>- >, g w Cl)-
z c: LL 'St
~ ,_ .c: (0
0.9_.co - a, 'St f-<( _,
f-.c;,"EgJ <C--mco
~0>o - _gi a,
- z ::::l <(
0sz.00 w ~ co
I<( c:..c::
f-a.mai LL(l)UCI.)
owOco
w ~ 1ii g
~ <( ~ 0 LL I ...J
~(.)~
'St
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 RESOLUTION NO. RES-22-0195
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF LONG BEACH AFFIRMING THE LONG BEACH
HARBOR COMMISSION'S CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DEEP
DRAFT NAVIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY AND CHANNEL
DEEPENING PROJECT (SCH. NO. 2016111014) IN THE
CITY OF LONG BEACH AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS
THERETO
WHEREAS, the City of Long Beach ("City"), by and through its Board of Harbor Commissioners ("Board"), has control and jurisdiction over the City of Long Beach Harbor District, commonly known as the Port of Long Beach ("Port"); WHEREAS, the Long Beach Harbor Department ("Harbor Department") requested assistance of the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("USAGE") to address on-going operational constraints to the efficient movement of goods through the Port;
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2015, a Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement was signed by the Harbor Department as the non-federal sponsor, and the Department of the Army, initiating the feasibility phase of a study to improve navigational efficiency and 22 vessel safety throughout the Port (the "Study");
23 WHEREAS, a range of measures and preliminary alternatives were 24 developed as part of the Study for the Port of Long Beach Deep Draft Navigation Project 25 (the "Project");
26 WHEREAS, on May 1, 2019, the Harbor Department and the USAGE jointly 27 submitted an application for a Harbor Development Permit ("HOP") for the Project; 28 WHEREAS, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21067 01454273
RESOLUTION
1 A22-01260
DEEP DRAFT NAVIFATION FEASIBILITY STUDY EIR [SNUbel]
>- >, g UJ Q) -
zclLv 0:: .... ..c co
0 - co O~mv
I= z, -e- ~
<( ·- co CX)
~(..)-~~
-z :,<(
(..) S2 0 (..)
UJ 0:: a:J
I<( C.c: 1-a.mai IL U) u Ql
owOa:i
UJc:!ci.ig
S:2<(~ 0 IL I ..J
tu~
"<I"
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 14, Sec. 15000, et seq.), Section 15051, the City, acting by and through the Board, is the lead agency responsible for implementing CEQA, and the Board is the decision-making body for the Harbor Department;
WHEREAS, pursuant to United States Code, Title 42, Section 4370m, and the Council on Environmental Quality National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") Regulations (Code of Federal Regulations, Tit. 40, Sec. 1500, et seq.), Section 1508.1, the USACE is the lead agency responsible for implementing NEPA; WHEREAS, the Board determined that because the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared to assess the environmental impacts associated with the completion of the Project;
WHEREAS, USACE determined that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared to assess the environmental impacts associated with the issuance of the federal permits authorizing work in the navigable waters of the United States and the dredging of material from those waters; and 17 18
19 WHEREAS, the Harbor Department and USACE jointly prepared a draft Integrated Feasibility Report ("IFR"), which contains the draft EIS and the draft EIR describing the Project and discussing the resultant environmental impacts in the interest of 20 efficiency and to avoid duplication of effort;
21 WHEREAS, USACE will consider approval of the EIS separately from the 22 Board's consideration of the EIR; and
23 WHEREAS, on November 4, 2016, the Harbor Department circulated a 24 Notice of Preparation of a draft EIR for the Project to responsible agencies and interested 25 persons;
26 WHEREAS, on January 29, 2019, the Harbor Department circulated an 27 Amended Notice of Preparation of a draft EIR for the Project to responsible agencies and 28 interested persons;
01454273
RESOLUTION
2 A22-01260
DEEP DRAFT NAVIFATION FEASIBILITY STUDY EIR [SNUbel]
