Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.b. Receit upon the Walnut Creek/Grason Creek Levee Rehabilitation and disposing of existing railroad tracks on Central San Property Page 1 of 15 Item 5.b. CENTRAL SAN March 23, 2022 TO: REAL ESTATE, ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING COMMITTEE FROM: DAN FROST, SENIOR ENGINEER REVIEWED BY: DANEA GEMMELL, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION MANAGER JEAN-MARC PETIT, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES STEVE MCDONALD, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS ROGER S. BAILEY, GENERAL MANAGER SUBJECT: RECEIVE UPDATE ON THE WALNUT CREEK/GRAYSON CREEK LEVEE REHABILITATION AND DISPOSITION OF EXISTING RAILROAD TRACKS ON CENTRAL SAN PROPERTY Staff will present updates (see attached presentation) on the Walnut Creek/Grayson Creek Levee Rehab, District Project 7341 (Levee Project) and discuss the disposition of Central San's existing railroad tracks. Staff is seeking direction on the disposition of the railroad tracks owned and located on Central San property along the levee. This is needed at this time because of the joint Levee Project with Flood Control District (FCD) to proceed: • Time-Sensitivity: Levee 95% Design in progress, awaiting direction regarding railroad tracks • Challenge • To meet US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) requirements, new levee conflicts with railroad tracks • Tracks have not been used in a long time but were preserved to maintain ability for potential use in the future • Expert Guidance: Contacted Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF)for guidance and contracted with J MA Consulting to look at track impacts due to levee design and prepare conceptual alternatives The tracks were originally installed to bring liquid chlorine via railroad cars for the effluent disinfection. Once the ultra violet disinfection system was installed in the early 1990's, the tracks have not been used. The tracks have been kept in place, unused for the potential ability to haul surcharge pile soil off-site for disposal when needed in that area for treatment plant expansion. During the Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan (2017) and Geosyntec Evaluation Report, several alternatives for addressing the removal of surcharge pile of hazardous material and soil were evaluated: March 23, 2022 REEP Committee Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 28 of 44 Page 2 of 15 • Alternative 1: Off-site hauling estimated at >$85M. This alternative was not recommended to the Board due to high cost and long-term liability associated with off-site disposal. • Alternative 2: Current Capital Improvement Program includes $18.61VI allowance for handling surcharge pile soil (assumed as on-site relocation). This does not require use of the tracks. • Alternative 3: On-site remediation, then relocate or off-site hauling by trucks, was evaluated but estimated at >$75M. This does not require use of the tracks. It is very unlikely that there are other future opportunities requiring railroad service. Quantities of ash, biosolids, biosolids/byproducts, chemicals are relatively small to be hauled by railroad and most likely to be hauled by truck. Summary of railroad service options include: • Restore complete rail service - retaining walls and underdrains to hold back levee earthwork, rehabilitate rail spur, replace ties, install end of track equipment, improve at-grade crossing with concrete panels and restriping; or • Construct new rail yard in northeast corner- add 425 feet of 2nd parallel track, remove and salvage tracks south of new rail yard, remove all or portion of Imhoff Drive at-grade crossing and coordinate with California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). This can be implemented at anytime when needed. Staff is recommending to forfeit the railroad track along the levee. Next Steps: • Notify FCD of Central San's decision on the railroad tracks: • Include track removal in Levee Project • Include contractor requirements for stockpile/testing during rail removal • Tracks outside project area will be abandoned in place (can be addressed on future projects in those areas) • Coordinate with County and BNSF regarding scope of Imhoff at-grade crossing removal • Further evaluate how to proceed with surcharge pile soil alternatives Strategic Plan Tie-In GOAL FIVE:Infrastructure Reliability Strategy 1—Manage assets optimally to prolong their useful life, Strategy 2—Execute long-term capital renewal and replacement program, Strategy 3—Protect personnel and assets from threats and emergencies ATTACHMENTS: 1. Presentation March 23, 2022 REEP Committee Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 29 of 44 Page 3 of 15 WALNUT CREEK/GRAYSON CREEK � = LEVEE REHAB PROJECT UPDATE AND 1 DISPOSITION OF RAILROAD TRACKS Dan Frost, P.E. Senior Engineer . r Jean-Marc Petit, P.E. Director of Engineering and Technical Services Real Estate, Environmental & Planning Committee Meeting March 23, 2022 MHT.7�qffl M, OVERVIEW OF TODAY'S DISCUSSION 1 . Why do we need to talk about the railroad tracks? 