An attendee and active participant in matters affecting the Bay, sent me the following information:
"With the help of the Corps, John Powell (Bar Pilot) uncovered the recon study for the 2005 HUMBOLDT BAY LONG-TERM SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT STUDY. This recon study was the first step in looking at long-term solutions to the shoaling at Humboldt Bay's entrance (that really originated with the 1998/99 el nino). The recon study was paid for 100% by the Corps and the next step was to be the feasibility study that would have been cost-shared between the District and the Corps. This is where it broke down as the District's share was $1.5 million and efforts to get those funds from the State were futile.
I send you this because the follow through on this Long Term Shoal Management study should be the next step. Emergency dredging is clearly a Band-Aid. The shoaling this year was completely predictable and while not completely avoidable, steps could have been taken to minimize its impact on the harbor entrance. While the Harbor Commission is patting themselves on the back for getting emergency dredging funding (and they should), they should not lose track of completing a plan for a long term solution to the problem."
SECTION 905(b) (WRDA 86) ANALYSIS
HUMBOLDT
BAY LONG-TERM SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT STUDY
(CWIS
#081540; P2 Project #105098)
1. STUDY AUTHORITY
a. This
study is authorized by Section 216 of the 1970 Flood Control Act, which reads:
“The Secretary of the Army, acting
through the Chief of Engineers,
is authorized to review the operation
of projects the construction
of which has been completed and which
were constructed by the
Corps of Engineers in the interest of
navigation, flood control,
water supply, and related purposes,
when found advisable due to
significant changed physical or
economic conditions, and to report
thereon to Congress with
recommendations on the advisability of
modifying the structures or their
operation, and for improving the
quality of the environment in the
overall public interest.”
The changed physical conditions that are being investigated
in this study are the causes of the unanticipated shoaling in the Humboldt
Channels, which is the basis for the Section 216 study.
b. The
completed construction project authority was provided in Section 101.a.2 of
WRDA 1996 (Water Resources Development Act of 1996, PL 104-303, 12 October
1996), which reads:
“The
project for navigation, Humboldt Harbor and Bay, California:
Report of the Chief of Engineers, dated
October 30, 1995, at a
total cost of $15,180,000, with an estimated
Federal cost of
$10,000,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost
of $5,180,000.”
c. Funding
in the amount of $100,000 was appropriated in the Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act of 2004, to conduct the reconnaissance phase of the study.
2. STUDY PURPOSE
The purpose
of the analysis is to determine if there is a Federal interest in participating
in a cost-shared feasibility study to provide navigation improvements to Humboldt
Harbor and Bay, specifically to address the changed conditions (i.e., shoaling)
in the Bar and Harbor Entrance and North Bay Channels. The analysis has
resulted in the finding that there is a Federal interest in continuing the
study into the feasibility phase.
3. LOCATION OF STUDY, NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR AND
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS
a. The
study area is located in Humboldt County on the coast of Northern California,
approximately 225 nautical miles north of San Francisco. (Attachment 2 –
Location Map).
b. The
non-Federal sponsor for the feasibility phase of the study is the Humboldt Bay
Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District (HBHRCD), located in Eureka,
California.
c. The
study area lies within the jurisdiction of the following California Congressional
District: 1st District,
Representative Mike Thompson.
4. PRIOR REPORTS AND EXISTING PROJECTS
a. Previous Reports: There have been
numerous reports prepared concerning Humboldt Harbor and Bay. In addition to previous reports, which will
be reviewed as part of this study, the most recent report, prepared in 1995, is
listed below:
(1) Humboldt
Harbor and Bay (Deepening) Final Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact
Statement/Report for Navigation Improvements, Humboldt County,
California, dated April 1995, prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San
Francisco District and the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation
District. The project consists of the
following: deepening the Bar and Entrance Channels and “Middle Ground Area” of
North Bay Channel to a depth of 48 feet MLLW; deepening the North Bay, Samoa
Channel, and Samoa Turning Basin to 38 feet MLLW; widening the Entrance Channel
on the north side of the channel from the jetty heads through the “middle
ground” to the turn into the North Bay Channel (this widening ranges from a
maximum of 275 feet in the Entrance Channel to 200 feet in the “middle ground”
area); moving of Entrance Channel edge north and away from the South Jetty by
100 feet; and widening and realigning the Samoa Turning Basin entrance. The
purpose of the project is to improve efficiencies in navigation and provide
safer channels for existing deep-draft vessels calling at the harbor. The project consists of dredging the above
navigation channels, and the disposal of the dredged material as follows:
approximately 6.5 million cubic yards of dredged material in the Pacific Ocean
at the designated Section 102 Humboldt Open Ocean Disposal Site (HOODS). (See Attachment 3 – Existing Navigation
Project Map.)
