|
||||
Breakable? Changes To The Breakwater Move A Step Closer by Ryan ZumMallen | Archive | 07.28.09 |
+ For many, last night’s City Council study session of a commissioned report that aimed to determine whether the Federal Government would have any interest in altering or removing parts of the Long Beach Breakwater was a victory in and of itself. Activists have been fighting for over a decade to have something done about the structure, and the report – conducted by local engineering firm Moffatt & Nichol – was the culmination of that effort. For others, though, the report signaled that there is a long and expensive road to travel before a single rock is removed. The issue of removing all or part of the breakwater has never been as simple as blowing up a pile of rocks – but for the first time yesterday, the public gained an inside view at the myriad complicated issues hiding within an eight-mile long solid structure that is 200 feet wide and stretches to the bottom of the ocean. Even armed with a completed presentation numbering in the hundreds of pages, the report is far from conclusive and raises many more questions than answers. “There isn’t a silver bullet that we’ve seen,” said Moffatt & Nichol engineer Russ Boudreau, who presented the 30-minute report to the City Council. “We definitely need more study, it is so complex.” The report that Boudreau presented to the City Council and public – which is available in this story we posted last Thursday – offers five possible alterations to the breakwater with the goals of increasing water quality, generating an economic boost to the City through tourism and other revenue, and possibly bringing waves back to the Long Beach shore. But even if there were one option that Moffatt & Nichol found would achieve those basic goals – there isn’t – there comes with it a flood of other issues: What effect would it have on homes and property? What about the animals that live on and around the breakwater? What about the THUMS oil islands that were built with the promise of a safe haven? What about the boating and fishing industries? Will the Army Corps of Engineers agree that the project is construction-worthy? And – of course – how much will it cost? Some of these questions were answered last night, and some simply were not. Boudreau explained that there was only so much time to produce the report, and that a much deeper investigation is needed. What he does know, though, is that it is possible to bring waves back to Long Beach. That’s the good news. The bad news? With the five options presented in the report last night, it doesn’t look like there will be any significant effect on water quality. And we have the Los Angeles River to thank for that. The flow is so strong and the pollutants so potent that alterations to the breakwater studied by Moffatt & Nichol seem to produce few indications that water quality will improve**. That finding may come as a surprise to many who supported alteration of the breakwater in order to improve water quality. It may also make it more difficult for the City of Long Beach to convince the Army Corps of Engineers that there is an immediate need for reconfiguration. **Although, Alternative 2 shows some encouraging results and an idea to use breakwater rocks to create a rockwall guiding the river straight to open ocean could improve water quality, but would likely add $130-$140 million to any breakwater alteration pricetag. During public comments, two people presented a seemingly obvious solution: remove the entire breakwater. The two speakers most fervently in favor of that action were Emiko K. Innes (chair of the Surfrider Foundation) and Seamus Ian Innes (executive director of SinkTheBreakwater.org). They argued that Moffatt & Nichol should have studied the effects of removing the entire structure, which the engineering firm did not, citing the project as unfeasible. “How is it not feasible to remove the entire breakwater?” said Emiko Innes, who asked for data and cost benefits to support the report’s conclusion. “It would be too big of a bite,” Boudreau said. He may not have been speaking specifically about costs with that statement, but if Moffatt & Nichol’s report projects that altering parts of the breakwater may cost upwards of $300 million, it does seem reasonable to conclude that a complete removal would cost many times that amount. But many did express enthusiasm for the report’s findings, including several Councilmembers who were excited with the possibility of waves and potential tourism revenue. Boudreau referred to the beach as “a sleeping giant” that could b re-awoken with the return of surfable waves, bringing families all over the Southland to Long Beach shores. The Moffatt & Nichol study predicted possible additional revenue up to $52 million per year. Councilmember Garcia called it “a fantastic economic stimulus plan for Long Beach.” “I’m in support of at least exploring what Phase Two might look like,” said Councilmember Patrick O’Donnell. Phase Two consists of the City Council committing to the Army Corps of Engineers that Long Beach will pay for half of a feasibility study – a more detailed version of the Moffatt & Nichol study conducted by the Corps itself – that will cost an estimated $7 million. That will put Long Beach on the hook for about $3.5 million over a four-year period. The feasibility study would take an undetermined amount of time, and by the end of it, the Corps may very well say, “No thanks.” And that would be the end of the breakwater issue. Of course, they could also agree to alteration. Depending on the course of action chosen, Moffatt & Nichol estimates construction costs somewhere between $10 million and $300 million – Long Beach would be on the hook