DOCSLIB.ORG

Offloader Procurement Strategy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Offloader Procurement Strategy Offloader Procurement Strategy Produced for California State Coastal Conservancy May 7, 2020 Offloader Procurement Strategy | State Coastal Conservancy Document Verification Client California State Coastal Conservancy Project name 18-091 Redwood City Harbor Beneficial Use Project Document title Offloader Procurement Strategy Document sub-title – Status FINAL Date 5/7/2020 Project number 10547 File reference Q:\WC\10547 Offloader Bid Solicitation\3_Design\Final Report\Final Offloader Procurement Strategy Report Revision Description Issued by Date Checked 00 Progress Draft MN 11/26/2019 DT 01 Draft MN 3/20/2020 SM; RD 02 Final MN 5/7/2020 DT; RD Produced by: Moffatt & Nichol 2185 N. California Blvd., Suite 500 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 (925) 944-5411 www.moffattnichol.com i Offloader Procurement Strategy | State Coastal Conservancy Table of Contents Document Verification ................................................................................................................................. i Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................ ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. iv List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... v Glossary ...................................................................................................................................................... vi 1 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Physical Conditions ................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Dredged Material Sources and Material Suitability .................................................................. 2 1.5 Required Site Improvements ..................................................................................................... 4 1.6 Power Requirements for Dredged Material Placement ............................................................. 6 1.7 Contracting Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 7 1.8 Environmental Documentation and Outreach ......................................................................... 11 1.9 CEQA/NEPA Strategy ............................................................................................................ 13 1.10 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................ 13 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 16 2.1 Purpose and Need .................................................................................................................... 16 2.2 Scope of Work ......................................................................................................................... 16 3 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 18 3.1 Southern Eden Landing Ponds ................................................................................................ 18 3.2 Restoration Plans ..................................................................................................................... 18 3.3 Pond Sizes and Capacities ....................................................................................................... 19 4 Physical Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 21 4.1.1 Tides ........................................................................................................................... 21 4.1.2 Bathymetry ................................................................................................................. 21 4.1.3 Wind ........................................................................................................................... 21 4.1.4 Waves ......................................................................................................................... 21 4.1.5 Currents ...................................................................................................................... 24 5 Dredged Material Sources ............................................................................................................. 25 5.1 Sediment Sources .................................................................................................................... 25 5.2 Sediment Suitability ................................................................................................................ 28 5.3 Dredged Material Delivery ...................................................................................................... 29 5.4 Dredged Material Placement ................................................................................................... 30 6 Conceptual Improvements ............................................................................................................. 33 6.1 Onsite Improvements for Receiving Dredged Material .......................................................... 33 6.1.1 Placement Locations Within Eden Landing ............................................................... 33 6.1.2 Levee Repairs ............................................................................................................. 33 6.1.3 Water Control Structures ............................................................................................ 36 ii Offloader Procurement Strategy | State Coastal Conservancy 6.1.4 Water Management Requirements ............................................................................. 36 6.2 Offsite Improvements for Transporting Dredged Material ..................................................... 37 6.2.1 Offloader .................................................................................................................... 