b. Existing
Projects: This study is
investigating potential modifications of the Bar and Entrance Channel, existing
Federally authorized and maintained navigation channels in Humboldt Bay. (Past
studies and projects are shown in Attachment 1.)
5. Plan
Formulation
a.
Identified Problems:
(1) Existing Conditions:
Humboldt Harbor is the only deepwater port between San Francisco, 225 nautical
miles to the south, and Coos Bay, Oregon, 156 nautical miles to the north.
Surrounded by some of the most productive timber in the world, the primary
cargo such as wood pulp, wood chips, lumber, particleboard, and logs, amount to
approximately 1.1 million tons annually.
About two-thirds of the tonnage is exported to domestic markets such as San
Francisco and Los Angeles.
Moderate winter storms have created
dangerous shoaling spots as streams of sand flow upward from the entrance of
the ship channel. This shoaling not only creates shipping hazards (one vessel,
the Curie, actually grounded in November 1999, and sustained $2.3 million
in business losses alone), but has forced the Humboldt Bar Pilots to impose
restrictions on vessel drafts. Depending on the severity of shoaling, these
restrictions have ranged from 18 to 33 feet, far less than the authorized depth
of 48 feet MLLW. When faced with such restrictions, vessels end up transiting
the channel partially loaded, incurring extra transportation costs.
Furthermore, the Harbor District has been forced to perform emergency dredging
of the affected areas, which cost $60,000 to $90,000 a day. The shoaling
problem is most severe toward the early spring, just before the scheduled
maintenance dredging is performed.
The problem is the restricted depth in the Bar and Entrance Channel and
North Bay Channel for up to six months of the year. The channels are usually
dredged in early spring, but winter storms cause the channels to excessively
shoal, resulting in depth restrictions on vessels until the next maintenance
dredging in the following spring.
Based on upon an analysis conducted by the Water Resources Section in
2004, it was anticipated that an increase in dredging volume of approximately
20% to 40% due to channel deepening would occur, however, a dredging volume
increase on the order of 200% has actually occurred. The increase in dredging
volume is much greater than predicted in earlier analysis, and can not be
explained by the channel deepening alone which indicates that other mechanisms
need to be studied and more refined analyses need to be conducted.
The Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District (Corps) conducts
bi-annual maintenance dredging in Humboldt Harbor every year. Prior to the
completion of Humboldt Harbor and Bay Deepening Navigation Project in May 2000,
there were spring and fall maintenance dredging activities during which the
Interior Channels were dredged in the Spring, and the Bar and Entrance Channels
in the Fall. The current maintenance
dredging activity consists of maintenance dredging of the North Bay, Eureka,
Samoa, and Field’s Landing Channels in March/April, and maintenance dredging of
a portion of the Bar and Entrance Channels not only in March/April, but also in
a time period anywhere from July to November.
A visual inspection was made of the
April-May 2003 (pre-dredge), September 2003 (post-dredge), and January 2004
(pre-dredge) condition surveys for the Bar and Entrance Channel and the North
Bay Channel (up through the Middle Ground area). Comparing the pre-dredge 2003
and the pre-dredge 2004 surveys indicates that the shoaling in 2004 was reduced
for both the Bar and Entrance Channel and North Bay Channel. However, for the
2004 survey over half of the areas for both channels was still above the
48-foot MLLW authorized channel depth. Comparing the post-dredge 2003 survey
and pre-dredge 2004 survey indicates that over half the Bar and Entrance
Channel area has shoaled above the authorized 48-foot MLLW channel depth
between dredging events. The North Bay Channel has also shoaled significantly,
but it is hard to judge the amount of shoaling for the Middle Ground area, as
the post-dredge survey was already above the authorized channel depth. (Note:
Most of the shoaling in the Middle Ground area occurred prior to the
post-dredge 2003 survey.) The visual inspections of these three surveys are
summarized in the Table 1.