for about 35% of that total (for both the cost of the study and actual construction, the City may not have to pay out of pocket and can seek donations – cash or in-kind – from outside sources). Of course, none of this will come to fruition if the Army Corps of Engineers cannot be convinced to tear down at least parts of the massive structure that they built themselves in the 1940s. Back then, their concern was protecting Naval ships from rough ocean and possibly torpedoes. Today, their chief concern may be the ecological impact that altering the breakwater may have on the environment – that may be the best way to convince them it’s worth pursuing, Boudreau says, but it also may fail to deliver the big waves that proponents are expecting. Few in Long Beach would argue that the city has been plagued by the breakwater, especially since the Navy left and took their ships with them. The answer has always been to remove or alter the breakwater, but now that that effort is as near to completion as it has ever been, the question is: How? How to achieve the results we desire? How to do so cost effectively? How to avoid hurting the environment? How to avoid causing damage to property - whether homes, oil islands or cargo ships? These are questions that the commissioned report aimed to answer, but instead revealed a new set of questions that we may not be able to answer for some time, and seem to be working against one another. With so many different factions of groups seeking different things from a breakwater alteration, it will be near impossible to find a solution that will satisfy all parties. Are waves worth the trouble if water quality does not improve? Are we willing to create a rocky reef habitat even if waves do not increase? Today, that’s the City Council’s challenge – and to do so in a cost-effective manner while also convincing the Army Corps (notoriously difficult to convince) that there is benefit with virtually no drawback. Meanwhile, the breakwater stands strong, deflecting ocean waves as they barrel towards Naval ships that no longer reside here. Click here to read our policy on covering the Long Beach City Council.
Comments
Click Here to Join the Discussion on this Story
21 Comments so far.
lbresident The info in the above article is wrong about water quality. Options 1 and 2a both have water quality improvements associated with them. 2a also brings small waves in to play. http://www.longbeach.gov/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=23110 Ryan Z Hi lbresident. I took my information both from Mr. Boudreau and the study itself. On Alternative 1, it states: "...the preliminary modeling effort indicates that it does very little to address the water quality, recreational, or habitat improvements." On Alternative 2 it states: "Adding the LA River Training Structure to this option appears to provide a significant enough improvement in potential water quality to justify the increased costs, but this conclusion would require additional investigation." In my mind, this supports my statement above that the LA River guide structure may certainly improve water quality but information has been inconclusive thus far and it will definitely be more costly. lbresident Hi Ryan, please read the summary table in the report. Option 1 says minimal improvement (that is still improvement). Option 2a does not include the training structure and says there would be improvement in water quality and small but surfable waves. Specifically I think option 2a says it improves water quality, creates small waves, and restores the ecosystem. I could be wrong but that is what I think I read. cdub How is it that Moffit and Nichol always seem to be hired to do studies for the City of LB and there findings seem questionable.? Also, for get the people on the peninsula, I am tired of my tax dollars paying to move sand to save their homes. They knew the risk living there. The Ocen was there first. Kinda like people who buy in the aiport flight path, then complain about the noise? no one forced you to live there. Think of the economic impact for our city, for once we can be something we can be proud of, not a rusting old ship and some horible downtown with a failed Pike and Pine Ave. Ryan Z lbresident, I've also included a footnote to my statement that acknowledges positive signs about potential water quality upgrades from Alternative 2. Thanks for your comment Charlie I really hate to say "toldja" but you just can't remove that breakwater - the loss of why it was put in there in the first place, would be too great for the property and Harbor operations; You've got to figure out away to trap the pollutants with the other cities along the LA River to share the costs for their share of pollutant contribution, and, it won't be cheap! Anonymous I HAVE BEEN ON THE PENINSULA FOR 60 YEARSAND HAV A WONDERFULL MEMORY OF GREAT SURF AND FISHING AND CLAMING. THEN CAME THE EASTERN PORTION OF T1HE BREAK WALL AND LATER THE OIL ISLANDS AND LATER MOFFIT AND NICHOLS PIER J ! THE FINAL NAIL TO END THE DAYS OF SWIMMING ECT. NOW WE ASKTHE VILLIONS WITH THE CITY CONTRACT TO BUILD MORE, SHOULD WE REMOVE THE WALL OR MODIFY IT? NEVER IS THE SECRET ANSWER COMING FROM THE DRIVING FORCE " THE HARBOR COMMISSION ". THE WATER IS DIRTY AND SO IS THE lbresident hey ryan, not trying to be argumentative, but I believe option 2a says specifically it would accomplish the Army Core's goal of restoring the ecosystem and would accomplish the city's goal of improved water quality and small waves. The total cost would be $110M to $120M. Ryan Z Same here. I've been pouring over the report and haven't found anything that definitive, but it may well be in there so I'll keep looking. This is what the Comments section is