Loading...
19960603 CC AGD Work Sessions, Army Corps of Engineers' Feasibility Study L41111111- ANCHO PALOS VERDES REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA WORK SESSION ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 3, 1996 @ 4:00 P.M. CITY HALL COMMUNITY ROOM, 30940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: 1. Audience Comments for agenda and non-agenda items. 2. Workshop to provide the RDA Board with a status update on the Army Corps of Engineers' Feasibility Study. (Ass't. Director Mattingly) Adjournment: Adjourn to 4:00 P.M. Tuesday. June 4 for a budget workshop to be held at Council Chambers, Fred Hesse Community Park. N\GROUPICITYCLRK`AGENDA1060396RD.WPD • 30940 HAWTHORNE BOULEVARD i RANCHO PALOS VERDES. CA 90274/ (213)377-0360 11111 MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: MEMBERS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DATE JUNE 3, 1996 SUBJECT: WORKSHOP ON ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROJECT Attached is an outline for the workshop on the Agency's involvement in the Army Corps of Engineers Feasibility Study on shoreline protection and marine environmental restoration. Representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Charles Abbott organization will be present to explain the study and answer questions. I have also attached several items for additional information. Although these items will not specifically be addressed at the meeting, the Board may find it useful to review the materials prior to the meeting to acquire general background information. Additional Materials: 1.) Executive summary of the environmental restoration project. 2.) Memo dated September 6, 1994. This memo contains some useful background information of the three "phases" of the project. 3.) Memo dated November 8, 1995. This memo gives a good overview of the various tasks and possible alternatives that may be explored. It also gives a listing of tasks (exhibits) and an explanation of the "F3" report and conference. 4.) Map of four boring sites, labeled#1 through #4. 5.) Draft outline of what the Geotechnical Appendix may include. The Agency is responsible for completing the Geotechnical Appendix through contract with Charles Abbott and Associates. 6.) The original task list, timeline, and budget for the responsibilities of the Agency and the Abbott organization through contract. Res ectfully submitted: ed1 PA""-^-6 Brent D. Mattingly Maul D. Bussey Assistant Director Executive Director PRESENTATION OUTLINE FOR RDA WORKSHOP U.S. ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS FEASIBILITY STUDY History of project with Army Corp of Engineers. (Bob Joe) a) Reconnaissance study. b.) Feasibility study. c.) Purpose of the studies. Marine environmental restoration, not landslide stabilization. d.) Scope of alternatives, revetment, dike, breakwater, removal o landslide materials. etc. II. Overview of Feasibility Study. (Bob Joe) a.) Explanation of"Feasibility Study" b.) Original time line c.) Funding mechanism d.) Division of responsibilities e.) F3 conference III. Status report on Army Corp of Engineers tasks. (Anna Zacher) a.) Environmental review, marine survey, sediment survey. Environmental appendix to be prepared by September. b.) Coastal processes, wave analysis, etc. Status of completion of coastal appendix. c.) Real estate analysis. d.) Possible use of NCCP plan data from City. IV. Status report on Geotechnical/Geology tasks to be completed by sponsor. (Charles Abbott) a.) Explanation of contractual relationship with CAA. b.) Task #1- Purpose and status of Dill Marine Engineering study. c.) Task#2- Purpose and status of on-shore drilling of four holes. 1.) Overview map of drilling sites and purpose of drilling. 2.) Postponement of boring at Sacred Cove due to Fish & Game Department. 3.) Analysis of data from completed hole at Portuguese Bend. 4.) Remaining two holes, access difficulties, cost, budget, timing, etc. d.) Task#3- Estimation of amount of landslide material loss. Description of task, how it will be completed, who will do actual work, time line for completion. e.) Task#4- Preparation of draft geotechnical appendix. Description of task, how it will be completed, who will do actual work, time line for completion. f.) Time line for completion of four sponsor tasks. g.) Estimated budget for completion of remaining sponsor tasks. V. Project expenditures to date versus budget. (Brent Mattingly) a.) Original budget. b.) Actual cash and "in-kind" services paid versus budget. VII. Project considerations. (Bob Joe) a.) Overview of Federal process and impact of delays in schedule. Current timing for F3 conference. Importance of meeting schedule and need to prepare realistic time line and budget estimates for completion of remaining tasks. b.) Purpose of F3 conference, future tasks and decision whether to proceed with study. VI. Questions and Answers PALOS VERDES PENINSULA RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CA ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION Shore protection is a pr41ect conceived out pi plans to help stabilize the Portuguese Bend IPBL) and Abalone Cove (ACL), Landslides. However, the greatest benefit of shore,protection is the reestablishment ofhie beautiful native and diverse habitat that once graced the. area. It is a project that will restore 2,000 acres of rocky and sandy intertidal and subtidal habitat where studies have identified the extent and amount of environmental devastation. However, the question most often asked is; "How can an area of this size so impacted be ignored by so many of those mandated to protect it?" The southern shore of the Palos Verdes Peninsula in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (RPV), prior to 1954, was a pristine ecological marine nature preserve. In 1954, PBL began moving and hundreds of acres of marine habitat started disappearing. The ocean eroded the slopes (bluffs) and the waves and currents carried the debris (rocks and soil from the landslide) into this once pristine locale. Today, nearly 2.000 acres of this once resplendent environment is devastated the mud which, covers it. The PBL moved slowly (a few feet per year) for the first 27 years. Because of record rainfall between 1978 and 1983, the movement of the landslide increased to 50 feet per year in 1984. In 1984 the City began an aggressive four component program to stabilize the PBL. The four components were: 0 Installing dewatering wells to