Coordinating Dredged Material Management in the Pacific ...
Coordinating Dredged Material Management in the Pacific Coast’s Largest Estuary with Construction of the Pacific Coast’s Largest Tidal Wetland Restoration Project
.
Dredging 2012 Conference October 23, 2012
Overview
South Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Project – –
Dredged Material Management in SF Bay – –
Background Constraints Constraints DMMP-based solutions
Mutual Resolutions
South Bay Salt Ponds Project Background
Largest tidal wetland project on West Coast
15,000 acres of industrial salt ponds
Three pond complexes acquired by USFWS and CDF&G in 2003
Adaptive management plan adopted in 2008
Preliminary restoration efforts began in 2009
03M-0097.5
South Bay Salt Ponds Project Background
Adaptive Management – –
90/10 50/50
Phase I complete – – –
2,500 acres marsh 1,000 acres ponds 7 miles of trails
South Bay Salt Ponds Project Background
Managed Pond Emphasis
Tidal Marsh Emphasis
South Bay Salt Ponds Project Constraints
Habitat trade-off concerns
Concerns over cost-sharing with Corps
Contaminants, especially mercury
Need for fill – Subsidence = need for large volumes – Cost – Availability – Source contaminants
Dredged Material Management in SF Bay - Dredgers
Corps of Engineers – – – –
11 Channels 2.2 MCY annually 4 In-Bay aquatic disposal sites Ocean Disposal: 60 miles offshore
Dredged Material Management in SF Bay - Dredgers
Ports: 1.3 MCY annually – – – – –
Oakland San Francisco Richmond Redwood City Benicia
4 MCY Total Annual Dredge Volume
Private Facilities & Municipal Marinas: 0.5 MCY annually
Dredged Material Management in SF Bay - Constraints
Long-Term Management Strategy (LTMS) – –
Environmental Work Windows 40-40-20 Plan
Reduce in-Bay disposal to 1.25 MCY annually Maximize beneficial use
Cost – –
Flat-line Corps of Engineers O&M budget Impacts of LTMS
Future Beneficial Use Shortfall Annual Need* vs. Placement Today
12
12 Annual Disposal to Ocean
Volume (CY) Millions
10
Annual LTMS In-Bay
10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0 2000
2005
San Francisco Bay Regional DMMP
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Volume (CY) Millions
Annual Beneficial Use Capacity
2035
* Need = Federal + Permitted Dredging
SUMMARY
$20-30/c.yd.
Approved for Unconfined In-Bay Disposal
$22-32/c.yd.
Ocean Disposal 03M-0097.13
What is a USACE DMMP? Mandated by USACE Engineering regs where federal projects have insufficient placement capacity A planning document that ensures O&M dredging activities are environmentally acceptable, use sound engineering, and are economically justified Assesses a full range of placement/disposal options, so final plan ensures capacity for the next 20 years Justifies follow-on site-specific Feasibility Studies Typically 100% federally funded
Benefits of a DMMP Predictability − Schedule − Budget
Budget Optimization Regulatory buy-in − EIS process allows agency “co-ownership” − Mutual environmental goals
DMMP Objectives Determine Dredged Material Budget − Identify dredging requirements − Identify existing site capacity
Key Factors − Sediment transport − Dredged material characteristics − Potential new work − Biological resources − Equipment availability
DMMP Objectives Determine Dredged Material Budget − Identify dredging requirements − Identify existing site capacity
Key Factors − Sediment transport − Dredged material characteristics − Potential new work − Biological resources − Equipment availability
DMMP Objectives Determine Dredged Material Budget − Identify dredging requirements − Identify existing site capacity
Key Factors − Sediment transport − Dredged material characteristics − Potential new work − Biological resources − Equipment availability
DMMP Objectives Determine Dredged Material Budget − Identify dredging requirements − Identify existing site capacity
Key Factors − Sediment transport − Dredged material characteristics − Potential new work − Biological resources − Equipment availability
DMMP Objectives Determine Dredged Material Budget − Identify dredging requirements − Identify existing site capacity
Key Factors − Sediment transport − Dredged material characteristics − Potential new work − Biological resources − Equipment availability
DMMP Objectives Determine Sediment Budget − Identify dredging requirements − Identify existing site capacity
Key Factors − Sediment transport − Dredged material characteristics − Potential new work − Biological resources − Equipment availability
