
Alternatives Considered
Alternative 1: No/delayed action (Not Recommended)
– Cost Implications: Reduced cost for avoiding work but potential for increased maintenance cost related to more
advanced repair needs in the future.
– Pros: 1. Preserve Port capital funding and resources for other priority projects and financial initiatives.
– Cons: 1. Potential integrity risk to the overall pier structure due to continued deterioration.
2. Potential commercial/financial risk due unplanned maintenance and implementation of load restrictions to
facility operations.
Alternative 2: Proceed with current design (Recommended)
– Cost Implications: Allocation of $1,200,000 in the Capital Plan.
– Pros: 1. Address deterioration of the supporting structure.
2. Improved service life with steel piles, as compared to the existing timber piles.
3. Replace creosote timber piles with more environmentally-friendly steel piles.
– Cons: 1. Higher upfront capital cost.
2. Limited temporary construction impacts.
7