lower the water table; 0 Improving surface drainage to prevent runoff from soaking into the ground; 0 Redistribute earth within the landslide to create stabilization forces; and '7 Place rock at the shoreline (shore protection) to prevent the massive erosion (10 million cubic yards since 1954) of the bluffs. Only temporary shore protection could be installed by RPV due to the large cost involved in permanent protection. During the short period of time that the temporary shore protection was in place (approximately 3 years), limited empirical data was gathered which demonstrated that it would prevent erosion and the native marine environment endemic to the Palos Verdes Peninsula, would be naturally restored. la other words. the environmental benefits derived from shore protection to prevent bluff erpsion are far more, beneficial than, the benefits derived from shore protection for stabilization of the landslides. In 1978, approximately 80 acres adjacent to the west side of the PBL began moving, which is commonly referred to as the Abalone Cove Landslide (ACL). This movement was triggered by wave erosion at the coast and the drag ` force exerted by PBL for over 20 years. Although the landslide abatement measures implemented in ACL have stopped this landslide, permanent stabilization is uncertain due to shore erosion. The erosion could trigger renewed movement in the future if it is not abated. In 1980, approximately 60 acres on the eastern side of PBL, referred to as the Klondike Canyon Landslide (KCL), began moving. Like ACL, it too has been abated but still needs permanent shore protection. With these three landslides, over one mile of coastline continues tic be eroded daily and the mud is disbursed over 2.000 acres of once prime coastal waters. With limited outside financial assistance, the City has demonstrated that the landslide can be abated. It also has demonstrated the abatement measures, particularly shore protection, will halt shore erosion and allow this once pristine marine environment to produce again the bountiful and diverse marine habitat that has been destroyed. Approximately, the upper one third of the landslide is not moving today. However, in the lower one third of the landslide (oceanward part of the landslide) the movement was slowed substantially, from = 50 feet per year to 8 feet per year. However, during the past 4 years movement has increased due almost entirely to shore erosion. Currently, the rate of movement in the lower third of the landslide is over 20 feet per year. The City has always known that permanent shore protection was so costly ($15 to $20 million) that additional funding sources would have to be found, i.e. the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. Over the years the Ports have expressed support for restoration of the marine environment as mitigation for Ports expansion. However, the regulatory agencies have not. Since that time most of the regulatory agencies have expressed some degree of support for the PBL shoreline protection mitigation project with the exception of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Army Corps of Engineers has been involved in studying shoreline protection in the PBL since 1988. During this period, the City has reasonably demonstrated that it can stabilize the PBL with the exception of the shore erosion. Additionally, recent federal legislation has mandated that the Corps participate in a cooperative effort with the City to study the feasibility of an environmental restoration (shoreline protection) project. Since nearly two thirds of the PBL can be stabilized without shore protection, the proposed feasibility study will address only environmental restoration through abatement of shore erosion which is within the scope of the Corps of Engineers' mandate. The Corps has already stated in the 1993 Reconnaissance Study Final Report that the primary federal interest in the Portuguese Bend shore protection of 1994 is environmental. In addition to enhancing the marine environment by preventing bluff erosion, a large portion of coastal lands (approximately 100 acres) owned by the City of RPV, has been set aside for habitat restoration for the California Gnatcatcher if the shore protection project is constructed. Therefore, restoring marine habitat means stopping shore erosion and creating a critical habitat for a known sensitive species as well as other animals. N SA 1 n i e 0 It!!MEMORANDUM RCHoPALoSVERDES 10: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DATE. SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 /CLI- --- --- --- ---------- SUBJEGT. U.S.FEASIBILITY STUDYY CORPS F ENGINEERS -_SHORE PROTECTION Staff Coordinator (Geotechnical Work Briefing). - Charies .Abbott:.• RECOMMENDATION: 1. Authorize the Chair and the Secretary to execute an Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct the Shore Protection Feasibility Study at a cost to the RDA not to exceed $800, 000 over the next three years. (The total cost of the Study is estimated not to exceed $1.6 million with the Corps and the RDA sharing in the. costs 50/50. ) 2. Authorize the Chair and the Secretary to execute an Agreement with Charles Abbott Associates to conduct Phase I (Acoustic Profiling and Scuba Mapping) of the Study's geotechnical work at a contract cost not. to exceed $ 60, 000. 3 . Authorize Charles Abbott Associates to begin the Phase I (Acoustic Profiling and Scuba Mapping) work prior to the final signing of the Agreement by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at' a cost not to exceed $60, 000 •.;ith the costs and scope of work subject to final approval by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Executive Director. INTRODUCTION: • At the April 8 , 1994 meeting of the Redevelopment Agency, staff was directed to proceed with negotiations related to the Shore Protection Feasibility Study to be conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Since April, staff has been meeting with the Corps to identify Study tasks to be completed by the Corps and those that will be conducted by the RDA. Any work conducted by the RDA, including work that is awarded by the RDA to a • consultant, would be considered "in-kind" services and may be . deducted from_ the RDA's share of the total study costs. Under_ federal law, these in-kind services may .not exceed 25 percent of the total- study-- costs. With regard to the Shore Protection r Feasibility Study, the RDA's in-kind services