DMMP Study Flow Chart NEPA Notice of Intent
Public Meetings
Primary Screening
Alternatives Identification
Geographic Areas Identification
Initial Alternatives List
Alternatives Development
Screening Criteria Development
Preliminary Assessment
Public Input
Public Input
Suite of Alternatives
Alternatives Evaluation
Trade-Off Analysis
Public Input EIS & Implementation Plan
Draft DMMP
Final DMMP
Record of Decision
DMMP Study Flow Chart NEPA Notice of Intent
Public Meetings
Primary Screening
Alternatives Identification
Geographic Areas Identification
Initial Alternatives List
Alternatives Development
Screening Criteria Development
Preliminary Assessment
Public Input
Public Input
Suite of Moratorium Alternatives on Earmarks EIS & Implementation Plan
Alternatives Evaluation
Trade-Off Analysis
Public Input Draft DMMP
Final DMMP
Record of Decision
DMMP Progress
Quantification of capacity deficit – –
25-year projected dredge volume: 114 MCY 25-year projected capacity w/out ocean: 69 MCY
Economic justification for all federal projects Identification of, and screening of 244 potential beneficial use options – –
Policy criteria Gross feasibility criteria
Beneficial Use Type
SUMMARY
Count
Beneficial Use Type
Count
In-Bay Disposal
12
Landfill Capping
14
Ocean Disposal
4
Levee Rehabilitation
7
4
Mudflat Creation
1
Agricultural Placement
7
Mudflat Restoration
1
Brownfields Capping
10
Manufactured Goods
3
Beach Nourishment
18
Public Access
9
Construction Fill
5
Port Expansion
4
Flood Control
7
Rehandling Basin
10
Habitat Creation
9
Shoreline/Bank Stabilization
1
Habitat Restoration
54
Wetland Creation
8
Island Creation
4
Wetland Restoration
52
Mine Reclamation/Restoration
TOTAL
244
DMMP Progress
Preliminary screening results in 42 potential beneficial use sites Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 1. 2. 3. 4.
Technical advisory group assembled to participate with the analysis Specific environmental benefit criteria under 10 distinct categories Toggle scoring and benefit weighting Final ranking for all four regions
South Bay Dredged Material Management Implementation Plan
Contracted w/portion of single project O&M funds
Interim recommendation of RDMMP sites
Reconnaissance Level Investigation of So. Bay sites
Preliminary Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study
South Bay Dredged Material Management Implementation Plan
DMMIP Reconnaissance Study
South Bay Salt Ponds
Fine-tuned capacity evaluation of SBSP Project ▬
Analysis of LIDAR data
▬
Used average elevation for adjacent wetlands
▬
Capacity estimate =
(assumes 90/10 scenario)
South Bay Dredged Material Management Implementation Plan
South Bay Dredged Material Management Implementation Plan
Evaluation of alternative dredged material delivery measures ▬
Aquatic Transfer Facility
▬
Submersible pump
▬
Dedicated off-loader
South Bay Dredged Material Management Implementation Plan
Development of potential innovative contracting solutions ▬
▬
▬
Independent financing involving tipping fee to recoup infrastructure costs Narrower scope cost-sharing Programmatic contracts
South Bay Dredged Material SBSP Project Deep Management Implementation Plan
Water Transfer Points
South Bay Dredged Material Management Implementation Plan
Projected dredged material delivery costs ▬
Hauling distances to varying ponds
▬
Three off-loader scenarios
▬
Pumping costs to varying ponds
▬
Total costs
Letter of Intent to Corps of Engineers
South Bay Dredged Material Management Implementation Plan Eden Landing Complex Total Costs per Cubic Yard from Oakland Harbor Pond NCM E14 E6A E6B E8 E6 E1 E7 E5 E2 E6C E4 E4C E2C E1C E5C
SF – DODS Disposal Cost per CY = $25.31 Offloader 1 Offloader 2 $ 22.39 $ 29.06 $ 22.17 $ 28.84 $ 22.37 $ 29.03 $ 22.20 $ 28.86 $ 21.98 $ 28.64 $ 22.15 $ 28.81 $ 21.62 $ 28.28 $ 21.77 $ 28.43 $ 22.02 $ 28.68 $ 21.32 $ 27.99 $ 21.96 $ 28.62 $ 21.65 $ 28.32 $ 22.06 $ 28.73 $ 21.77 $ 28.43 $ 21.71 $ 28.37 $ 21.88 $ 28.55
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
ATF 22.55 22.33 22.53 22.36 22.14 22.31 21.78 21.93 22.18 21.48 22.12 21.81 22.22 21.93 21.87 22.04
SUMMARY
Quantification of the South Bay Salt Ponds fill capacity to meet high-end marsh goal
Roadmap for Corps and SBSP Project
Tool box to navigate the roadmap – – –
Available dredge material delivery methods Haul and pump distances to and from deep water access channels Potential contracting mechanisms
.