2. Quick overview of the Walnut Creek/Grayson Creek Levee Rehab (Levee Project) and railroad tracks 3. Explain the challenge 4. Summarize consultant work looking at track options 5. Discuss path forward Zk2 CFNTPALSAN March 23, 2022 REEP Committee Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 30 of 44 1 Page 4 of 15 OVERVIEW OF TODAY'S DISCUSSION 1 . Why do we need to discuss the railroad tracks? 4. 5. ' 3 WHY DO WE NEED TO DISCUSS THE TRACKS? Direction on Railroad Tracks is Needed for Joint Levee Project with Flood Control District (FCD) to Proceed • Time-Sensitivity: Levee 95% Design in progress, awaiting direction regarding railroad tracks • Challenge o To meet US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) requirements, new levee conflicts with railroad tracks o Tracks have not been used in a long time but were preserved to maintain ability for potential use in the future • Expert Guidance: Contacted Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF)for guidance and contracted with JMA Consulting to look at track impacts due to levee design and prepare conceptual alternatives ' 4 March 23, 2022 REEP Committee Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 31 of 44 2 Page 5 of 15 OVERVIEW OF TODAY'S DISCUSSION 1 . 2. Quick overview of the Walnut Creek/Grayson Creek Levee Rehab (Levee Project) and railroad tracks 3. 4. 5. IS LEVEE PROJECT OVERVIEW • Collaborative project led by Contra Costa County FCD/Public Works • District Project 7341: 50% total project cost share (-$2.65 million (M)) from Central San • Shortlisted for Prop 1 E Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities grant funding • Existing levees do not meet 100-year, 3-foot freeboard minimum guideline for flood protection • Levee design is for 500-year, 3-foot freeboard flood protection (requires -3-foot rise in levee elevation) • Consequence of major treatment plant flooding is significant (>$150M plus additional risks to public health and the environment) Considerations and design for protection against sea level rise 16 I Sol OR iffiRWO,In March 23, 2022 REEP Committee Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 32 of 44 3 Page 6 of 15 BNSF Tracks 9 Central San Tracks Levee Project - Raise berm for 500-year flood protection + 3-foot freeboard - Widen berm to meet USACE requirements - Currently working on 95% Imhoff Crossing ,. Design Permitting in progress 2023 Dry season . construction anticipated 117 7 • Installed on Stage 5A— Phase 1 (1970s) If 59 Ponn,GA-C Sfa�derd • Agreement with BNSF • Delivered chlorine gas until late `90s seeric�, CONTRACT FOR INDUSTRY TR aareement,mi.Ihie_--_-- 9th --------_. deyer_pccober__...___... �3- EXHIBI7"A' 6etweea_.._.17fE ATCHISON, TOPEKA ANII SANTA FE RAILWAY COPIPANY ..-_-......�-- THE ATC460N,TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COAIMNY a.--..-----Q.2I��ddr�_-.——..—--_-_ -...--_enrp"retion,hereinafter mRed the"Railway Company" AND - -__-__.__— CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY'DISTRICTarty of the fixet part,and._._CENT€2AI.,COSTA_COIMTY,SANITARY,.➢ISTRICT.....,,..__,_._...__.____.__...,,_--_ �m ANcrcEs,uur. sem.:,rc>s "u-ervLMEP1rv4 .. .._hereimftne hether ono or more iN.Tosm rt,'IPIT'ovauaeamcwNn ._f..--__.__.____-..__._........-. (w P—oe corparatiom)called the"IndusETY, -� part.y...of the second part. 252.9 feet of track and t E ECITALS—The Industry has requk ted the Railway Company W wnstruceopemte and maintain a track a s= w tcase..y extaneioa,se the mqY be,shout......589'3.9,_,,,,,,,,,,,.Sereimftm�ect in length,hin its entirety rderned to ae"Th.Tr.*"at or nasi the station of.,.N&Ltby„�Co t&a--costa_Court ya_Ca,)_if4'pA.ia�.__--_-.._-. \1 \ --___-__---_-- ----_.W eerve­_&al@T -------_.-_----.-__---_.--_------- __-_--.