may not exceed $400,000. Any in-kind costs above $400,000 would be the responsibility of the RDA to pay in full. 2 40, To that end, the Assistant City Manager, the Director of Public Works, Charles Abbott and Dr. Perry Ehlig, all representing the RDA, have met with the Corps' Project Management, Planning and Geotechnical staffs to negotiate the tasks and the study costs so that the RDA does not exceed the $400, 000 in-kind limit. As a result of those meetings, RDA staff has concluded that the RDA should consider conducting certain geotechnical work and receive in-kind credit. Mr. Abbott and Dr. Ehlig have held further meetings with the Corps Geotechnical staff and have outlined a three phase approach to complete the necessary geotechnical work with the RDA overseeing and conducting Phases I (Acoustic Profiling and Scuba Mapping) and Phase II (On Shore Drilling and Foundation Drilling) . Phase III (Near Shore Subsurface Drilling and Foundation Drilling) is proposed to be conducted by the Corps. BACKGROUND: As indicated previously, RDA staff has met with the Corps staff on several occasions with the goal of finalizing the scope of work outlined in the draft Initial Project Management Plan - IPMP (Exhibit "A") which was previously provided to the RDA Board of Directors in March, 1994. Most recently, RDA staff met with the Corps staff on July 18, 1994 to finalize the scope and cost of the IPMP. The discussion at the meeting centered on the addition of a federally mandated contingency which boosted the potential Study cost to $1. 6 million from $1. 456 million. Additionally, there was considerable discussion on the limits and cost of the services the RDA could perform in the geotechnical area as its in-kind contribution. As a follow up to staff's meeting on July 18th, Dr. Ehlig and Mr. Abbott met with Larry Laura, Chief-Geology Branch, David Lukesh, Engineering Geologist (newly assigned to this project) , and John Bertram, Engineering Geologist (retired from the Corps, but worked on this project for the past year) to determine an agreed upon scope of the geotechnical investigation for the IPMP. The discussion centered on the actual work to be accomplished, why it was needed for shore protection and the cost estimate to perform the investigations. During the meeting, Dr. Ehlig answered questions and briefed Mr. Lukesh on the geologic data already available on both Portuguese Bend and Abalone Cove shorelines and their respective landslides at the shore. The discussions centered on the geologic data eeded fo_ _. __.' :e •rotection, not arias i . e a a eme t was agre= that t e only c•- = • s ou • be n ria a ' any proposed shoreline protection structure (revetment) be- located sufficiently seaward of the toe of the landslide to assure that (7) c-�- 3 after it is constructed the landslide will not destroy it. To achieve this, the slide plane would need to be accurately defined at the toe of the landslide and prove (as was done in Abalone Cove) that no deeper slide surface now exists or likely will exist in the future. To accomplish this, Dr. Ehlig has proposed a three phase approach for the accomplishment of the geotechnical work. Phase I (Acoustic Profiling & Scuba Mapping) : The first phase will be a seismic survey (acoustic profiling) of the ocean bottom in Portuguese Bend to a depth of 200 feet. This same type of survey was done in Abalone Cove to disprove the deeper slide plane theory and we would combine both the new Portuguese Bend survey with the Abalone Cove survey to cover the entire area. This phase should not only indicate that `.here are no deeper slide planes, but provide the information for the most likely location to drill in phase three. The Corps' geotechnical Section agrees, with only a slight modification in the scope of Dr. Robert Dill's proposal, (Dr. Dill did the Abalone Cove profiling and would likely do the work in Portuguese Bend) that this should be the first phase of the geologic investigation. In addition to the acoustic profiling work, the basalt sill out- cropping on Inspiration Point and Portuguese Point will be mapped by a .diver between the two points to determine continuity. This phase is estimated to cost approximately $60, 000 and is proposed to be conducted by the RDA through a contract with CAA. In addition, staff recommends that this phase be authorized to commence prior to the final signing of the Agreement with the Corps to meet the milestones and time line set forth in the :PMP. Phase II (On Shore Drilling & Foundation Drilling) : The second phase proposed by Dr. Ehlig is the on-shore drilling at the zoe of the Portuguese Bend Landslide. This drilling has already been done by the Abalone Cove Technical Panel and consequently the needed information already exists in Abalone Cove. Initially, the Corps had mistakenly assumed that this phase was proposed for landslide analysis only. Dr. Ehlig explained that with this drilling and the phase three near-shore drilling, which was also proposed, the geologic structure would be defined so the toe of the landslide could be accurately established and result in the proper location of the revetment. The Corps staff members were somewhat receptive to this explanation, however they were concerned with the depth of the drilling proposed in both phase two and phase three. Dr. Ehlig further explained his reasoning and his estimation of the depth of the marker beds. It was agreed that the drilling depth would be terminated when the drill ("7:11) C- 3 4 had penetrated twenty to thirty feet into the basalt beds underlying the sixty feet thick bentonitic bed (Portuguese Tuff) that underlies the area. John Bertram had estimated this depth to be approximately one hundred fifty feet. Dr. Ehlig had estimated it to be two hundred fifty feet. Dr. -Ehlig also - estimated that four holes are needed in this phase.; three in Portuguese Bend and one in Smugglers' Cove. Additionally, .Dr. Ehlig indicated that the drilling in phase two would also help to more precisely define the location of the more expensive drilling to be conducted by the Corps in phase three. Staff is proposing that the RDA conduct the phase II work through a contract with CAA. However, at the writing of- this staff report, negotiations with the Corps regarding the phase II works were not complete. Therefore, an amendment to the contract with CAA for the phase II work will be brought back at an upcoming RDA meeting agenda for "consideration by the Board. Phase