38 6.2.2 Pipeline ....................................................................................................................... 40 6.2.3 Booster Pump(s) ......................................................................................................... 42 6.2.4 Offloader Support Plant.............................................................................................. 42 7 Equipment Power Requirements .................................................................................................. 44 7.1 Electrical Power Option .......................................................................................................... 44 7.1.1 Overhead Transmission Line Power Drop ................................................................. 45 7.1.2 Temporary Pole Line .................................................................................................. 47 7.1.3 Temporary Submarine Cable ...................................................................................... 49 7.2 Diesel Power Option ............................................................................................................... 50 7.2.1 Diesel Generator ......................................................................................................... 50 7.3 Air Quality Analysis ................................................................................................................ 51 8 Contracting Alternatives ................................................................................................................ 52 8.1 Cost Estimating Methodology ................................................................................................. 52 8.2 Concession Model ................................................................................................................... 53 8.2.1 Site Development Costs (Contract 1) ......................................................................... 54 8.2.2 Offloader Operations Costs (Contract 2) .................................................................... 56 8.2.3 Summary of Costs for Concession Model .................................................................. 58 8.2.4 Procurement Strategy for Concession Model ............................................................. 60 8.3 USACE Dredging Project Model ............................................................................................ 61 8.3.1 Initial Onsite Improvement Costs (by SBSP Project) ................................................ 62 8.3.2 Costs for USACE Model ............................................................................................ 62 8.3.3 Summary of Costs for USACE Dredging Project Model ........................................... 62 8.3.4 Procurement Strategy for USACE Model .................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Effectiveness of Larger-Area Exclusion Booming to Protect Sensitive Sites in San Francisco Bay
    Effectiveness of Larger-Area Exclusion Booming to Protect Sensitive Sites in San Francisco Bay Final Report Prepared for California Department of Fish & Game Oil Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) 425 G Executive Court North Fairfield, CA 94534-4019 Prepared by Dagmar Schmidt Etkin, PhD Environmental Research Consulting 41 Croft Lane Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567-1160 SSEP Contract No. P0775013 30 September 2009 Effectiveness of Larger-Area Exclusion Booming to Protect Sensitive Sites in San Francisco Bay Final Report Prepared by Dagmar Schmidt Etkin, PhD Environmental Research Consulting 41 Croft Lane Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567-1160 USA Prepared at the Request of Carl Jochums California Department of Fish & Game Oil Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) 425 G Executive Court North Fairfield, CA 94534-4019 Submitted to Bruce Joab, SSEP Coordinator and Contract Manager Office of Spill Prevention and Response CA Department of Fish and Game 1700 K Street, Suite 250 Sacramento, CA 95811 Phone 916-322-7561 SSEP Contract No. PO775013 Note: This study was conducted in collaboration with Applied Science Associates (ASA), Inc., of South Kingston, RI, under SSEP Contract No. PO775010. ASA submitted a separate Final Report entitled Transport and Impacts of Oil Spills in San Francisco Bay – Implications for Response. i Effectiveness of Larger-Area Exclusion Booming to Protect Sensitive Sites in San Francisco Bay Contents Contents .......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan Habitat Creation Or Enhancement Project Within 5 Miles of OAK
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California California clapper rail Suaeda californica Cirsium hydrophilum Chloropyron molle Salt marsh harvest mouse (Rallus longirostris (California sea-blite) var. hydrophilum ssp. molle (Reithrodontomys obsoletus) (Suisun thistle) (soft bird’s-beak) raviventris) Volume II Appendices Tidal marsh at China Camp State Park. VII. APPENDICES Appendix A Species referred to in this recovery plan……………....…………………….3 Appendix B Recovery Priority Ranking System for Endangered and Threatened Species..........................................................................................................11 Appendix C Species of Concern or Regional Conservation Significance in Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California….......................................13 Appendix D Agencies, organizations, and websites involved with tidal marsh Recovery.................................................................................................... 189 Appendix E Environmental contaminants in San Francisco Bay...................................193 Appendix F Population Persistence Modeling for Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California with Intial Application to California clapper rail …............................................................................209 Appendix G Glossary……………......................................................................………229 Appendix H Summary of Major Public Comments and Service
