressed in amph:pod mdY. Wm:d
Rombly
ready tz dredge = ZOO
Psssel:[?.GP.5:
Cbx=e:samp:eL L,.ke.,iobeadd-e;Ad¢snVmpods,-Ad.v 'Xon:j
Diq.-A
rr,ourW- -Aqo:te : v.-'%wntodete e tw:essj;lzod)
cim If 'L' s wu a wp l PrToc� wea. om
hw.c rtnua= would be repred.
Challenges — US Army Corps
Responsibility for dredging LNB has been that of
the US Army Corps of Engineers.
Corps is not able to prioritize an LNB job — their
metrics (Business Analysis, more) put us well
down the list.
Higher on the list are:
9V Louisiana /Katrina
Ports and other major navigation centers
Ongoing projects (like UNB)
Challenges — Sediment Quality
Portions of LNB have shown higher than acceptable
levels of:
Pyrethroids (once considered a less toxic pesticide than
diazinon /chlorpyrifos, but still toxic to amphipods)
Mercury (Hg)
Various toxic pollutants in the Rhine Channel (has its own TMDL
and schedule for clean -up — NO FUNDS identified as of yet for
this $16 -20 million project)
Depending upon the contamination, disposal of dredged
materials could be:
At LA -3 (cheapest option)
Inland Disposal (most expensive option)
An In -Bay CAD Site (Confined Aquatic Disposal — uncertain
cost). But something regulators have approved recently (Port
Hueneme)
Options and Alternatives
1 - One and Done
Ask the
US Army Corps to
do a $12 -14
million
project of all of the
Federal
responsibility area
(bayward
of
Project
lines).
Then Congress would de- authorize the LNB as a Federal responsibility,
making the City responsible for dredging on an ongoing basis.
-1 Pros:
We no longer have to wait for the Corps and for funding.
City can budget methodically for regular dredging once One and Done is
complete.
Cons:
No reason to think the Corps will do this soon w /out hard lobbying.
Future maintenance costs are City's, estimated @ $400 -500K a year.
Possibility of catastrophic storm event, leaving the City on the hook for full
cleanup (though FEMA is a possibility).
Options and Alternatives
2 — City Could Embark Upon a Multi -Year Project
Attempt to permit, contract, and embark upon a $2 -4 million dredging
project as a part of a multi - phased project.
Pros:
We'd have full control over the job, and know that it would be completed.
Careful budgeting and /or new sources of funds can help.
A properly timed and negotiated cooperative agreement with the Corps may
provide for partial or complete reimbursement from the federal government.
Cons:
Cost borne entirely by city, despite federal obligation.
Hard to know if a reputable contractor could keep going on this level of
funding enough to not have to mobilize and demobilize (adding to costs).
Dredging of most critical areas by city may reduce Corps interest in
participating in future phases.
Options and Alternatives
3 — Do a Small Distinct Project Now
Attempt to permit, contract, and embark upon $2 -4 million in dredging
now as a distinct project. At the same time, seek the One and Done
concept with Congress and the Corps.
Pros:
We'd be able to get sediment moved relatively soon.
Might inspire the Corps to tag -team onto our project, or to move faster on One
and Done.
Still a possibility to phase the project, depending on size /scope.
Cons:
Cost borne entirely by city, despite federal obligation.
Permitting will still be challenging — because of toxicity, we might end up
dredging an area with less need (in terms of sediment) instead of a high -
shoaled and contaminated area.
Less "bang for the buck" — the smaller the project, the larger the marshalling
costs are as a percentage of the overall project UNLESS we can figure out a
way to phase smaller projects into larger ones (aka Option #2).
Options and Alternatives
4 — Set -Aside Funds Now
Set aside $24 million in the coming budget year with
the expectation that it could either:
Incentivize the Corps to work with us faster; or, failing that:
Complete a small project (like Option #3) on our own.
Pros:
As noted, might inspire the Corps to tag -team onto our project,
or to move faster on One and Done.
Allows the City to accrue reserve fund for dredging for a future
larger project (with 2 -3 years of appropriations).
Cons:
Doesn't get a project done now, even a small one.
Other Factors to Consider
It remains important to complete UNB because:
UNB is designed to dig out two major sediment catch - basins (not
done yet).
Without the basins' capacity, a newly- dredged LNB could be filled
up fast if we have a large storm. But we may not have a large
storm. We need to know when enough capacity is enough.
Yes, we can still start LNB's planning now.
County currently studying
Huntington, Sunset, Dana
participation there.
its own dredge purchase for
Point. City could consider
Eelgrass. We still need resources agencies to
how to address those areas of eelgrass within
responsibility areas.
Pyrethroids. There is no Corps -
address pyrethroids in sediment
working on this, though.
agree with us on
the federal
or US EPA - approved way to
to ensure easy disposal. City is
I
NEWISLn111 I.
l
ZDRD $T�, l
BVLLN _- TVYETL - --
ETKEEN VN IT I IAN I.
q..
W
.'.LL
UNIT IAII BASIN
Y.�
ACCESS CHANNEL BETV.EEN
PC" AND UNIT It BASH YIELLMPKER tcyPf+ {t
M RESTORATION f_FANNEL
STAGING AREA
I;
SHELLMANKER ISLAND NE TLAND RESTORATION
1 +R
i,R
Recommendations
Direct staff to work with the Bay Issues Committee
to develop a rational Action Plan, addressing
alternatives and challenges — return to full Council
with a recommendation.
Continue to pursue sampling and testing in advance
of pny anticipated project. Harbor Resources will
submit an Al for professional services that will
provide for a sampling and analysis plan consistent
with recent discussions with EPA.
Direct our advocates and consultants to work with
Congress and the Corps to get Corps support for
any significant project, especially One and Done.