III (Near Shore Subsurface Drilling & Foundation Drilling) : The third phase of the geologic investigation is the near shore drilling which is within approximately five hundred feet of the shore. This phase will -require a permit from the State Lands Commission and will be conducted by the Corps. Dr. Ehlig Cm) recommended that this phase be accomplished after phases I and II are accomplished to better locate exactly where the near-shore drilling should be done. Again, since this is the most costly of the phases, it will be critical for the Corps to obtain as much data as practical to locate as precisely as possible the drill - holes. Dr. Ehlig has proposed two holes in Portuguese Bend and two holes in Abalone Cove. As indicated earlier, this phase will be conducted by the corps and is not recommended to be a part of the RDA's in-kind services. DISCUSSION: The result of the meeting with Mr. Abbott, Dr. Ehlig and the Corps geotechnical staff was agreement that the phase I work (Acoustic Profiling and Scuba Mapping) should be accomplished prior to phases II and III.' In addition, it was agreed that the phase I work would be best accomplished by the RDA. Furthermore, .it was agreed that a joint meeting with Dr. Dill would be scheduled to draft the scope of work for phase -I that would satisfy the Corps and the RDA. Some progress was made with the Corps Geotechnical Section that drilling on-shore should be necessary for locating the toe of the landslide. However, a word of caution - the Corps has in the past seemingly agreed when presented with data to. support our position, but easily reverted to their original opinion (absent of facts) over time. U In the end, it was agreed that after the acoustic profiling was (5.7 ) L._ti 5 completed, then the amount and location of both on-shore (phase II) and near-shore (phase III) drilling could more easily be determined and better costs estimates defined. ALTERNATIVES: • 1. Allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to perform all of the work related to the Feasibility Study including all of the geotechnical work and direct the RDA staff not to provide any geotechnical assistance. _2. Allow CAA to perform all of the geotechnical work related to the Feasibility Study thereby going over the 25 percent in-kind maximum and increasing the RDA's share of the Study by approximately $120 , 000. 3. Do not proceed with the shore Protection Feasibility Study with the U.S. Army Corps cf Engineers. CONCLUSION: originally, staff had anticipated recommending that the RDA conduct all of the Feasibility Study's geotechnical work. However, staff believes that the three phase approach developed by Dr. Ehlig with concurrence by the Corps is sound, with the RDA committing to conducting phases I and II and the corps completing phase III. In this way, the RDA would be conducting much of the important geologic investigative work, but would not be committing to doing all of the phases which would surely cost more than the in-kind services allowed by the Corps. For this reason, staff recommends that the RDA conduct only phases I and II. Although these services are recommended to be provided through CAA, for Corps purposes they are considered "in-kind" services and will be credited to the RDA's 50 percent cost- sharing contribution to the overall Study costs. FISCAL IMPACT: Original Study costs were estimated at $1. 456 million with the RDA's cash payment/in-kind services share to be approximately $730,000 total. It is still anticipated that the costs will remain at this estimate. However, new Corps policy requires a contingency amount to be added which has increased the overall Study cost to $1. 6 million with the RDA's cash payment/in-kind services not to exceed $800,000 total. Sufficient funds have been budgeted in the FY 1994-95 budget to cover the first year cost to the RDA for the Study if the staff recommendation or alternative number one is selected. Should the 6C-11; Board select alternative number two, however, a budget adjustment of approximately $120, 000 would need to be made. Respectfully submitted: ( ,) -�--, Pamela W. Antil "fir Assistant City Manager Rev • Paul D. Bussey Executive Director PA/CA/pa pa:c:corps.mem Deet- MEMORANDUM RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: HONORABLE CHAIR& MEMBERS OF THE AGENCY BOARD FROM: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER ATE NOVEMBER 8, 1995 SUBJECT: SHORELINE PROTECTION FEASIBILITY STUDY RECOMMENDATION Authorize the continuation of the Shoreline Protection Feasibility Study currently being jointly conducted by the Redevelopment Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by selecting Scenario A-2 (Continue Study to F-3 Report Milestone) as described in the body of this report. INTRODUCTION Funds were appropriated for use by the United State Army Corps of Engineers by the Congress. in accordance with the 1993 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act to initiate what is now-referred to as the Rancho Palos Verdes Shore Protection Feasibility Study(study). An Initial Project Management Plan (IPMP) was completed by the Corps staff and served as the basis of the cost sharing and project task negotiations between the Corps and the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) staff. Since the Panel of Experts had previously identified shoreline protection as an essential priority for landslide stabilization, the RDA Board authorized participation with the Army Corps in the study in April 1994. These negotiations were completed later in the fall of 1994 and an Agreement between the RDA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was officially signed for the study which was scheduled to be completed over a period of 3.5 years. Although the purpose of this memo is to discuss the alternatives related to the study, in light of the fact that the 1996 federal appropriations bill does not include Corps funding for the 2nd year of the study, staff believes it may be useful to outline the history of the study under the "BACKGROUND" portion of this report. Current issues and alternatives before the Board are outlined under the "DISCUSSION" portion of this report. BACKGROUND The study purpose as defined by the Corps in the IPMP is to focus the feasibility study " ..on a solution that would reduce shore erosion, sedimentation, and turbidity at the Rancho Palos •; Verdes coastline..." at Abalone Cove and Portuguese Bend. The study does not analyze or