    [Show full text]
  • Marina Bay Trail Guide San Francisco Bay Trail Richmond, California
    Marina Bay Trail Guide San Francisco Bay Trail Richmond, California Rosie the Riveter / World War Il Home Front National Historical Park National Park Service U.S. Department of the !nterior Richmond, California i-l i I 2.'l mito i iPoint Richmond RICIJMOND MARIN.A BAY TRAIL n A century ago Marina Bay u)as a land that dissolueMnto tidal marsh at the edge(r+ \ i, \ of the great estuary we call San Froncisco Bay. One-could find shell mounds left sY by the Huchiun tribe of natiue Ohlone and watclt'""Soiting aessels ply the bay with Y ,J_r ' ,# + passengers and cargo. The arriual of Standard Off ond the Sonta Fe Railrood at q the beginning of the 20th century sparked a transformatioryffitnis hndscope that continues &, Y $ Harbor Mt today. The Marina Bay segment of the San Francisco Bay lfuit Offers us neu opportunities @EGIE to explore the history, wildlife, and scenery of Richmondffilynamic southesstern shore. Future site of Rosie the Riveterl WWll Home Front National Historical Park Visitor Center Map Legend Sheridan Point r ,.' B ft EIE .. Bay Trail suitable for walking, biking, roller skating & wheelchair access ? V Distance markers and mileage #g.9--o--,,t,* betweentwomarkers Ford Assembly MARI Stair access to San Francisco Bay Building ) Built in 1930, the Richmond Ford RICHMO Home Front tr visitor lnformation Motor Co. Plant was the largest Iucretia RICHMOND lnterpretive Markers assembly plant on the West Coast. t Edwards \ During WWII, it switched to the |,|[lil Restrooms Historical markers throughout the \ @EtrM@ Marina are easy to spot from a assembly of combat vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • Harbor Safety Committee of the SF Bay Region June 13, 2019 - Draft Page 1
    Draft Minutes Harbor Safety Committee of the San Francisco Bay Region Thursday, June 13, 2019 Port of Oakland, Exhibit Room 530 Water Street, Oakland, CA Capt. Lynn Korwatch (M), Marine Exchange of the San Francisco Bay Region (Marine Exchange), Chair of the Harbor Safety Committee (HSC); called the meeting to order at 10:01. Marcus Freeling (A), Marine Exchange, confirmed the presence of a quorum of the HSC. Committee members (M) and alternates (A) in attendance with a vote: Jim Anderson (M), CA Dungeness Crab Task Force; John Berge (M), Pacific Merchant Shipping Association; Capt. Marie Byrd (M), United States Coast Guard; Capt. Bob Carr (M), San Francisco Bar Pilots; Capt. Sean Daggett (M), Sause Bros. Inc.; Kevin Donnelly (A), WETA; Ben Eichenberg (A), San Francisco Baykeeper; Jeff Ferguson (M), NOAA; Aaron Golbus (M), Port of San Francisco; Scott Grindy (M), San Francisco Small Craft Harbor; Troy Hosmer (M), Port of Oakland; LTC Travis Rayfield (M), US Army Corps of Engineers; Jim McGrath (M), Bay Conservation and Development Commission; Benjamin Ostroff (A), Starlight Marine Services; Julian Rose (M), Marathon Petroleum; Jeff Vine (M), Port of Stockton. The meetings are always open to the public. Approval of the Minutes- A motion to accept the minutes of the May 9, 2019 meeting was made and seconded. The minutes were approved without dissent. Comments by Chair- Capt. Lynn Korwatch Welcomed the committee members and audience. Advised that the scheduled Oakland A’s stadium presentation is postponed until the August HSC meeting. The July HSC meeting is cancelled. Coast Guard Report- Capt. Marie Byrd Advised of USCG personnel changes.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021-05 Hscminutes DRAFT
    Draft Minutes Harbor Safety Committee of the San Francisco Bay Region Thursday, May 13, 2021 Remote Meeting Via Zoom 10 Commodore Drive, Emeryville, CA Capt. Lynn Korwatch (M), Marine Exchange of the San Francisco Bay Region (Marine Exchange), Chair of the Harbor Safety Committee (HSC); called the meeting to order at 10:00. Marcus Freeling (A), Marine Exchange, confirmed the presence of a quorum of the HSC. Committee members (M) and alternates (A) in attendance with a vote: Jim Anderson (M), CA Dungeness Crab Task Force; John Berge (M), Pacific Merchant Shipping Association; Capt. Marie Byrd (M), United States Coast Guard; Capt. Sean Daggett (M), Sause Bros. Inc.; Ben Eichenberg (A), San Francisco Baykeeper; Jeff Ferguson (M), NOAA; Scott Grindy (M), San Francisco Small Craft Harbor; Troy Hosmer (M), Port of Oakland; Capt. Thomas Kirsch (M), Blue and Gold Fleet; Steve Longoria (M), Port of Redwood City; Dominic Moreno (M), Port of San Francisco; Julian Rose (M), Marathon Petroleum; Capt. Paul Ruff (M), San Francisco Bar Pilots; Linda Scourtis (M), Bay Conservation and Development Commission; Mariah Swenson (M), AMPORTS; Jessica Vargas (A), US Army Corps of Engineers; Jeff Vine (M), Port of Stockton. The meetings are always open to the public. Approval of the Minutes- A motion to accept the minutes of the April 8, 2021 meeting was made and seconded. The minutes were approved without dissent. Comments by Chair- Capt. Lynn Korwatch Welcomed the committee members and audience. Advised that the HSC is tentatively planning to resume in-person meetings in September but will continue to provide Zoom access.
