LBPOST.com: Breakwater Study Released

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Breakwater Study Released

by Ryan ZumMallen | Long Beach News | 07.23.09 |

| Text Size:

The study conducted by a local engineering firm determines several methods by which the breakwater could be modified, potentially re-introducing waves and earning the City up to $52 million annually in tourism revenue.

A summary of the major findings reveals that engineering firm Moffatt & Nichol (commissioned by the City of Long Beach to produce the study) has found multiple ways in which the breakwater may be reconfigured in order to improve water quality and possibly even re-introduce waves to Long Beach shores.

In total, the report consists of a 162-page final analysis (click here to download), a 71-page project management plan (click here to download), and a 5-page executive summary (click here to download).

From the summary:

Summary of Major Findings

The study identifies a number of potential solutions/alternatives to improve the ecosystem.
Moffatt & Nichol identified five basic alternatives to analyze for potential costs and benefits.
Complete removal of the breakwater is not recommended in the study as a feasible option, as there are too many negative impacts that cannot be effectively mitigated in a cost-effective manner.
The study alternatives range in construction cost from approximately $10 million to $310 million.
The study alternatives range from creating wave heights of 0 times to 4 times current size in some areas of the shoreline.
The study alternatives can create up to 500 acres of kelp bed and up to 300 acres of rocky reef habitat from removed breakwater sections.
The study does not conclude if there is or is not federal interest, as that function can only be performed by the Army Corps. The study does provide evidence that many of the alternatives considered could both restore the ecosystem and create recreational value.
Some of the Breakwater reconfigurations have a potential for significant wave energy increases to existing Port infrastructure, THUMS oil islands, Navy anchorage, and City beaches that would require mitigation.
If the goal is solely hard bottom habitat ecosystem restoration, then importing rock to create kelp beds and rocky reef habitat is most cost effective; however, that solution would not address the City�s goals of improved water quality, renewing the City�s beaches, or increasing wave activity.
The City of Long Beach could gain increases of up to $52 million per year in local spending and economic activity, and potentially up to $6.7 million per year in taxes and parking fees and fines for the maximum recreation improvement scenario.
By redirecting the mouth of the Los Angeles River, water quality could likely be improved along the shoreline with or without changes to the Breakwater.
All five alternatives examined could provide significant ecosystem restoration and some had recreational benefits exceeding the construction costs; however, four of the five alternatives cost more to build than the SCE Wheeler Kelp Reef on a cost-per-acre basis, due to the costs of reconfiguring the Breakwater or building the LA River training structure.
Moffatt & Nichol estimate that a Feasibility study phase (to be conducted by the Army Corps) would cost approximately $7 million and take four years to complete. The City of Long Beach would be responsible for funding 50 percent of the cost of the study, which could consist of a mix of non-federal funding sources.

Comments

Click Here to Join the Discussion on this Story

30 Comments so far.

lbresident
Just read it. All options are ok with me except doing nothing. 2a at first hunch looks to be the best from a cost/benefit analysis. LB citizens, vote for officials who will take the lead on getting this done!

mooreleaguewatcher
The breakwater is unnatural and needs to be reduced as outlined in the study in order to naturally clean up the shoreline. Do It, and hurry up before I get to old to appreciate it!!!

Live in Long Beach
I'm confused...we spent money on a study that we already knew the answer too? And now, another study costing $7.0M is needed to tell us the same thing? This part of politics I fail to understand.

Robert
Clean water without increased wave size would help the eco-system to some degree but would do nothing for restoring the beach for the thousands of residence that now travel to Seal Beach, Bolsa Chica and Huntington Beach. "Sink the Breakwater - Bring Back The Waves"

Dave in Alamitos Beach
I'm only on about page 20, but so far I'm all for the MIS - Maximum Improvement Scenario.

Mary Lou Hein
Okay, let's do the math...4 years just for a feasibility study....a probable 10 years for the actual work (minimum)...sadly, if it comes to fruition, many of us won't be around.....but for our kids, the coming generations and the city of LB...I say "Wahoo" get crackin'!It's the smartest step LB can take for revival and survival! MLH

Dave in Alamitos Beach
So if I've gotten this figured out correctly, the Maximum Improvement Scenario would cost $310 million? And the maximum estimated benefit to Long Beach is about $50 million per year? So reconfiguration pays off in six year?! Or even ten years? Um, that's a pretty easy math question.

Selling on the Peninsula
So I guess its time to sell the house on the peninsula as a good winter storm will wipe it out if the barrier is gone. Walk down there during a good winter storm and say you arent glad the breakwater is there!