address a solution to the landslide problem and will not develop a Corps position on whether the >1 anion►4AWTHARNF RAULEVAR❑/RANCHO PALOS VERDES.CA 90275-5391 /(310)377.0380/FAX(310)3779868 • 2 *4410 landslide is stabilizing based on shore protection improvements, since "landslide stabilization" is not within the Corps overall mission. Rather. the study seeks to recommend a plan of shore protection measures to prevent the ongoing damage to the shoreline from coastal erosion by storm, wave, and tidal events and the continued erosion and deposition of material in the marine habitat. However, since shoreline protection was identified by the Panel of Experts as a priority for landslide stabilization, the shore protection measure(s)ultimately recommended by the Corps to restore the marine environment would more than likely also enhance the RDA's landslide stabilization efforts. Specifically, the Corps will study the following alternatives for shore protection at Abalone Cove and Portuguese Bend: 1) Revetment 2) Gabions 3) Gabions and Submerged Breakwater 4) Breakwater 5) Dikes 6) Other* *(Other alternatives may be identified as the study progresses.) The study of these alternatives was separated into several major study elements. Primarily, these elements include: general study administration, public involvement, environmental studies, recreational studies, economic studies, geotechnical studies. design studies, hydrologic and hydraulic studies and coastal studies. The RDA had two options with regard to funding the study. The first option was to allow the Corps to conduct all of the tasks associated with the major elements of the study and pay S800,000 in cash contributions to the Corps over the course of the study. The second option was to conduct a portion of the tasks as "in-kind" services. Since the RDA's contracted staff through Charles Abbott Associates and the City's geologist. Dr. Perry Ehlig were more knowledgeable than the Corps staff regarding the geology of the study area, the RDA Board selected the second option and directed the RDA staff to negotiate the completion of the majority of tasks associated with the geotechnical studies by the RDA's contracted staff as "in-kind" services. By opting to conduct some of the work as "in-kind" services, the RDA will retain some control over the geotechnical studies that are critical to the outcome of the study. With that in mind, Charles Abbott. Dr. Perry Ehlig, the Director of Public Works and the Assistant City Manager participated in a series of meetings with the Corps staff to identify geotechnical study tasks to be completed by the Corps and those that would be conducted by RDA contracted staff. As indicated previously, any work conducted by the RDA, including work that is awarded by the RDA to a consultant, would be considered "in-kind" services and be credited as such by the Corps. Under federal law, these in-kind services may not exceed 25 percent of the total study costs. With regard to the Rancho Palos Verdes Shore Protection Oer' 3 Feasibility Study, the RDA's in-kind services could not exceed $400,000 (25 percent of$1.6 million). As a result of the meetings with the Corps staff, Mr. Abbott and Dr. Ehlig outlined a'three phase approach to complete the necessary geotechnical work with the RDA overseeing and conducting Phase I(Acoustic Profiling and Scuba Mapping).and Phase II(Onshore Drilling). Phase III (Offshore Drilling)is-proposed to-be conducted by the Corps -see attached task breakdowns for "Sponsor" (RDA) and "EK10" (Corps' Geology Section), see Exhibits "A" and "B" (attached). The scope of work was finalized in the Fall of 1994 by RDA and Corps staff. The tasks to be conducted as in-kind services on behalf of the RDA were authorized by the RDA Board of Directors to be conducted by Charles Abbott Associates(CAA) and are outlined in more detail on the attached task breakdown marked "Sponsor." However, a significant portion of the work outlined in the "Sponsor" task breakdown scheduled to be completed in FY 1995 and FY 1996 by CAA will be or has been subcontracted to other firms specializing in specific types of tasks. Should the study continue, CAA will continue to subcontract other'specialized tasks, where appropriate. Although the services outlined in the "Sponsor" task list have been or will be conducted by CAA and the firm's subcontractors, for Corps purposes they are considered "in- kind" services and will be credited to the RDA's 50 percent cost-sharing contribution to the overall Study costs. • To date, a significant portion of work has been completed or scoped by the Corps and CAA to be completed by June 1996 (the end of the City's fiscal year). CAA has completed the Phase I • (Acoustical Profiling& Scuba Mapping) field work, as well as the accompanying report. The data and report have been submitted to the Corps. Phase II work related to the onshore drilling has been scoped and several meetings have been held with the Corps to gain their input with regard to this portion of the RDA's in-kind services. Should the RDA Board select to continue with the study, CAA anticipates completing the onshore drilling by early spring 1996. The Corps has also made significant progress through October 1995. Together, with the completion of our scheduled in-kind services and the Corps' progress to date, we have reached two of the identified milestones in the IPMP. The first feasibility milestone, or F-1, was reached with the completion of the IPMP work plan and the signing of the joint Agreement in December 1994. The.secondfeasibility study milestone, or F-2, was reached with the scheduling and conduction of the public information workshop held at Hesse Park in April 1995. In addition,the Corps has completed most of the biological survey field work(summer/fall), real estate studies, wave analysis, draft baseline maps(nearshore area) and thescope of work for the sediment studies. The completion of the Corps field work and RDA in-kind services, including the onshore drilling work will place the study at the next milestone, which is the completion of the F-3 Report. The F-3 Report will identify and preliminarily evaluate the proposed alternatives, in response to the data gathered through the spring of 1996. In addition, the F-3 Report will determine whether any alternative would be successful to decrease the erosion of sediment and turbidity to, ultimately, l3 Dr3 bac 4 0 restore the environment. Further, the F-3 Report will