    [Show full text]
  • Richmond Marina Bay Trail
    ↓ 2.1 mi to Point Richmond ▾ 580 Y ▾ A Must see, must do … Harbor Gate W ▶ Walk the timeline through the Rosie the Riveter Memorial to the water’s edge. RICHA centuryMO ago MarinaN BayD was Ma land ARIthat dissolvedNA into tidal marshBAY at the edge TRAIL SOUTH Shopping Center K H T R ▶ Visit all 8 historical interpretive markers and of the great estuary we call San Francisco Bay. One could find shell mounds left U R learn about the World War II Home Front. E A O G by the Huchiun tribe of native Ohlone and watch sailing vessels ply the bay with S A P T ▶ Fish at high tide with the locals (and remember Y T passengers and cargo. The arrival of Standard Oil and the Santa Fe Railroad at A your fishing license). A H A L L A V E . W B Y the beginning of the 20th century sparked a transformation of this landscape that continues ▶ Visit the S. S. Red Oak Victory ship in Shipyard #3 .26 mi M A R I N A W A Y Harbor Master A R L and see a ship’s restoration first hand. Call U today. The Marina Bay segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail offers us new opportunities B V O 510-237-2933 or visit www.ssredoakvictory.org. Future site of D to explore the history, wildlife, and scenery of Richmond’s dynamic southeastern shore. B 5 R Rosie the Riveter/ ESPLANADE DR. ▶ Be a bird watcher; bring binoculars. A .3 mi A WWII Home Front .37 mi H National Historical Park Visitor Center Marina Bay Park N Map Legend Sheridan Point I R ▶ MARINA BAY PARK was once at the heart Bay Trail suitable for walking, biking, 4 8 of Kaiser Richmond Shipyard #2.
    [Show full text]
  • RICHMOND FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
    RICHMOND FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Draft Prepared for WETA San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority Pier 9, Suite 111 The Embarcadero San Francisco, CA 94111 Prepared by Atkins 322 Pine Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 May 2014 Draft Contents May 2014 Contents SECTION 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 I. Purpose of this Document........................................................................................ 1 II. Purpose and Need of the Project ............................................................................ 1 III. Project Background ................................................................................................... 3 IV. Scope of this Document ........................................................................................... 4 V. Impact Terminology .................................................................................................. 7 VI. Organization of this Document ............................................................................... 8 VII. Summary of Environmental Impacts ...................................................................... 8 SECTION 2. Project Description ............................................................................................ 17 I. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 17 II. Project
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Year Synthesis with a Focus on Pcbs and Hg
    CLEAN WATER / RMP NUMBER 773 DECEMBER 2015 Sources, Pathways and Loadings: Multi-Year Synthesis with a Focus on PCBs and Hg Prepared by Lester J. McKee, Alicia N. Gilbreath, Jennifer A. Hunt, Jing Wu, and Don Yee San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, California On December 15, 2015 For Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay (RMP) Sources Pathways and Loadings Workgroup (SPLWG) Small Tributaries Loading Strategy (STLS) SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY INSTITUTE | AQUATIC SCIENCE CENTER 4911 Central Avenue, Richmond, CA 94804 • p: 510-746-7334 (SFEI) • f: 510-746-7300 • www.sfei.org THIS REPORT SHOULD BE CITED AS: McKee, L.J. Gilbreath, N., Hunt, J.A., Wu, J., and Yee, D., 2015. Sources, Pathways and Loadings: Multi-Year Synthesis with a Focus on PCBs and Hg. A technical report prepared for the Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay (RMP), Sources, Pathways and Loadings Workgroup (SPLWG), Small Tributaries Loading Strategy (STLS). SFEI Contribution No. 773. San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA. Final Report Executive Summary This report provides a synthesis of information gathered since 2000 on sources, pathways, and loadings of pollutants of concern in the San Francisco Bay Area with a focus on polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and total mercury (Hg). Concentration and load estimates for other pollutants of concern (POC) are provided in the Appendix tables but not supported by any synthesis or discussion in the main body of the report. The PCB and Hg TMDLs for San Francisco Bay call for implementation of control measures to reduce stormwater PCB loads from 20 kg to 2 kg by 2030 and to reduce stormwater Hg loads from 160 kg to 80 kg by 2028 with an interim milestone of 120 kg by 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Datum Errors for West Coast of the United States (California, Oregon, Washington)