___ �T"I (hereinafter called the"Plant"),to he operated by the Industry. That portion of The Track, ^.I00 �` feet in length,which ehaR belong W the Ralwny Company,is shown by red wloring,and that portion of The Truck, o W GOI 'GC if any,whmh shell belong to th Industry,is shown by y Dow luring upon the print hereto attached,marked `Ekhihit A"and made a part bereof,sad said,ed and yeAow colored portions are bmeinafter for convenience sep- I msWy referred to ae"RM Track"and"Yellow Track,"reepeedvely. \ c ._. ws.✓ ,N. •w A68ESMENT: / ARTICLE I. " I Ar Matra v,Gorr rrzA Co A C.E.C.L DRAWING NO.CO3-33175 March 23, 2022 REEP Committee Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 33 of 44 4 Page 7 of 15 OVERVIEW OF TODAY'S DISCUSSION 1 . 2. 3. Explain the challenge 4. 5. WAS19 LEVEE PROJECT IMPACTS - TYPICAL SECTION • Proposed levee raise impacts existing track • Does not comply with BNSF clearance requirements for industry tracks C/L TRACK CLEARANCE ENVELOPE s.s• I-------- ---------i Some places,levee toe on top of tracks I Some places,inadequate clearance 8.5' 8.5' —►{ EXISTING TRACK C/L Horizontal Horizontal I ACCESS ROAD I Clearance Clearance I j 20% I 23.5'Vertical TOP OF RAIL z ?.� FG Clearance — TOP OF RAIL I i EG I I I I I I I I I I L__ I PROPOSED LEVEE TYPICAL SECTION ' in March 23, 2022 REEP Committee Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 34 of 44 5 Page 8 of 15 LEVEE PROJECT IMPACTS - OVERVIEW Walnut Creek Channel of z Conflict Areas Existing Rail Spur 6 \ 4 OP 16 '9 _ 0 Current T • rack is >7,500 feet F • Conflict Length is—5,100 feet -:_f " ,. y dr♦ e'� 4�'L` //l al��]:� - ICS � CFNTPALSAN WHY DO WE HAVE RAILROAD TRACKS, AND SHOULD WE CONTINUE TO PRESERVE THEM? • Primary reason for keeping the tracks: Ability to haul surcharge pile soil off-site for disposal when we need that area for treatment plant expansion. • Several alternatives considered for addressing the surcharge pile soil: (from 2017 Comprehensive Wastewater Master Plan (CWMP)&Geosyntec Evaluation Report) o Alternative 1: Off-site hauling estimated at>$85M. This alternative was not recommended to the Board due to high cost and long-term liability associated with off-site disposal. o Alternative 2: Current Capital Improvement Program includes $18.6M allowance for handling surcharge pile soil (assumed as on-site relocation, other options to be explored). This does not require use of the tracks. o Alternative 3: On-site remediation, then relocate or off-site hauling, was evaluated but estimated at>$75M. This does not require use of the tracks. • Are there other future opportunities requiring railroad service? Unlikely o Quantities of ash/biosolids/byproducts, chemicals, etc. likely to be hauled by truck. ' iz March 23, 2022 REEP Committee Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 35 of 44 6 Page 9 of 15 SURCHARGE PILE SOIL HANDLING ALTERNATIVES NEXUS WITH RAILROAD TRACKS AND LEVEE PROJECT ImpactsAlternatives Railroad Service Needs Levee Project Alternative 1: Railroad service could be used Hauling by rail requires track Off-site Hauling restoration, retaining walls, and other improvements. Not in project scope. Alternative 2: Not needed No impact. Remove tracks Relocation On-Site and Re- or abandon in place. Cap Alternative 3: Not needed. Railroad service No impact if treated soil On-site Remediation & could be used if hauling off-site relocated on-site. Remove Relocate/Off-site Hauling tracks or abandon in place. ' 13 NWFFY�Twyl M, OVERVIEW OF TODAY'S DISCUSSION 1 . 2. 3. 4. Summarize consultant work looking at track options . N5 ' 14 March 23, 2022 REEP Committee Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 36 of 44 7 Page 10 of 15 TRACK CONDITION ANALYSIS - OVERVIEW • Evaluate best strategy for future of rail - spur ► • Need better understanding of track conditions • Identify rail service options o Rail service forfeiture o Track restoration o Opportunity for north rail yard • Identify pros and cons for each option ' 15 MTIFFT�9&11 M, SITE VISIT ASSESSMENT • Rail • 1930s/40s 112# in adequate condition o Tracks north of Imhoff filled with sediment • Ballast }` o River rock instead of standard BNSF ballast : rock • Track Components o End of track devices absent o Switch stand south of Imhoff in poor condition • Ties 0 25% replacement along Grayson Creek 0 75% replacement along Walnut Creek • Drainage ' o Storm drain system absent i , 16 March 23, 2022 REEP Committee Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 37 of 44 $ Page 11 of 15 CONSULTANT CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION • Evaluation of Rail Service Options o Track forfeiture is cost-effective o Track restoration is cost-intensive but provides flexibility o New rail yard is intermediate and avoids significant conflict