provide a clearer understanding of the landslide as it is related to the study area coastline. Finally, the F-3 Report will provide the necessary data to provide to the resource agencies (US Fish&Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries, State Fish& Game, etc.)to gain agreement regarding the value of the potential habitat if restored. . DISCUSSION • In addition to the City's need to annually budget for the continuation of the study, the Corps requires a yearly Congressional appropriation to pay for their portion of the study. Unfortunately, the Corps did not receive funding for the federal FY 1996 (October 1, 1995 -September 30, 1996). However, since the study began approximately four months into the federal FY 1995, the Corps has reported that some carryover funds exist to complete some tasks in FY 1996 without the requested appropriation. Specifically, the carryover funds, along with a portion of the RDA's budgeted cash contribution and in-kind services, will be sufficient for the Corps to reach the F-3 . milestone in the spring of 1996. However, it has been suggested that since funding was not appropriated in FY 1996 and it is unknown if funds will be appropriated in FY 1997 to complete the study, the RDA Board may wish to discuss whether or not to continue with the study at all. Specific study alternative are discussed below. Additional information related to the alternatives • has been provided by the Corps and is attached as Exhibits "C" and "D." (;) Alternatives: , 1. Corps Scenario A-1 (Terminate Study) In this alternative, the study would be terminated (technically)effective September 30, 1995; the end of the federal FY 1995. Should this alternative be selected, it has been reported that it would be highly unlikely that the RDA would be successful in having the Corps re-start the study in FY 1997. In other words, should the RDA select this alternative it would, in effect, permanently terminate,the study. The work that would be completed through the September 1995 termination date would include the items listed under, "A-1 Work Completed To Date" on Exhibit "C" (attached). , Under this alternative, the RDA would still be responsible for inkind services totaling$131,000 and a cash contribution of$131,000. Total RDA study costs under this scenario are $262,000. To date, the RDA has contributed in cash and inkind(CAA)services totaling approximately $191,000 towards the study, leaving a balance of approximately $71,000 to be paid to terminate the study. This payment may be accomplished in the form of a cash payment to the Corps or a combination of cash and inkind services. 2. Corps Scenario A-2 (Continue Study to F-3 Report Milestone) In this alternative, the study would progress to complete the F-3 Report in the spring of 1996. Q Should this alternative be selected, all of the A-1 alternative items listed in Exhibit "C"will be 5 completed, as well as the following key sections of the study including: a) Preliminary identification and evaluation of shore protection alternatives: b) Coastal engineering appendix (wave analysis, erosion/deposition study); c) Geotechnical appendix(landslide movement/deposition, landslide plane and toe, estimate of future landslide movement); and d) Environmental appendix(physical/chemical quality of benthic area, evaluation of existing habitat value, identification of potential habitat values, impacts of alternative plans). For additional details related to the F-3 Report, see Exhibit "D." Further, by continuing the study towards the completion of the F-3 Report, the RDA's inkind services would include the completion of the onshore drilling tasks. Currently, there is no subsurface data available along the toe of the landslide in the vicinity of the drill holes proposed by Dr. Ehlig (see attached memo from Dr. Ehlig marked Exhibit "E" attached). The subsurface data is necessary to plan the location of any shoreline protection measure. Finally, the completion of the F-3 Report will place the study and potential project in a position to be considered a Corps environmental restoration project. If designated as an environmental restoration project, the study may then be eligible for additional Corps funding through transfers from other contingencies to our project. Under the A-2 alternative, the RDA would be responsible for inkind and cash contributions totaling $450,000. Again, the RDA has already spent approximately $191,000 (cash+ inkind) to date leaving a balance of approximately $259,000 to be paid during the RDA's 1995-96 fiscal year towards the study to get to the F-3 milestone_ This payment would be accomplished through inkind services totaling approximately $170,000 and a cash payment to the Corps of approximately S89.000 during the RDA's 1995-96 fiscal year. The 1995-96 RDA Budget includes approximately $440,000 for the study. The monies necessary to reach the F-3 milestone would be approximately 70% of what was budgeted. CONCLUSION The completion of the F-3 Report is a natural stopping point in the study, given the Corps financial restraints in FY 1996. The F-3 Report will provide the preliminary data necessary to determine if a project is possible and if the rest of the study should be completed. In addition. by completing the F-3 Report, the study is placed in a better position to be reclassified by the Corps as an environmental restoration project, thereby creating an opportunity for possible transfer funding. Further, by continuing the study at this time the RDA may complete the onshore drilling work from which we will receive important data related to the landslide plane and landslide toe which would be beneficial to the RDA's landslide abatement activities, regardless of the status of the study. For these reasons, staff recommends the continuation of the study at this time. (1.5— D^5 6 FISCAL IMPACT: Ca) The fiscal impact of the alternatives was discussed in more detail above. Funds were budgeted for the continuation of the study in the 1995-96 RDA budget. Either scenario will result in spending less funds than originally anticipated during the preparation of the 1995-96 budget. Respectfully Submitted: • Pamela W. Antil i Assistant City Manager ,/ Reviewed: Paul D. Bussey City Manager • pa/m:rda:feasopt.mem Q • • 0 6.2?-) t7— QUOZ • 10:18/05 11:53 T`21359.4 0243 CESPL-PD • f.. ,� -_.- .i•-••. • -- .y,...: 1.• ..$' ..,;•• •• . Y- .. - .- ... .. • E _i-1 181 T- '/ I . : • .0 SCENARIO. A-l. STUDY TERMINATED.