TABLE
1 -SUMMARY OF SURVEY INSPECTIONS
Survey
|
Dates
|
Bar & Entrance
|
North Bay
|
Pre-dredge 2003
|
25-30 Apr &
3, 20-24 May 2003
|
Over 50% of the channel is above 48'
MLLW depth.
|
About 50% of the channel is above 48'
MLLW depth.
|
Post-dredge 2003
|
26-29 Sep 2003
|
Over 90% of the channel is below the
48' MLLW depth.
|
Over 70% of the channel is below 48'
MLLW, but the area of the bend in the Middle Ground is predominantly above
48' MLLW.
|
Pre-dredge 2004
|
29 Jan & 7 Feb 2004
|
Over 50% of the channel is above 48'
MLLW.
|
Over 50% of channel is above 48'
MLLW; large shoals along North Jetty side of channel and in the Middle Ground
bend area.
|
Note:
Authorized depth is 48 feet MLLW; authorized overdepth is 2 feet.
A review of the pre-dredge 2003,
post-dredge 2003, and pre-dredge 2004 condition surveys for the Bar and
Entrance Channel and the North Bay Channel (up through the Middle Ground area)
reveal that over half of the channels’ areas have shoaled above the authorized
depth of 48 feet MLLW between maintenance dredging events. The magnitude of the
shoaling for both the Bar and Entrance and North Bay Channels is predominantly
less than 5 feet (i.e., channel depth of 43 feet MLLW or deeper), with the
greatest shoaling located along the sides of the channel.
(2) Future
Without Project Condition Assumptions.
We assumed that the Bar Pilots and
the Harbor District would continue to address the shoaling problem by imposing
draft restrictions as they had over the past several winters. The restrictions
ranged from 18 feet to 33 feet, depending on the severity of the shoaling.
Draft restrictions would result in increased shipping inefficiencies,
particularly for the largest vessels. Under the most likely restriction
scenario (defined as the average of the most recent restrictions) of 30 feet
MLLW, the subsequent inefficiencies can range from $657,000 to $2.6 million,
depending on vessel traffic and when the restrictions are imposed. The
Preliminary Economic Analysis (Attachment 4) presents the logic in computing
the economic inefficiencies associated with draft restrictions.
b. Public
Concerns: A number of public
concerns have been identified during the course of the reconnaissance
study. Initial concerns were expressed
in the study authorization. Additional
input was received through coordination with the sponsor, and some initial
coordination with other agencies. The
public concerns that are related to the establishment of planning objectives
and planning constraints are:
A
safe entrance for all ocean-going vessels is essential to the local economy.
Humboldt Harbor is already known as a treacherous entrance even before the
shoaling problem started. Two factors contribute to making the entrance
dangerous: 1) the semi-permanent sand bar in/near the entrance, and 2) the
large waves.
The
measured channel depths for the Bay and Entrance and North Bay Channels ranged
from 65 feet MLLW to 39 feet MLLW in 2004 and 65 feet MLLW to 26 feet MLLW in
2003. The maximum shoaling for 2004 was approximately 10 feet.
c.
Problems and Opportunities:
(1)
Problems:
(a) Shoaling in the Humboldt Harbor and Bay between
November and early April impedes navigation by reducing channel depth,
preventing large draft (primarily those greater than 30 feet) vessels from
entering the harbor and/or reducing the tonnage such vessels can transport
resulting in loss of production and greater transportation costs.
(b) Shoaling in the Humboldt Harbor and
Bay between November to April can result in ship groundings, resulting in damage
to vessels, costs of recovery, and potential risk to human life and safety. The
shoaling problem occurs mainly in the winter and early spring, but affects port
operations throughout the year.
(2) Opportunities:
There is an opportunity to reduce the potential for ship groundings during the
winter and early spring months (November through April).
e. Planning Objectives: The planning objective is to reduce the
year-round economic impacts to commercial navigation caused by shoaling in the
Federal navigation channels in Humboldt Harbor and to evaluate potential
restoration of seagrass beds within the Bay.
f.