all about - figuring stuff out! Haha lbresident Ryan, the more I read your article the more I don't get it. I went to the meeting. My takeaway was you can't take the whole thing down but reconfiguring would provide many environmental, economic, and natural benefits. Additionally there was confirmation reconfiguration could be done in a way to protect all coastal interests. The project would cost a lot, but would have substantial financial benefits to LB in return. Your article to me anyway seems biased toward not acting and not reflective of what was presented. Just my opinion. dbakerlaw If Moffat and Nichol did not mention rising sea levels in their report then the report is defective. Recent studies have concluded that breakwaters will have to be build to protect large sections of the US coastline from erosion by wave action as sea levels inevitably rise. Tearing down something we will need in the near future is folly. As for those who think the Peninsula homes are expendable, they're wrong. Taxpayers will have to pay for "mitigation" in the form of sea walls to protect the homes from damage. In Malibu those seawalls have resulted in erosion of the beaches which in turn has caused the State to have to import sand to replenish the beaches, all at great expense to the taxpayers. Further, loss of property value on the Peninsula due to erosion and water damage would result in a significant loss of tax revenue. Finally, one of the reasons Long Beach is such a popular boating area is its protected waters. Kite sailors, sailboaters, and powerboaters enjoy the relatively calm waters of the harbor. The entire Southern California coastline is available for surfing. Since the LA River is going to pollute our local waters to some extent anyway, thereby making it less desirable for surfing, why not leave the breakwater in place to protect this small area for the recreational boating community and the oil producing, shipping, and other commercial interests in the harbor? lbresident dbakerlaw, nobody thinks the peninsula homes are expendable. That's why we're all so excited to see we can reconfigure the breakwater while protecting coastal interests. Rudy Remember El Nino and the two hundred year flood is just around the corner, not to mention the earthquake or "the big one". The Dutch were smart to build a wall. Dave I haven't read the engineering study, but I'm apalled at the lack of attention paid to the boating community in news stories and in blogs like this. Downtown marina would get hammered if the breakwater was removed, and the constant surge on the Alamitos Bay long dock and other facilities near the AB entrance would be considerably worse. On the commercial side of things, the Catalina Express terminal at the Queen Mary would be un-usable, the Pier J container terminal would need tugs to keep the ships tied to the docks, and the crewboats and tugs would no longer be able to service the oil islands. Do we really need an engineering study to confirm all of this??? lbresident Dave, you should read the study. The options proposed accomodate your concerns. Michael B. I agree with dbakerlaw. LB beaches actually have a competitive advantage over other beaches in SC since the waters are so calm. There are many of us who enjoy the ocean but wish the waves were not so strong (e.g. families w/ small children). Also, the calmer waters remind me of the east coast without the humidity and bathwater temp. The main problem is the water quality. Downright disgusting. If they can't fix the quality of the water, having waves will be irrelevant since a quick drive south will give you both. lbresident Fascinating audio on this topic that talks about how to move forward and why the Port should pay for the work: http://www.[a local news outlet].com/news/jul09/bkwat3.htm Dgan Well I guess I'm just a fence-sitter. I stand firmly behind... um, both sides. The report lists five plans ranging in costs from 10 to 310 million. But specifically, what are the five plans? I know it's spelled out in the report but the report is 165 pages. Is there somewhere I can go to just get the cliff notes? lbresident Dgan, go to the appendix in the report. There is a table that outlines each option, benefits, and costs. I like 2a. Clean water, small waves, ecosystem benefits. $100M is the cost. lbresident One other thing, it should be noted that when we do the next (ie final study) the ultimate option will emerge. The final study will explore combinations of the 5 options plus other possibilities. So right now, those 5 options are just high level guidance of what is being considered. Kate K I also attended the presentation on Monday. I couldn't take in all the information presented, but I filtered out--pun intended--the ideas that, depending on the configuration, we may get waves, which may add to the city's revenue and which we could surely do with, and that whatever we wind up doing, the water quality won't improve--or won't improve by much. I read a report about our filthy beaches and water this morning in the P-T, and wondered what good waves would do any of us if we couldn't play in the water without our legs dissolving at the knee. The biggest culprit--or, I should say, the courier of the crap--seems to be the Los Angeles River. The water quality has to improve. I have no idea how other than to ask everyone to stop dumping pollutants into the drainage ditches, not to mention using the trash cans that the city provides instead of the sand for diapers, cigarette butts, etc. The number of people willing to do that seems small--kind of like pissing in the ocean.
Archive
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
 
Ryan's Archives
Show All Archives |
||||
| About Us | Contact Us | Policies | ||||