Garry
Their the go again, a few wealthy home owners in the Pennisula should have all of Long Beach pay the price for not reducing pollution, not generating income for the city and not leaving the city better for the kids after decades on poor environmental vision. I can excuse the poor environmental vision before we knew better, but give me a break on those who want to protect their wealthy homes at the expense of a better quality of life in Long Beach. Surely, we've learned something after all these years, other than just greed.

lbresident
selling on the peninsula, STOP the unjustified fear mongering. Get with the program! Long Beach is about to turn the corner to brighter days...

long beach servant
This is just like the Queen Mary, in which Long Beach likes to re-invest in loosing things. Look at the QM is has been in bankruptcy three times?!?!?!

ryan
People how live on the Peninsula, should have none the risk of living that close to the ocean, kinda like buying a home in the Airport flight path then complaining about airplane noise. The breakwater has caused the sand to errod from the beach, and I get tired of the city spending money to protect your home, You the homeowners should pay for that... Also, why does it seem Moffit and Nichol are always the ones hired in the city? who palm are they greasing?

Belmont Shore Res.
Who cares about the Peninsula. It's a small loss for what should have been done a long time ago. The eco-system has needed help for many years and it's time do something about it. I also totally agree with Robert. Many years ago, LB had some of the best surf in Southern CA, and it's time to bring it back. It would give the scene at the beach a well deserved facelift. "Bring Back The Waves"

low affect
Does the study say those houses will get wiped out?

Bryan
Is there anyway to take the "payoff the city council routine" out of the picture? How do we put the best interest of our city back in the hands of the cities majority (tax paying citizens). If we dismantle the red tape along the Delong "Holier than thou" payoff network on the peninsula, we can do what is best for the whole of Long Beach and end an era of delay, deception and dirty water. Let's take some action as a community and be the change we wish to see!!!!

Mark in LB
The fact of the matter is that almost all of the homes lining the Peninsula and the property owners to the north own LB. They have the money and the litigation to stop this action while lifetime residents like myself must stand by and watch the city council bow down to the rich. I hate to say it but they (the rich, city council)will not allow the breakwall to come down.

john galt
If I read one more sentence saying something derogatory about the rich I will go crazy. What happened to this country. Class warfare is anti american. Wealth comes from supplying or creating or solving something for some one else. We are the greatest country on the earth because of the principles laid out by the constitution. Our current political climate both Dem and Rep have done their best to destroy this. Freedom is the lack of coersion. We do not win by stepping on the rights (property) of others. So lets make a win win situation for everyone. Please stop the anti wealth rehtoric, without the taxes from this group of producers this project will never see the light of day.

realist
First of all, does anyone leaving comments know the difference between to and too or known and none? Do we really want to increase traffic and build parking to create another Huntington Beach? What about the recreational boating that generates millions in revenue or the port operations that would be affected? I guess that money isn't as green as the money that is is generated by a surfboard and a parking ticket. Don't get me wrong- I agree that spending millions on studies is a waste, and I would certainly like to see the water quality improved, but removing the breakwater to make things more "natural" is a ridiculous idea. Maybe we should prevent the LA river from becoming polluted by removing the "unnatural" in-home plumbing and sewage systems thereby preventing effluent discharge into the river?

Sam
FEDERAL leaders, step forward for the breakwater reconfiguration! Dana Rohrabacher, Laura Richardson, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein are accountable to this. Although the City Council is actively discussing this, the breakwater remains a FEDERAL issue only and the City Council can't remove it, modify it, anything! They only recommend to the Feds - and even then, the Federal government makes the call! Everyone email your federal electeds asking for a tough stance in Washington...tear down the Breakwater! Despite benefit to a small minority who knowingly live in the path of water erosion, the Breakwater damages quality of life of millions of people, causes water borne-infections, depresses our economy, and takes oceanic interaction and awareness away from millions of potential tourists and youth, negatively impacting knowledge and appreciation of our ecosystems and environmental future! Find your elected online... usa.gov/contact/elected is one of many websites that can help you contact your elected representatives, if you don't already know who represents you in the US House of Representatives and the US Senate in Congress.

Capster
john galt - love the handle (yes I've read it about 4 times now I believe - it should be required reading!) but I don't see where acknowledging that the breakwater reduces quality of life for almost all while protecting a small number of residents is being derogatory to the rich! It is simply acknowledging a truth that is. OK, some folks may blame the rich, which I too think is unfair, but ignore that and focus on the plain truth - for a part of the beach, the breakwater protects a tiny number of homes at a cost to everyone. No one I know who is truly awake, rich or poor, would tolerate such a situation if they care about the good of the entire community as much as their own good. I see it less as anti-wealth rhetoric and more about anti-greed rhetoric, n'est ce pas? After reading the study and summary, I strongly feel we have options that can accomplish both reasonable protection to existing structures AND improving the beach and water health. I would however suggest a permanent ban on future construction, or requirements that residents in risk areas be required to take full fiscal responsibility, including self insuring, for their choice to live there. I don't want my insurance rates to reflect their need to live in much higher risk areas. Of course if the southern San Andreas finally lets loose with something around an 8 one of these days, a few big waves will be the least of our worries, in fact there's a fair chance the houses on the peninsula, along with most of the landfill built harbor areas, will be below ground level from liquefaction any way! Peace...

lbresident
For all of you talking about the peninsula, READ THE REPORT. It says that you can reconfigure the breakwater and mitigate effects on the peninsula. This is great news. The issue is no longer about if we should reconfigure. The issue is how to get the money. It is time to do this. Vote for officials who support reconfiguration.