Planning Constraints: Planning
constraints identified in this study are 1) not adversely impact other maritime
uses of Humboldt Bay and Harbor; and 2) comply with existing laws, policies and
guidance.
g. Preliminary Measures to Address Identified
Planning Objectives: A variety of measures were considered; a description
and preliminary evaluation are presented below:
(1) No
Action: The No Action alternative
assumes that shoaling would continue to be a problem in Humboldt Harbor and Bay
for up to six months of the year (during the winter and early spring months),
which restricts the vessels entering and leaving the Harbor.
(2) Structural: Ten structural measures have been
identified and are described in more detail in the discussion of preliminary
plans below.
h. Preliminary Plans: Preliminary plans
are comprised of one or more management measures. The descriptions and results of the
evaluations of the preliminary plans that were considered in this study are
presented below.
The
alternatives to reduce shoaling of the Bar and Entrance Channel and other
affected inner channels at Humboldt Bay and thereby provide all-weather
channels (i.e., channels that remain at or below their authorized channel depth
for the entire time period between dredging cycles (usually one year)) were
developed based upon the March 16, 2004 meeting with the Port of Humboldt, Bar
Pilots, tug captains, and the Westfall Stevedore Company, review of the Santa
Cruz Harbor Shoaling Study (USACE 1992), and discussions with other coastal
engineers and Humboldt Shoaling Project Delivery Team (PDT) members. The
resulting eleven alternatives are believed to be inclusive of all technically
realistic alternatives to reduce shoaling without consideration of other
external factors (such as costs, environmental effects, political decisions, or
public opinion). These alternatives can be conveniently categorized into three
groups based upon how they reduce shoaling, which coincidentally relates to
whether a hard structure or dredging is used in the alternative: (a) sediment
removal alternatives (dredging); (b) sediment blocking alternatives (coastal
structures); or, (c) combination of (a) and (b). The alternatives are presented
based on category, but in no particular order of importance. Note that all of
these alternatives assume that the annual maintenance dredging at Humboldt
would continue and these alternatives are meant to supplement the existing
dredging and hopefully either stabilize or reduce the amount of maintenance
dredging needed at Humboldt. These
alternatives are as follows:
(1) Sediment
Blocking Alternatives (Coastal Structures):
(a) Alternative 1 – Groins. The
groin alternative to reduce shoaling at Humboldt is to place a groin of
appropriate size on the South Spit, which would trap sufficient sediment to
ensure that the channels remain at their authorized depths for a number of
years. Groins are shore-perpendicular structures that block the longshore
transport of sediment, which results in the build-up of a beach on the updrift
side of the groin and a reduction of sediment on the downdrift side. Groins are
usually constructed either as a sheetpile (not recommended for Humboldt as they
would be difficult to construct and very expensive due to the large wave forces
experienced at Humboldt) or as a rubble mound of appropriately sized stone for
the wave climate at the site (recommended for Humboldt). Rubble-mound groins
would be easier to construct, and therefore less expensive, and can withstand
the wave forces at Humboldt.
(b) Alternative 2 – Artificial Reef
(Submerged Offshore Groin). The artificial reef alternative to reduce
shoaling at Humboldt is to place an artificial reef (or submerged offshore
groin) of appropriate size offshore of the South Spit, which would trap
sufficient sediment to ensure that the channels remain at their authorized
depths for a number of years. The most likely construction method for this
alternative would be a submerged rubble-mound groin, or a combination of
man-made objects with rubble placed to fill in the gaps between objects. This
alternative reduces shoaling in the channels the same way that the groin
alternative does, by trapping sediment before it reaches the channel.
(c) Alternative
3 – Spur (Wing) Jetties. The spur jetties alternative to reduce shoaling at
Humboldt is to construct spur jetties of appropriate size near the heads of the
North and South Jetties to deflect sediment into deeper water where it would
not enter the entrance channel and thereby ensure that the channels remain at
their authorized depths. Spur (or wing) jetties are constructed off of the main
jetties to deflect sediment away from the entrance channel and into deeper
water, where it would not circulate back into the channel.