• .. Funds spent:':or• obligated to:date: • • (.end•of Sept 95). Expend Oblig • FCSA/IPMP costs 1994 $ 80,000 $ - Fed Expenditures 1995 200,000 103,000 (marine surveys . • & FW5) Non-Fed Cash Expend 1995 59,000 . Non-Fed In-Kind Comp 82.000 - • - - Sub-Total $ .421,000 $103,000 • . Total. $524,000 . _ Adjustment for 50-50 Cost sharing . .Total Spent to date - $524,000 50 percent-Federal - $262,000 . 50.•per.:cent' non-Fed - $262.0.00 • •• •iriki nd required - $131.000 (Credit $82,000) Owe $49,000 Cash required - $131,000 (Cash $109.000) Owe $22,000 . • © • . . — . • Total owed by City $71,000 • o A-1•WORK •COMPLtiEU TO DATE • - -' Public Meeting and scoping process . Condition survey and data compilation - Draft baseline map of nearshore area - USFWS. FY 1995 contract (initiation of coordination) - Biological surveys contract - Biological surveys #1 Csurrtner/faI l ) . Counts of infaunal (worms in the• sediment) , intertidal invertebrates, hard bottom species and fishes. The fall/winter season #2 surveys will also be conducted to .complete contract - Real Estate -ownership/base map - Acoustical Profiling (in-kind contribution) . Continuous line recordings of subbottom reflections were interpreted to provide seismic stratigraphy and possible evidence of present or ancient landslides oceanward of the present shoreline of Portuguese Bend landslide. - Onshore drilling scope of work, coring to identify slide • 1 Lr � • :•., .. . . • . il. D-1 1U/15/u5 11:53 6`213 884 U243 CESPL-YD !Juus • eXHI81r " C"• ; 0 . . plane and obtain rock samples. to determine physical competence.of bedrock. A contract is to.be subsequent let. - Sediment study scope of work to determine extent and . depth of Portuguese Bend landslide sediment in nearshore area. Incl Ades bio and chemical testing. • • • • • • • (;) • • 2 10/1895 11:54 /2213 894 0243CESPL-PD .,. . r : . . E'XHieir " a " - ... . . . . . • :*. CD c) SCENARIO A-.2. Effort'Required to complete F-3 checkpoint. Sponsor .inkind services Prepare contract onshore drilling - $2,000 Inspect onshore dri lli ng work - $5.000 Onshore Drilling contract -•_ $110,000 .Geotech Coordination mtgs - $5,000 . ' Lab tests for onshore drilling - $10.000 . Prepare onshore drilling logs - '$5,000 Define amount of-Landslide material - $15,000 lost from erosion .Prepare draft geotech-appendix - $7,000 Study Management - $11.000 ' Total - $170;000 . corps Work . Geotech - Inspect Onshore drill .,text - $3,500 Geotech - Review Onshore drill logs/final report - ' $2,000 Geotech - Geotech meetings 1/2 year - $2,900 Geotech - Define slide material eroded - $15,000 Geotech - Draft geotech appendix - $7,000 PPMD .- Program development 1/2.year $6,000 PPMD - .Project mgttt 1/2 year - $6,500 c) StudyrMgmt .- Tech management 1/2 year - $8,000 Env - Sediment studies contract $75,000 Env. -- Environmental. Baseline Appendix - $10.000 Env- - Without project HEP/HU- $2,500 . Env - PAL/FWS $15.000 Coastal - Development Sediment 'Budget $16,000 Coastal - Define erosion/profile $15,000 Coastal - Define conceptual alternatives $4.000 Coastal - Coastal baseline appendix $8,000 Plan form - Define problems and needs $3.000 Plan form - Define planningobjectives etc. $3,000 Plan form - Define alternative concepts $3.000 Plan form - Prepare/hold F-3, • $2,000 • Report Prep- Prepare F-3 report $10,000 TOTAL - • $207,000 ($40,000 Non-Fed carryover+$167,000 Fed) , 3 ci ' ' • • 1 . 0 I)^9 @j005 10/18/95 11:54 %2213 894 0245 CESPL-PD Exft,$1 t.• .Q. ..Summary of Study. Funds and,:Cost Sharing Adjustment • Q • .• . .. .. FY:94 . FY95 FY96 Total Federal $80.000 $303,000 $167,000 $550,000 . Non-Federal inkind $. 82,000 $170,000 $252,000 . . Non--Federal Cash $ 59.000 $ 40,000 $109,000 Total -$80,000 $444,000 $377,000 $901,000 • .50%:Federal• • • ' $450.000 Non-Fed. rnki nd ' $252,000 Non-Fed Cash • $198,000 (Less $109.000—$89,000 needed) • o• The F-3 report will 'document the results of the above studies to allow a Checkpoint Review to direct further study effort .if desired: The purposes of the F-3 Checkpoint Review are: • 1. Review the refined data and analysis of physical conditions, and environmental conditions that are impacting study area. . ' •. - 2. Further .defi ne problems and needs involving (a) the physical rel ati onshi ps .including potential sediment movement from the landslide and erosion and deposition of material in the marine area that is causing the problem. and (b) :impacts of the problem on environmental conditions to determine the magnitude of environmental degradation measured by Habitat values. and potential benefits from-restoring the environment. 3. A preliminary identification of alternative measures to reduce or prevent the problem to include an evaluation of the possible effectiveness, rough cost estimate, and issues needed to addressed during further design studies for those alternatives . that warrant consideration for implementation. • • • 4 • • • • 0 10/18/95 11:55 $213 894 0243 CESPL-PD • 008 ' ' eXHIA/7- II 0" . . . . • (a) .-..:, ... The F-3, Report wi l i nc7 ude: - Main• Report a: summarize Study authorization; purpose; previous studies and - reports: Description of study area physical , economic, and • environmental conditions: problems and needs, and preliminary • planformulation including planning objectives and list and . • •i.m ti al evaluation of alternative measures, . Coastal' .Appendix 0 - a. Wave Climate and energy transport analysis b. Historic Erosion and deposition in study area - • c. Sediment budget' describing relationships of landslide deposition and erosion, and deposition in the marine environment. d. Identification and evaluation of alternative, measures including issues needed to be addressed in future design studies. . Geotechnical Appendix . . e. Geologic Characteristics of study area . b. Description of historic landslide movement and deposition c.. Description of landslide physical location including landslide plane -and.toe. and general description of mechanics. c) . d. Physical description of boring logs, materials, and sediment depths, and characteristics e. Estimate of a range of continued future landslide movement Environmental. Appendix - • a. Description of environmental characteristics of study area including air and water quality, cultural and historic resources. benthic material .quality, biological resources. noise. recreation, etc. b. Analysis of physical and chemical quality of benthic area c. Evaluation of existing habitat value of study area and adjacent areas not impacted by material deposition and turbidity based on-coordinated effort with US Fish and Wildlife, National ' Marine Fisheries, State Fish and Game, Corps biologists , and contracted 'experts_ d. Identification of potential habitat values from possible restoration activities based on comparing impacted and non- impacted sites. e. Preliminary identify impacts from alternative plans. • 5 •. .