JonathanJamesBurkett
I have been surfing for about 35 years and I moved to Long Beach about seven years ago from San Clemente. I would be amazed to see surf in long beach. Before the three mile jetty was built Long beach had some very good surf. The harbor would be much cleaner as well if there was surf to create upwelling and flow of water in and out of the existing harbor area. My only other idea would be to create a large wave machine inside the harbor as an artificial means to make waves inside the harbor. Otherwise I suppose the three mile breakwater would have to be removed or drastically modified in order to create the fabulous surfing that once was in Long Beach years ago. I was planning on moving away just because of the lack of surf in Long Beach and selling my home. If Long Beach had surf I would stay.

LBsurfer
I'm pretty sure we can bring waves to Long Beach and make the homes on the Peninsula safe from storm attack at the same time. Look at the west end of Seal Beach. With an 800' wide beach those homes are protected from flooding when the waves are big.

Dave in Alamitos Beach
The houses on the Peninsula are in no danger of flooding or "sinking" from reconfiguration of the breakwater. In fact, they may be safer with reconfiguration because waves will be coming at them from the West as well as the East. That should deposit more sand on their shore, not less. But in any case, there are going to be more than a few big boulders lying around, and if people are really, really concerned, a few of them could be dropped in front of the peninsula. ;-) The main thing is, there are options and everyone gets to win/win. It may not be perfect or ideal, but it's a heck of a lot better than what we've got going on now. Sure, I'll be too old to enjoy the waves when they finally arrive, but I hope to be able to wheel my walker to the bluff to look at them from afar someday!

JD in LBC
Just PLEASE "bring IT down" =)

CACSHELL
Let's invite HOLLYWOOD to come blow up the BREAKWATER as they have done with old buildings for their movies.... and the city would make money as they would need a Film Permit. City of LB can invest in a bunch of Sand Pushers - bums lounging on Pine as they say their signage states "will work for food" - and have a Berm created for Winter months. Once spring arrives remove the berm with the assistance of the many guests in the LB Jail Resort. There we go...at a very minimal cost to the city... LONG BEACH residents will soon be able to enjoy their beach once again. SURFS UP!!

Rose
Nike says it best . . . JUST DO IT!!!!!!!!!

dbakerlaw
lbresident is wrong again. Last woek he said the breakwater wouldn't provide protection against rising sea levels. Now he's saying "mitigation" will protect the peninsula homes. How much does "mitigation" cost? And how much tax revenue will be lost when the peninsula homes are destroyed. And how much will it cost to protect those homes by building seawalls to replace the lost breakwater? In Malibu the state has to pay to bring in sand to replenish the beaches. That will likely happen here, too. How much will that cost? Are the members of the anti breakwater group all incapable of abstract thinking? We will need that breakwater more than ever as sea levels rise to prevent wave damage to the shore, the harbor infrastructure, and the oil islands. Removing it now would be foolish.

Richard
somthing that no one has thought of....in 20 to 30 years due to climate change the Homes on the old sand bar will be underwater due to the Polar caps melting. This is well documentented. I would think all the Home owners would want a redo of the Breakwater, as it can then be constructed to raise the mean high tide mark. and Protect the Homes, by moving the rocks to form a sheild, and have the goverment fund the majority of the protection funds to install the pumps needed and raise The levels around the Penn. This due to future Flooding, And if left as it is, It will be happening in 20 to 45 years. ask any climateoglist. ( ok miss spelled )

RichN
Removing the breakwater isn't going to eliminate pollution, It will only allow the garbage coming down the river to pollute the open ocean some more or have it become someone elses problem. The breakwater should stay at least until that problem is remedied. It's better for the earth for us to collect that trash when it is on the beach rather having it join the expanding Pacific gyre where it will remain for eternity. This is where Surfriders selfish intent is exposed. They claim to want to protect the environment but are silent when it comes to runoff from the river. In reality, they just want another place to surf. They'll gripe about the river after the breakwater is gone.

Long Beach News

LBPOST.com Managing Editor Ryan ZumMallen keeps up on all the current and breaking Long Beach news.

Ryan ZumMallen has served as the managing editor of the LBPOST.com since 2007. He graduated from CSULB with a degree in Print Journalism in 2008 and is a member of the 2009 class of Leadership Long Beach. You can find him on various basketball courts around the city.

Ryan's Community