(d) Alternative 4 – Extension of the
South Jetty. The South Jetty extension alternative to reduce shoaling at
Humboldt is to extend the jetty in the west to southwest direction to block
sediment from entering the entrance channel and possibly deflect the sediment
into deeper water where it would not enter the entrance channel and thereby
ensure that the channels remain at their authorized depths. Extensions to
jetties and breakwaters have been used on other Corps projects to reduce
shoaling into the entrance channel (e.g., West Breakwater at Pillar Point
Harbor, California). The extension reduces shoaling within the entrance channel
by blocking the sediment against the extension. Eventually, the sediment would
migrate around the extension and into the channel and would have to be dredged.
(2) Sediment
Removal Alternatives:
(a) Alternative 5 – Advance
Maintenance Dredging. The Advance maintenance dredging alternative to
reduce shoaling at Humboldt would require that the channels be deepened, the
side slopes flattened, and the shoal near the tip of the South Jetty be removed
to ensure that the channels remain at their authorized depths on an annual basis.
Advance maintenance dredging could be used to reduce shoaling and provide for
all-weather channels by dredging deeper than is normally done for maintenance
dredging at Humboldt, so that the channels do not shoal past their authorized
depths on an annual basis.
(b) Alternative 6 – Winter Dredging
Cycle. Dredging at Humboldt could be delayed to start after the first major
winter storm and thereby increase the amount of time that the channels remain
at their authorized depths. However, this alternative alone would not guarantee
all-weather channels at Humboldt, as the channels would continue to shoal after
the winter dredging has been completed. The winter dredging cycle alternative
to reduce shoaling at Humboldt would delay maintenance dredging to start after
the first winter storm and extend the amount of time the channels remain at
their authorized depths.
(c) Alternative 7 –
Year-Round/Episodic Dredging Cycle. The year-round/episodic dredging cycle
alternative to reduce shoaling at Humboldt would require that a new dredge be
permanently stationed at Humboldt, the regular maintenance dredging would be
done by the existing dredges, and the permanently stationed dredge would be
used for spot maintenance of the bar and entrance channel and inner channels,
thereby ensuring that the channels remain at their authorized depths on an
annual basis.
(d) Alternative 8 – Channel Realignment.
The channel realignment alternative to reduce shoaling at Humboldt would
require that the existing channels be modified by dredging to optimize the
natural hydraulic flushing of the tidal currents, thereby reducing the amount
of dredging necessary to maintain the channels at their authorized depths on an
annual basis. Realignment of the channels would consist of relocating the
thalweg of the channel by dredging the appropriate areas to establish the
existing channel cross-section in a new location.
(e) Alternative 9 – Sand Bypassing.
The sand bypassing alternative to reduce shoaling at Humboldt would require the
installation of a sand bypassing system near the end of the South Jetty, with
the dredged material pumped to the North Spit beaches, thereby reducing the
amount of dredging necessary to maintain the channels at their authorized
depths on an annual basis. Sand bypassing consists of placing a fixed or mobile
dredging plant at a shoaled area and pumping the dredged material onto the
downdrift feeder beach.
(f) Alternative
10 – Sediment Trap. The sediment trap alternative to reduce shoaling at
Humboldt Bay would require a sediment trap being dredged near the South Jetty,
with periodic dredging of the sediment trap once it reaches its capacity, thereby
reducing the amount of dredging necessary to maintain the channels at their
authorized depths on an annual basis. Sediment traps are large pits dug into
the seafloor to capture sediment before it reaches the navigation channel. The
sediment trap is then periodically dredged when it fills up its capacity.
(Note: The difference between a sediment trap and advance maintenance dredging
is the sediment trap is a permanent authorized area of fixed dimensions that
can not be changed without a change in the authorization, while advance
maintenance dredging can be changed on an annual basis.)
(3) Combination
Alternative:
(a) Alternative 11 – Offshore
Breakwater with a Sediment Trap. This alternative is the same as the above
sediment trap alternative (Alternative 10) with the addition of a
shore-parallel breakwater. The breakwater provides two added benefits to the
sediment trap alternative: 1) it provides a calm area for the dredges when they
are dredging out the sediment trap; and 2) it reduces the amount of shoreward
cross-shore sediment transport into the sediment trap.
(4)
Other Combinations: Numerous combination alternatives could be developed
based upon the previous singular alternatives. None of these additional
combination alternatives are presented here, as they do not add any new design
elements. Further development and evaluation of combination alternatives would
be deferred until the feasibility phase, after the elimination of any
unrealistic alternatives.
i.