• ,....:•/,. ,,, . • ,i• .,..,..,-.---- - -.- .'f-• •; 411 ...0,IN eik ..----_,_. IF .. st. ----(Q:4,, • i • -47 . .K,..• ' 'al se .-- ,---. gill ''.3 ir.1:,,e s, 1 .... 375 ,. 4 , ----..-- ." St 3-50 1= \el • :1" ::.°11111, it eel au . 11' ... • ‘ 4.• '. 44' fig, A 1 2!i ..._ -... - . . •:. ,(1 • • "` - iid licwlird'--- *-------: (. _i :-. • 4• — , • - :-- ..S111/Siilir • 45.6 Iv -it . '..:: , 250 16 : c IA 4 *A • . •A, • - A • \.,,N'Ns. tie . , mil 1I • ...,„ - .t. t . .dir k•!....;•'-• /:.:z. .0 .. . „.. - .. ... .,.:., ' .A 4.4 • i ------ 200 ...,.....____. . •:. , • 777----\ .‘ ' --7.s. V ."4 --1— A • - Ill \\ V4 _S ai I .or ... Ikt, •!.---,-.1111 • 11 ' - — I--------- 125------_, .. .,' .1 • 16 - Di/. : • . 0 4.• 1 r __..I _ •• • . ----I-67 --wesut:."111111141ide -41 r ll'l.:•:.:_c.711,114, -.,. 5Ie1752o5° . %. -. .. 9•-) ) i., •s .• , . \.. ...- . ... - . ___•,----45". IA ...___ ...:. , i - - ' :r. . western .4 A • . - .: •:-- — ' ‘ • . •• • — :: c • • • irriii - 1 .4 , subslide A. • al ' • ./.:. ..., -;.•, ' :- I ,.... ' • :. ;:. : 1.1•,. i•-::' i • I ii; • .,, -: I• ' .'' ,--7.-- -.. •) , -_____ i • \ , -4-,:0 0 -- - , - ;.,,r- ,, .' • \ .., -25 • ...-- ' . A LC \ • *: ( s. . % ' se --....„ - . N Cil , Selp ..)1 StiVI"S . Wail Vs— :..,, • . /•''''. cz 1 • govr____ „ v.,::-,,.:,,,.. • ..• i : \ ....0).B1...A.• A Tilli !i_d_e_.....„ . •• i • 4,- ' . • N r A.A.AA•r" 14444 • 4„• .4 • !. r I-4 • . .!.' •. i N 511(44 0 -.4--3- . di 44444_ C-"--1 .0,.,••••• 4' .• r 4.4'• *•1 . N C OA I s":"/ 4`.• •,, ii . ..i..i , 14444_ i,--. • , as* • 44,4 1,414/4;9,i PO;set • 5„ ‘ • --.- 1(• ... re tovkarrUJINI\ 0 ,___, 500 Ptyrturg34.. .E em..4, clap 111 Fed ItcAn+ .. ..9 • - t .. . -_, C . , ______.......... . ..........._ . .. . ._ RANCHO .PALOS VERDE SUGGESTED GEOTECHNICAL APPENDIX 1. INTRODUCTION Purpose and Scope Project Description and Location 2. GEOLOGY Regional Geology Landslide Geology and Geomorphology Faulting and Seismicity Ground Water Review of Previous Geologic Studies 3. OFFSHORE INVESTIGATIONS Side-scan Sonar Survey - Dill study Seismic Surveys - Dill study Summary of Findings 4. ONSHORE DRILLING Purpose Shoreline Boring Diamond Core Log - Dipmeter and Gamma Logs Correlation with Previous Borings and Offshore Seismic Surveys Summary of Findings 5. LANDSLIDE GEOMETRY Location of Toe a. Historic b. Projected (based on exploration) Historic Slide Movement Rates Current Slide Movement Rates Projected Future Slide Movement Rates Mechanism of Shore Erosion and Debris Production 6. FOUNDATION ANALYSIS V • Potential Foundation Sites Relationship to Landslide Toe Analysis of Stability and Maintenance Requirements 7 RANCHO PALOS VERDES PROJECT, SPONSOR Task t Milestone list 6-Oct-1994 Page 1 jask name peScdP1j9.1] EariJe/I Start Eeratii Haiti LetesLJjr1Ijh ,41eck Code gespon,fbtg filmed duretioq Pin_tote( cost ACOUSTIC CON PREPARE ACOUSTIC/SCUBA 15-Dec-1994 20-Dec-1994 22-Dec-1994 2.00 Dys W 22K SPONSOR 3.00 Dys U 2000.00 CONTRACT • GEO REV/SITE G0E DATA REVIEW/SITE RECON 15-Dec-1994 22-Dec-1994 22-Dec-1994 0.00 Dya W 22K SPONSOR 5.00 Dys W 9000.00 AC JS PROF ACOUSTIC PROFILING/SCUBA 22•Dec-1994 6-Jan•1995 6•Jen-199S 0.00 Dys W 22K SPONSOR 10.00 Dys W 40000.00 CITY MGNTFTI CITY NM OF COSTS, INKIND 27-Dec-1994 3-Oct-1995 29-Jut-1996 206.00 Dys u 220 SPONSOR 194.00 Dys W 11000.00 SERVICE,MTGS, REVIEW GEO MTGS FYI GEO COORDINATION/HTGS FYI 27-Dec-1994 3.Oct-1995 29-Jut-1996 206.00 Dys W 22K SPONSOR 194.00 Dys U 5000.00 SUM GEO DATA PREPARE SUMMARY OF GEO DATA 6-Jen-1995 4-Apr-1995 4•Apr-1995 0.00 Dys W 22K SPONSOR 60.00 Dya W 5000.00 VIBRACORECON PREPARE VIBRACORE CONTRACT 4•Apr-1995 16-Apr-1995 18•Apr-1995 0.00 Dys W 22K SPONSOR 10.00 Dys W 2000.00 VIBRA DRILL VIBRACORE DRILLING 18-Apr-1995 I6-May•1995 16-May-1995 0.00 Dys u 22K SPONSOR 20.00 Dys W 20000.00 LAB TEST V18 LAB TEST ON VIBRACORE SAMPLES 16-May-1995 31-May-1995 31-May-1995 0.00 Dys U 22K SPONSOR 10.00 Dys W 10000.00 PRE VIB RPT PREPARE PRE-VIBRACORE SUMMARY 31-May-1995 25-Jun-1995 28-Jun•1995 0.00 Dys u 22K SPONSOR 20.00 Dys W 3000.00 RPT DDRILLING CON PREPARE CONTRACT ONSHORE 13-Jul-1995 20-Jul-1995 20-Jui-1995 0.00 Dys u 22K SPONSOR 5.00 Dys U 2000.00 DRILLING OS DRILL INS INSPECT ONSHORE DRILLING TEST 20-Jul-1995 3-Aug-1995 16-Oct-1995 50.00 Dys U 22K SPONSOR 10.00 Dys W 5000.00 ONSHOREDRILL ONSHORE DRILLING/TESTING 20-Jui-1995 16-Oct-1995 16-0e1-1995 0.00 Dys W 22K SPONSOR 60.00 Dys W 120000.00 CITY MGMTFY2 CITY MGMT INKIND SERVICES, 3-Oct-1995 1.Oct•1996 29-Jul-1997 206.00 Dys W 220 SPONSOR 251.00 Dys W 11000.00 REVIEWS, MTGS, COORDINATION GEO MTGS FY2 GEO COORDINATION/MTGS FY2 3.Oct-1995 1-Oct-1996 29-Ju(-1997 206.00 Dys u 22K SPONSOR 251.00 Dys W 5000.00 LAB TESTS OS LAB TESTS FOR ONSHORE DRILLING 16-Oct-1995 30.Oct•1995 30-Oct-1995 0.00 Dys u 22K SPONSOR 10.00 Dys W 10000.00 PREP LOGS PREPARE ONSHORE DRILL LOGS 30-Oct-1995 6-Nov-1995 6-Nov-1995 0.00 Dys W 22K SPONSOR 5.00 Dys W 5000.00 EROZSLID REL DEFINE AMOUNT OF LANDSLIDE 6-Nov-1995 21-Nov-1995 21-Nov-1995 0.00 Dys U 22K SPONSOR 10.00 Dys U 15000.00 MATERIAL LOSS FROM EROSION OFT GEO APP PREPARE DRAFT GEOTECII APPENDIX 21-I1ov-1995 20-Dec-1995 20-Dec-1995 0.00 Dys U 22K SPONSOR 20.00 Dys W 7000.00 1 li) ir i RANCHO PALOS VERDES PROJECT, SPONSOR Task L Milestone List 6-Oct-1994 Page 2 Issk name Dcsctlpt Pn Earliest mart larljett finish latest finish Slack Cods_ Responsjbje Planne4 duration Pin total cost OFFSHORE INS INSPECT OFFSHORE DRILLING 10-May-1996 17-Hay-1996 17-Jun-1996 20.00 Dys u 22K SPONSOR 5.00 Dys u 5000.00 U8 OFFORILL LAS ANALYSIS OFFSHORE DRILLING 17-Jin-1996 16-Jul-1996 16-Jul-1996 0.00 Dys N 22K SPONSOR 20.00 Dys N 10000.00 DRILL LOGS DRILLING LOG OFFSHORE AREA 16-Ju1-1996 23-Jul-1996 30-Jul-1996 5.00 Dys U 22K SPONSOR 5.00 Dys W 5000.00 CITY MGMTFY3 CITY MGM INKING 1-Oct-1996 30-Sep-1997 28-Ju(-1998 206.00 Dys W 22Q SPONSOR 250.00 Dys N 8000.00 SERVICES,REVIEW,MEETINGS,COORO IN GEO MTGS FY3 GEO COORDINATION/MTGS fY3 1-Oct-1996 30-Sep-1997 28-Jut-1998 206.00 Dys u 22K SPONSOR 250.00 Dys u 5000.00 Total $320 ,000 ( --j2/11) \_.