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 WHEREAS, on October 25, 2019, the Harbor Department circulated a Notice of Availability of a draft IFR, which contains the draft EIS and the draft EIR describing the Project and discussing the resultant environmental impacts; WHEREAS, on October 21, 2019, a Notice of Public Hearing on the draft IFR, to be held on November 13, 2019, was published in the "Press Telegram," a newspaper of general circulation, and notice was also provided by letter mailed to public agencies, organizations and persons who requested notice or were likely to be interested in the potential impacts of the Project, by email to the Harbor Department contact list, and by publication on the USACE's website and the Harbor Department's website; and WHEREAS, on November 13, 2019, the Harbor Department and USAGE conducted two public hearings on the draft IFR for the Project and received twelve written comment letters and public meeting comment cards from governmental agencies, organizations and members of the public;
WHEREAS, the 45-day period for public comment closed on December 9, 2019;
WHEREAS, USAGE staff, Harbor Department staff, and consulting experts reviewed and considered all comments received and addressed them, as appropriate, into a Final IFR, dated October 2021, which contains the Final EIR and Final EIS, presents a summary of the planning process, describes the affected environmental resources, and evaluates the potential impacts to those resources as a result of constructing, operating and maintaining the Project;
WHEREAS, the comments received on the Final IFR were reviewed, and full and complete responses thereto were prepared and distributed on August 16, 2022, to all public agency commenters, and written notice of the public availability of the responses was provided to all other commenters in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5; WHEREAS, the Final EIR reflects the independent 27 judgment of the City, acting by and through the Board, as the lead agency under CEQA 28 as to the potential environmental impacts of the Project; 01454273
RESOLUTION
3 A22-01260
DEEP DRAFT NAVIFATION FEASIBILITY STUDY EIR [SNUbel]
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 >- >, g
12 W(l)-
Z C LL 'SI" 13 0:: .... .c co
0 - co 0~<»-st-
~~-e~ 14 <( ~ ro ro
~0>o - jl 0)
- z::, <(
15 052 0(.)
w 0:: co
I<( c ..c: 1-a..gi1il 16 LL(l)O(l)
owOco
w~ ti g 17 ~ <( ~ 0 LL I -I
~ (_) ::: 18 'SI"
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
WHEREAS, the Final EIR for the Project was presented to the Board for certification as having been completed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines;
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2022, the Board held a properly noticed public hearing to consider the Final EIR and the proposed Project, at which time, all interested parties had the opportunity to present evidence and be heard; WHEREAS, on September 12, 2022, having thoroughly reviewed and considered the Final EIR and the written communications and oral testimony regarding the same, the Board, pursuant to Resolution No .. HD-3103, certified that the Final EIR for the Project had been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and local guidelines promulgated pursuant thereto, made certain findings and determinations relative thereto, adopted a statement of overriding considerations, adopted a mitigation monitoring and reporting program, approved the Project, adopted the application summary report for the Project, and approved issuance of Harbor Development Permit No. 19-035 for the Project;
WHEREAS, prior to taking action on the Project, the Board considered all significant impacts, mitigation measures, and Project alternatives identified in the Final EIR, and found that all potentially significant impacts of the Project have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible. The Board further certified that the Final EIR had been presented to the Board and that the Board reviewed and considered the information contained in it prior to approving the Project, and that the Final EIR reflected the Board's independent judgment and analysis;
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2022, Earthjustice, Center for Biological Diversity, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pacific Environment, Sierra Club, and West Long Beach Association (Appellants) appealed the certification of the Final EIR by the Board pursuant to California Public Resources Code section 21151 (c) and Long Beach Municipal Code section 21.21.507;
01454273
RESOLUTION
4 A22-01260
DEEP DRAFT NAVIFATION FEASIBILITY STUDY EIR [SNUbel]
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 >- >, g 12
UJ QJ -Z C LL '<t 13 0::: .s £·~
0 ~ O) '<t
I=~ --e'~ 14 <C--rocx,
~U>o - .J!! 0)
- z::, <(
15 u sz Ou
UJ 0:: cc
I<( C..c
I- Cl.. ~ lil 16 LLCl)UQJ
OUJOCC
UJ ~ ti g 17 ~ <( ~ 0 LL I -l
~u~
18 '<t
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