Dredging 2012 Conference October 23, 2012
Overview
South Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Project – –
Dredged Material Management in SF Bay – –
Background Constraints Constraints DMMP-based solutions
Mutual Resolutions
South Bay Salt Ponds Project Background
Largest tidal wetland project on West Coast
15,000 acres of industrial salt ponds
Three pond complexes acquired by USFWS and CDF&G in 2003
Adaptive management plan adopted in 2008
Preliminary restoration efforts began in 2009
03M-0097.5
South Bay Salt Ponds Project Background
Adaptive Management – –
90/10 50/50
Phase I complete – – –
2,500 acres marsh 1,000 acres ponds 7 miles of trails
South Bay Salt Ponds Project Background
Managed Pond Emphasis
Tidal Marsh Emphasis
South Bay Salt Ponds Project Constraints
Habitat trade-off concerns
Concerns over cost-sharing with Corps
Contaminants, especially mercury
Need for fill – Subsidence = need for large volumes – Cost – Availability – Source contaminants
Dredged Material Management in SF Bay - Dredgers
Corps of Engineers – – – –
11 Channels 2.2 MCY annually 4 In-Bay aquatic disposal sites Ocean Disposal: 60 miles offshore
Dredged Material Management in SF Bay - Dredgers
Ports: 1.3 MCY annually – – – – –
Oakland San Francisco Richmond Redwood City Benicia
4 MCY Total Annual Dredge Volume
Private Facilities & Municipal Marinas: 0.5 MCY annually
Dredged Material Management in SF Bay - Constraints
Long-Term Management Strategy (LTMS) – –
Environmental Work Windows 40-40-20 Plan
Reduce in-Bay disposal to 1.25 MCY annually Maximize beneficial use
Cost – –
Flat-line Corps of Engineers O&M budget Impacts of LTMS
Future Beneficial Use Shortfall Annual Need* vs. Placement Today
12
12 Annual Disposal to Ocean
Volume (CY) Millions
10
Annual LTMS In-Bay
10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0 2000
2005
San Francisco Bay Regional DMMP
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Volume (CY) Millions
Annual Beneficial Use Capacity
2035
* Need = Federal + Permitted Dredging
SUMMARY
$20-30/c.yd.
Approved for Unconfined In-Bay Disposal
$22-32/c.yd.
Ocean Disposal 03M-0097.13
What is a USACE DMMP? Mandated by USACE Engineering regs where federal projects have insufficient placement capacity A planning document that ensures O&M dredging activities are environmentally acceptable, use sound engineering, and are economically justified Assesses a full range of placement/disposal options, so final plan ensures capacity for the next 20 years Justifies follow-on site-specific Feasibility Studies Typically 100% federally funded
Benefits of a DMMP Predictability − Schedule − Budget
Budget Optimization Regulatory buy-in − EIS process allows agency “co-ownership” − Mutual environmental goals
DMMP Objectives Determine Dredged Material Budget − Identify dredging requirements − Identify existing site capacity
Key Factors − Sediment transport − Dredged material characteristics − Potential new work − Biological resources − Equipment availability
DMMP Objectives Determine Dredged Material Budget − Identify dredging requirements − Identify existing site capacity
Key Factors − Sediment transport − Dredged material characteristics − Potential new work − Biological resources − Equipment availability
DMMP Objectives Determine Dredged Material Budget − Identify dredging requirements − Identify existing site capacity
Key Factors − Sediment transport − Dredged material characteristics − Potential new work − Biological resources − Equipment availability
DMMP Objectives Determine Dredged Material Budget − Identify dredging requirements − Identify existing site capacity
Key Factors − Sediment transport − Dredged material characteristics − Potential new work − Biological resources − Equipment availability
DMMP Objectives Determine Dredged Material Budget − Identify dredging requirements − Identify existing site capacity
Key Factors − Sediment transport − Dredged material characteristics − Potential new work − Biological resources − Equipment availability
DMMP Objectives Determine Sediment Budget − Identify dredging requirements − Identify existing site capacity
Key Factors − Sediment transport − Dredged material characteristics − Potential new work − Biological resources − Equipment availability
DMMP Study Flow Chart NEPA Notice of Intent
Public Meetings
