Dredging and Disposal Capitol Lake Alternatives

CAPITOL LAKE ALTERNATIVESANALYSISDREDGING AND DISPOSAL

Prepared for:

Purple loosestrife capsules (left) and seeds next to dried capsules (right)

Prepared by:

August 22, 2008

Moffatt & Nichol Page ES-1 DREDGING REPORT FINAL-080822.DOC 8/22/2008

Executive Summary

Washington State Department of General Administration and the CLAMP Steering Committeeare developing and understanding of the different future management alternatives for CapitolLake. In particular, a goal of the CLAMP Steering Committee is to complete a study thatevaluates the possibility of a restored estuary as an alternative to the continued managementactions necessary to maintain a lake in this setting.As one piece of this study, this report describes the costs, methods, and schedules associated withthe dredging elements of the different possible future management alternatives: continuedmanagement of the lake as a lake, and restoration of the Deschutes Estuary with or without aseparate reflecting pool.The disposal sites have the most significant impacts to the project cost. Disposal sites also affectconstruction methods: mechanical dredging is generally most cost-effective for upland disposal or beneficial reuse, while hydraulic dredging is generally most cost-effective for offshore disposal.The most cost-effective option for material transported off-site – open-water disposal atAnderson-Ketron Island – is available only for clean material, and may not be available for theCapitol Lake sediments because of the presence of purple loosestrife seeds. The most expensiveoption – upland disposal at a landfill site – is certain to be available for all but the mostcontaminated sediments, which are not believed to be present in Capitol Lake or in Budd Inlet.Intermediate options include open-water disposal at Commencement Bay, which is more distantthan Anderson-Ketron Island but which may accept materials containing purple loosestrife seeds;mine reclamation at the Lakeside Industries Central Aggregate Pit near Centralia; and (for asubset of the material) construction fill. It is likely but not certain that one of these intermediateoptions will be available. Chemical, biological, and physical testing (including the drainagecharacteristics of the sediment) will be needed to establish the available disposal sites and costs.Dredging costs are evaluated based on the most likely dredging quantities, and with the range of possible unit costs considered. Future costs are evaluated based on a 50-year project lifetime:costs with and without escalation of construction costs, at 3.5% annually, are given. In addition,future costs are given as a net present value (NPV), using the current (2008) USACE interest rateof 4.875 percent. The NPV takes into account the time value of money. The actual dollar valuescan vary dramatically over a 50-year project lifetime if construction cost inflation differs from theassumed 3.5 percent.A typical three-point construction estimate gives a low, medium, and high cost. Because the costsassociated with disposal at a landfill are so much higher than other costs, this report additionallyincludes a worst-case cost.For the Lake Alternative, the following cases are considered:

•

Low-cost: Initial dredging with disposal at the reclamation site; Maintenance dredgingwith a combination of beneficial reuse as construction fill, disposal at a reclamation site,and (after 2025, when purple loosestrife is assumed to be eradicated) disposal offshore atthe Anderson-Ketron Island open water disposal site.

•

Medium-cost: Initial dredging with disposal offshore at Commencement Bay;Maintenance dredging with a combination of beneficial reuse as construction fill anddisposal at Commencement Bay.

•

High-cost: Disposal alternatives as for the medium-cost case, but costs are 30 percenthigher.

•

Worst-case: All disposal is to landfill.