and investment • Requirements for Rail Service Restoration o Track resurfacing o Ultrasonic rail testing o Ballast replacement o Tie replacement(25% along Grayson Creek, 75% along Walnut Creek) o Establish drainage system • Recommendation o Client must determine future rail needs before committing to a rail service option v CFNTPALSAN RESTORING RAIL SERVICE FOR SURCHARGE PILE SOIL ALTERNATIVE 1 : OFF-SITE HAULING t. VAMW i 75'01HEPIACEMEN 1y L Iff. 25k PEHEPNCBd ' �y"—'� Id CFNTPAL SAN i ' 18 March 23, 2022 REEP Committee Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 38 of 44 9 Page 12 of 15 OPTION TO CONSTRUCT NORTH RAIL YARD FOR SURCHARGE PILE SOIL ALTERNATIVE 1 : OFF-SITE HAULING �sACCE55 Apq_bi ASPHALT CROSSING �'':+•..�,� SURFACE 425 STORAGE LENGTH _ REMOVE AND SALVAGE 50, TRACK a E%15T1NG TRACK 5700 TF TRACK A NO.9 TURNOUY 70O TF REHASTIESURFACENG EARTHEN BUMPEfl p5%TIE REPLACEMENT) EXISTING RAIL ACCESS GATE THIS OPTION COULD BE IMPLEMENTED NOW OR IN THE FUTURE IF AND WHEN NEEDED ' T9 CFNTPALSAN RAIL SERVICE OPTIONS FOR SURCHARGE PILE SOIL ALTERNATIVE 1 - OFF-SITE HAULING • Summary of Railroad Service Options o Restore complete rail service - retaining walls and underdrains to hold back levee earthwork, rehabilitate rail spur, replace ties, install end of track equipment, improve at-grade crossing with concrete panels and restriping; or o Construct new rail yard in northeast corner- add 425 feet of 2"d parallel track, remove and salvage tracks south of new rail yard, remove all or portion of Imhoff Drive at-grade crossing and coordinate with California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). This option could be implemented at any time if and when needed. • Advantages of Railroad Service Options o Opportunity to maintain rail service • Disadvantages of Railroad Service Options o Higher cost than forfeiting service o Requires further design and assessment o Impacts to Levee Project (design, scope, schedule, budget) if implemented now ' zo March 23, 2022 REEP Committee Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 39 of 44 10 Page 13 of 15 FORFEIT RAIL SERVICE FOR SURCHARGE PILE SOIL ALTERNATIVES 2 & 3: ON-SITE RELOCATION/TREATMENT Walnut Creek Channel , / R .-, ., .� .-« «,., -wxia..►F�'1l Tip",. 'c�.'.v © � p - Conflict Areas Existing RailSpur Gi� 6� A 4 2s Remove-5,100 feet of track from 15t �^P moo, conflict to last a cvP k Remove all or pMENart of / Imhoff Drive crossing o CFNTPAISAN FORFEIT RAIL SERVICE FOR SURCHARGE PILE SOIL ALTERNATIVES 2 & 3 - ON-SITE RELOCATION/TREATMENT • Summary of Rail Service Forfeiture Option o Remove and salvage track from first point of conflict to last o Remove all or portion of Imhoff Drive at-grade crossing and coordinate with CPUC • Advantages of Rail Service Forfeiture Option o Lowest cost option and aligns with existing Levee Project design • Disadvantages of Rail Service Forfeiture Option o Lost opportunity for future rail service without significant re-investment o Risk/uncertainty in obtaining CPUC approval for re-established crossing in future o Risk/uncertainty in contamination testing costs and material/soil removal ' zz March 23, 2022 REEP Committee Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 40 of 44 11 Page 14 of 15 DRAFT PLANNING - LEVEL PROJECT ESTIMATES Alternative 1: Restore Service $3.2M >$85M >$88.2M Not Recommended Off-site Hauling Alternative 1: Construct North $2.4M >$85M >$87.4M Not Recommended Off-site Hauling Rail Yard at this time Alternative 2: Recommended in Relocation On Site and Forfeit Service $1.5M $18.6M $20.1M CWMP Re-Cap Alternative 3: On-site Remediation & Forfeit Service $1.5M >$75M >$76.5M Continue to Evaluate Relocate/Off-site Hauling ' 23 CFNTPALSAN OVERVIEW OF TODAY'S DISCUSSION 1 . 9 4. 5. Discuss path forward ' 24 CFNTPAL SAN March 23, 2022 REEP Committee Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 41 of 44 12 Page 15 of 15 NEXT STEPS • Notify FCD of Central San's Decision on the Railroad Tracks o Include track removal in Levee Project o Include contractor requirements for stockpile/testing during rail removal o Tracks outside project area will be abandoned in place (can be addressed on future projects in those areas) o Coordinate with County and BNSF regarding scope of Imhoff at-grade crossing removal • Further Evaluate How to Proceed with Surcharge Pile Soil o Proceed with evaluating on-site surcharge pile soil alternatives ' 2s QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION ' 26 March 23, 2022 REEP Committee Meeting Agenda Packet- Page 42 of 44 13