Preliminary Plans Eliminated from Further Consideration: Alternative 9
(Sand Bypassing) has also been eliminated from further consideration as it
would be very expensive to construct and maintain in the big wave climate and
sediment volume at Humboldt.
j.
Preliminary Plans For Further Consideration: The Sediment Blocking
Alternatives (Coastal Structures)(Alternatives 1 through 4) are carried forward
for further study. It should be noted that Alternatives 1 through 4 could
potentially result in starving the North Spit of sand, and more sand would be
needed on the North Spit for beach nourishment, thereby resulting in additional
impacts and costs, which would be studied further in the feasibility phase. The
Sediment Removal Design Alternatives (Dredging) (Alternatives 5 thru 8, and 10)
are carried forward for further analysis. Possible impacts identified include
impacts to eel grass beds and erosion problems; these potential impacts will be
studied further in the feasibility phase. Alternative 11 (Offshore Breakwater
with a Sediment Trap) is also carried forward for further study in the
feasibility phase.
k.
Conclusions from the Preliminary Screening: There are a number of
potentially technically viable solutions to the excessive shoaling problem at
Humboldt Bay that could be further investigated during the feasibility phase of
this project. Based on this preliminary Section 905(b)-level investigation, it
is determined that there are sizeable inefficiencies given the shoaling
problems and that Federal participation is warranted. Projects such as Alternative
9 (Sand Bypassing) may be cost-prohibitive as it would be very expensive to
construct and maintain in the big wave climate and sediment volume at Humboldt.
Even minor improvements such as extending the number of dredging days or
altering the maintenance dredging schedule could offer economic benefits.
l.
Establishment of a Plan Formulation Rationale: The conclusions from the
preliminary screening form the basis for the next iteration of the planning
steps that would be conducted in the feasibility phase. The likely array of
alternatives that would be considered in the next iteration includes the
Sediment Blocking Alternatives, and the Sediment Removal Alternatives (with the
exception of Alternative 9 – Sand Bypassing). Future screening and reformulation
would be based on, but not limited to, the following factors: environmental
factors (e.g., impacts to eelgrass beds, dredged material disposal concerns),
public concerns, benefits and costs.
6. FEDERAL INTEREST
Since providing
navigation improvements to Humboldt Harbor and Bay is an output with a high
budget priority and that navigation improvement is the primary output of the
alternatives to be evaluated in the feasibility phase, there is a strong
Federal interest in conducting the feasibility study. Based on the preliminary screening of
alternatives, there appears to be potential project alternatives that would be consistent
with Army policies and could have adequate benefits and acceptable costs and
environmental impacts. There are several alternative plans that
appear likely to produce navigation benefits in excess of project costs, such
as the advanced maintenance dredging alternative which has a preliminary
project cost ranging from $1 million to $9 million, and the channel realignment
alternative which has a preliminary project cost ranging from $600,000 to $1.8
million. (Note: These preliminary project costs estimates are based on
experience with similar projects and do not include any real estate costs;
these costs will be obtained during the feasibility phase.) The preliminary
estimated navigation benefits could support a project cost of about $10 million
to $20 million.
7. Preliminary
Financial Analysis
As
the local sponsor, the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District,
would be required to provide 50 percent of the cost of the feasibility
phase. The local sponsor is also aware
of the cost-sharing requirements for potential project implementation. A Letter of Intent from the local sponsor
stating a willingness to purse the feasibility study is included as Attachment 5.
8. Assumptions
and Exceptions
a. Future
Without Project Condition Assumptions: It is assumed that the Bar
Pilots and the Harbor District would continue to address the shoaling problem
by imposing draft restrictions as they had over the past several winters.
Restrictions ranged from 18 feet to 33 feet, depending on the severity of the
shoaling. Draft restrictions would result in increased shipping inefficiencies,
particularly for the largest vessels.
b. Policy Exceptions and Streamlining Initiatives:
The study would be conducted in accordance with the Principles and Guidelines
and the Corps of Engineers regulations.
No exceptions to established guidance have been identified that would
streamline the feasibility study process that would not adversely impact the
quality of the feasibility study.
Approval of the Section 905(b) Analysis by Corps of Engineers, South
Pacific Division, does not result in the approval of any policy exceptions or
streamlining initiatives.