    Tidal Datum Errors for West Coast of the United States (California, Oregon, Washington) Standard deviation (or accuracy) of Tidal Datum Computations: The time period necessary to incorporate all of the major astronomical tide producing cycles into the computation of a tidal datum is 19-years. All tidal datums are referenced to specific 19-year National Tidal Datum Epochs (NTDE). First reduction tidal datums are determined directly by averaging values of the tidal parameters over a 19-year NDTE. Errors in determination of tidal datums using First Reduction for the 19-year NTDE are theoretically zero. NTDE datums for short-term subordinate stations are computed and adjusted to a 19-year NTDE equivalent using simultaneous comparison with an appropriate nearby control station (NOS, 2003, Swanson, 1974, and Marmer, 1951). See Gill and Fisher, 2008: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/Technical_Memorandum_NOS_COOPS_0048.pdf for the areas of coverage for tidal datum computation for each National Water Level Observation Network (NWLON) control tide station. Errors in determination of tidal datums at short-term stations through the method of simultaneous comparison are known to be generally correlated with the length if the subordinate station observations, with geographic distance from the control station and with difference in range of tide and time of tide between control and subordinate stations. In applied research performed by Bodnar (1981), multiple curvilinear regression equations estimating the accuracy of computed 19-year equivalent tidal datums were developed. The formulas for Mean Low Water were adopted for use in estimating tidal datum errors because the low water differences express the effects of shallow water and bottom friction better than MHW.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bar Pilots Operations Guidelines For
    SAN FRANCISCO BAR PILOTS OPERATIONS GUIDELINES FOR THE MOVEMENT OF VESSELS ON SAN FRANCISCO BAY AND TRIBUTARIES January, 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ORDERING A PILOT Information Requested When Ordering a Pilot........................................................................................ 4 Recommendations for Tug/Thruster Requirements ................................................................................. 5 SAN FRANCISCO BAR AND BAY General Information ................................................................................................................................ 6 Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................................................ 6 Deep Draft Vessels .................................................................................................................................. 6 Docks and Facilities: Amorco............................................................................................................................. 10 Tesoro Tug and Docking Requirements (Addendum 3) .................................... 24 Anchorage 23 ................................................................................................................... 11 Avon/Martinez Terminal.................................................................................................. 11 Benicia, Port of ................................................................................................................ 11 Oakland Outer and
    [Show full text]
  • Seaports and Marine Oil Terminals
    DRAFT Assessment Chapter Contra Costa County Adapting to Rising Tides Project Seaports and Marine Oil Terminals The Bay Area is home to a significant amount of critical maritime facilities, including San Francisco’s James R. Herman Cruise Ship Terminal, harbor services, commercial fishing, excursion vessels, ship repair, vessel berthing of science, military and other vessels, cargo services, dry docks, ferry terminals in a number of communities that support commuter movement, marine oil terminals and six seaports. The region was built on this kind of maritime activity and this sector, though a smaller component of the economy and society than it once was, is still vitally important to the Bay Area for the jobs, goods and services that the sector provides, the people and goods that are moved within and outside of the region and the opportunities that the sector gives to the region. This section focuses on seaports and the role they play in moving goods in and out of the region, as an employer and as an economic catalyst and incentive for industries to locate in the region. The six seaports in the region, listed in order of the number of calls they receive each year, are located at the Port of Oakland, Port of San Francisco, Port of Richmond, Port of Benicia and Port of Redwood City. Each seaport plays a different role within the region, with the Port of Oakland’s seaport being the fifth busiest container port in the United States and handling 99 percent of the container goods that move through Northern California. The Port of San Francisco has seen a significant shift away from its role in cargo movement and towards other types of maritime uses.
    [Show full text]
  • Record of Decision (Rods)
    EPA/ROD/R09-96/502 1996 EPA Superfund Record of Decision: UNITED HECKATHORN CO. EPA ID: CAD981436363 OU 01 RICHMOND, CA 10/26/1995 RECORD OF DECISION United Heckathorn Superfund Site Richmond, California EPA ID# CAD981436363 PART I - DECLARATION Statement of Basis and Purpose This Record of Decision ("ROD") presents the selected remedial action for the United Heckathorn Superfund Site ("the Site") in Richmond, California. This document was developed in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, ("CERCLA"), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 ("SARA"), 42 U.S.C. §§9601 et seq., and, to the extent practicable, in accordance with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan ("NCP"), 40 C.F.R. Part 300, and the laws of the State of California. This decision is based on the Administrative Record for the Site. The administrative record index identifies the documents upon which the selection of the remedial action is based. Assessment of the Site Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment. Description of the Remedy The United Heckathorn Superfund Site in Richmond, California, was used to formulate pesticides from approximately 1947 to 1966. Soils at the Site and sediments in Richmond Harbor were contaminated with various chlorinated pesticides, primarily DDT, as a result of these pesticide formulation activities. At the time of Site listing in 1990, a visible deposit of pesticide residue containing up to 100% DDT was present on the Lauritzen Channel embankment.
    [Show full text]