Primary Screening
Alternatives Identification
Geographic Areas Identification
Initial Alternatives List
Alternatives Development
Screening Criteria Development
Preliminary Assessment
Public Input
Public Input
Suite of Alternatives
Alternatives Evaluation
Trade-Off Analysis
Public Input EIS & Implementation Plan
Draft DMMP
Final DMMP
Record of Decision
DMMP Study Flow Chart NEPA Notice of Intent
Public Meetings
Primary Screening
Alternatives Identification
Geographic Areas Identification
Initial Alternatives List
Alternatives Development
Screening Criteria Development
Preliminary Assessment
Public Input
Public Input
Suite of Moratorium Alternatives on Earmarks EIS & Implementation Plan
Alternatives Evaluation
Trade-Off Analysis
Public Input Draft DMMP
Final DMMP
Record of Decision
DMMP Progress
Quantification of capacity deficit – –
25-year projected dredge volume: 114 MCY 25-year projected capacity w/out ocean: 69 MCY
Economic justification for all federal projects Identification of, and screening of 244 potential beneficial use options – –
Policy criteria Gross feasibility criteria
Beneficial Use Type
SUMMARY
Count
Beneficial Use Type
Count
In-Bay Disposal
12
Landfill Capping
14
Ocean Disposal
4
Levee Rehabilitation
7
4
Mudflat Creation
1
Agricultural Placement
7
Mudflat Restoration
1
Brownfields Capping
10
Manufactured Goods
3
Beach Nourishment
18
Public Access
9
Construction Fill
5
Port Expansion
4
Flood Control
7
Rehandling Basin
10
Habitat Creation
9
Shoreline/Bank Stabilization
1
Habitat Restoration
54
Wetland Creation
8
Island Creation
4
Wetland Restoration
52
Mine Reclamation/Restoration
TOTAL
244
DMMP Progress
Preliminary screening results in 42 potential beneficial use sites Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 1. 2. 3. 4.
Technical advisory group assembled to participate with the analysis Specific environmental benefit criteria under 10 distinct categories Toggle scoring and benefit weighting Final ranking for all four regions
South Bay Dredged Material Management Implementation Plan
Contracted w/portion of single project O&M funds
Interim recommendation of RDMMP sites
Reconnaissance Level Investigation of So. Bay sites
Preliminary Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study
South Bay Dredged Material Management Implementation Plan
DMMIP Reconnaissance Study
South Bay Salt Ponds
Fine-tuned capacity evaluation of SBSP Project ▬
Analysis of LIDAR data
▬
Used average elevation for adjacent wetlands
▬
Capacity estimate =
(assumes 90/10 scenario)
South Bay Dredged Material Management Implementation Plan
South Bay Dredged Material Management Implementation Plan
Evaluation of alternative dredged material delivery measures ▬
Aquatic Transfer Facility
▬
Submersible pump
▬
Dedicated off-loader
South Bay Dredged Material Management Implementation Plan
Development of potential innovative contracting solutions ▬
▬
▬
Independent financing involving tipping fee to recoup infrastructure costs Narrower scope cost-sharing Programmatic contracts
South Bay Dredged Material SBSP Project Deep Management Implementation Plan
Water Transfer Points
South Bay Dredged Material Management Implementation Plan
Projected dredged material delivery costs ▬
Hauling distances to varying ponds
▬
Three off-loader scenarios
▬
Pumping costs to varying ponds
▬
Total costs
Letter of Intent to Corps of Engineers
South Bay Dredged Material Management Implementation Plan Eden Landing Complex Total Costs per Cubic Yard from Oakland Harbor Pond NCM E14 E6A E6B E8 E6 E1 E7 E5 E2 E6C E4 E4C E2C E1C E5C
SF – DODS Disposal Cost per CY = $25.31 Offloader 1 Offloader 2 $ 22.39 $ 29.06 $ 22.17 $ 28.84 $ 22.37 $ 29.03 $ 22.20 $ 28.86 $ 21.98 $ 28.64 $ 22.15 $ 28.81 $ 21.62 $ 28.28 $ 21.77 $ 28.43 $ 22.02 $ 28.68 $ 21.32 $ 27.99 $ 21.96 $ 28.62 $ 21.65 $ 28.32 $ 22.06 $ 28.73 $ 21.77 $ 28.43 $ 21.71 $ 28.37 $ 21.88 $ 28.55
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
ATF 22.55 22.33 22.53 22.36 22.14 22.31 21.78 21.93 22.18 21.48 22.12 21.81 22.22 21.93 21.87 22.04
SUMMARY
Quantification of the South Bay Salt Ponds fill capacity to meet high-end marsh goal
Roadmap for Corps and SBSP Project
Tool box to navigate the roadmap – – –
Available dredge material delivery methods Haul and pump distances to and from deep water access channels Potential contracting mechanisms