9. Feasibility
Phase Milestones
Milestone
|
Description
|
Duration
(months)
|
Cumulative
(months)
|
Milestone F1
|
Initiate Study
|
0
|
0
|
Milestone F2
|
Public Workshop/Scoping
|
2
|
2
|
Milestone F3
|
Feasibility Scoping
Meeting
|
6
|
8
|
Milestone F4
|
Alternative Review
Conference
|
9
|
17
|
Milestone F4A
|
Alternative Formulation
Briefing
|
5
|
22
|
Milestone F5
|
Draft Feasibility Report
|
3
|
25
|
Milestone F6
|
Final Public Meeting
|
1
|
26
|
Milestone F7
|
Feasibility Review
Conference
|
1
|
27
|
Milestone F8
|
Final Report to SPD
|
3
|
30
|
Milestone F9
|
DE’s Public Notice
|
1
|
31
|
-
|
Chief’s Report
|
4
|
35
|
-
|
Project Authorization
|
4
|
39
|
10. Feasibility Phase Cost Estimate
WBS#
|
Description
|
cost
|
jaa00
|
Feas-Surveys
& Mapping (except Real Estate)
|
$100,000
|
jab00
|
Feas-Hydrology
& Hydraulics Study/Report (Coastal)
|
300,000
|
jac00
|
Feas-geotechnical
studies/report
|
550,000
|
jae00
|
feas-engineering
& design analysis report
|
100,000
|
JAG00
|
FEAS-GIS MAPPING
|
50,000
|
jb000
|
feas-socioeconomic
studies
|
60,000
|
jc000
|
feas-real estate
analysis/report
|
60,000
|
jd000
|
feas-environmental
studies/report (except usf&wl)
|
250,000
|
je000
|
feas-fish &
wildlife coordination
act report
|
80,000
|
jf000
|
feas-htrw studies/report
|
50,000
|
jg000
|
feas-cultural
resources studies/report
|
30,000
|
jh000
|
feas-cost
estimates
|
60,000
|
ji000
|
feas-public
involvement documents (Includes STrategic Communications)
|
50,000
|
jj000
|
feas-plan
formulation & evaluation
|
160,000
|
jl000
|
feas-final report
documentation
|
50,000
|
jld00
|
feas-technical
review documents
|
61,000
|
jm000
|
feas-washington
level report approval (review support)
|
50,000
|
jp000
|
project
management & budget documents
|
150,000
|
jpb00
|
supervision &
administration
|
100,000
|
jpC00
|
contingencies
|
150,000
|
l0000
|
project
management plan (PMP)
|
50,000
|
q0000
|
ped cost sharing
agreement
|
20,000
|
X0000
|
feas-Value
engineering analysis
|
50,000
|
total
|
|
$2,570,000
|
11. Views
of Other Resource Agencies
Because of the funding and time constraints of the
reconnaissance phase, only limited and informal coordination has been conducted
with other resource agencies. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in response to the Humboldt Harbor and Bay
Deepening Feasibility Report, in 1995, stated that the project was not likely
to adversely affect wildlife and plant species. Consultation with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service will be conducted during the feasibility study phase.
12. Potential
Issues Affecting Initiation of Feasibility Phase
Continuation of this study into the
cost-shared feasibility phase is contingent upon an executed Feasibility Cost
Sharing Agreement (FCSA). Failure to
achieve an executed FCSA within 18 months of the approval date of the Section
905(b) Analysis would result in termination of the study. No issues that could impact the initiation of
the feasibility phase have been identified at this time.
The schedule for signing the FCSA is May 2005. Based on the schedule of milestones in
Paragraph 9, completion of the feasibility report would be in December 2007,
with a potential Congressional Authorization in a WRDA 2008.
13. STUDY AREA
MAP
A map of
the study area is attached (Attachment 3).
14. Recommendations
I recommend
that the Humboldt Bay Long-Term Sediment Management Study proceed into the
feasibility phase.
Date:
PHILIP
T. FEIR LTC, EN
Commanding
Attachments
Attachment 1- Past Studies and Projects
Attachment 2 – Location
Map
Attachment 3 – Existing
Navigation Project Map
Attachment 4 – Preliminary
Economic Analysis
Attachment 5 – Letter of
Intent