WHEREAS, on October 5, 2022, the Long Beach City Clerk issued notice to Appellants pursuant to Long Beach Municipal Code section 21.21.507 that their appeal of the certification of the Final EIR would come before the Long Beach City Council on November 15, 2022.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Long Beach resolves as follows:
Section 1. Based on its independent review and consideration of Resolution No. HD-3103, the Final EIR, the appeal filed by Appellants, and all written communications and oral testimony regarding the Project which have been submitted to and received by the City Council, the City Council finds as follows:
1.1 Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
1.2 Scope of Appeal. California Public Resources Code Section 21151 (c) provides that if a nonelected decision-making body of a local agency certifies an environmental impact report, that certification may be appealed to the agency's elected decision-making body, if any. Pursuant to Long Beach Municipal Code Section 21.21.507, any person who appeared before the Board and objected to the Board's certification of the Final EIR may appeal that determination to the City Council. Following the hearing, the City Council may either (1) deny the appeal and affirm the certification of the Final EIR, or (2) grant the appeal, set aside the certification of the Final EIR and remand to the Board.
1.3 Certification. The Final EIR for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. The Board, having final approval authority over the Project, properly adopted and certified as complete and adequate the Final EIR, which reflected the independent judgment and analysis of the Board. The Board further certified that the Final EIR was presented to the Board and the Board reviewed and considered the information contained in it prior to approving the Project.
1 .4 The Challenges by Appellants Are Without Merit. All grounds raised during the appeal process have been adequately addressed in the Final EIR. 01454273
RESOLUTION
5 A22-01260
DEEP DRAFT NAVIFATION FEASIBILITY STUDY EIR [SNUbel]
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 >- >, g 12
lJJ (l) -
Z cLL-st 13 o::~.c<O 0 .9 _, co
- 0) 'St f- <( • I
t- .?:- E ~ 14 <( ·- ro co
~ O_ji ~
- z :::i <(
15 0 sz O 0
lJJ 0:: lXl •
J:<( C_c
t-c..alal 16 LL(l)U©
owOm
w...Jt;c 0 0:: (l) C 17 u::~s _g
t O;:
18 'St
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Attachment 9 of the Staff Report to the City Council fully addresses the issues raised by the appeal.
Section 2. Based upon its independent review and consideration of the Final EIR, all grounds raised during the appeal process, all written communications and oral testimony during the appeal, the certified transcript of the September 12, 2022, Board meeting, the reports, written communications, and presentations by City Staff, the reports, written communications, and presentations by the Harbor Department, and the findings and determinations set forth above, the City Council of the City of Long Beach hereby:
2.1 Affirms the Board's certification that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the state and local CEQA Guidelines promulgated pursuant thereto, and denies the appeal of Appellants.
2.2 Affirms the certification by the Board that the Final EIR was presented to the Board, that the Board reviewed and considered the information contained in it prior to approving the Project, and that the Finat EIR reflects the Board's independent judgment and analysis.
2.3 Affirms that the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and that the Final EIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis.
2.4 Adopts and makes, to the extent required by law, the findings set forth in the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project, attached as Exhibit "A" to Resolution No. HD-3103 of the Board, which is incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in full.
Section 3. The Harbor Department Director of Environmental Planning, whose office is located at 415 W. Ocean Blvd., Long Beach, California 90802, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based, which documents and materials shall be available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the 01454273
RESOLUTION
6 A22-01260
DEEP DRAFT NAVIFATION FEASIBILITY STUDY EIR [SNUbel]
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 >- >, 8
12 LUQ)-z clLv 13 0::: .... .c (0
o.8-co - mv f-<C-1
f-~"E8l 14 <( ·- ro a:>
~U>o -..910)
- z:::, <(
15 U Q OU LU 0::: C£l
I<( c ..c: r-c..IB~ 16 lJ_ Cl) 0 Q) OwOca
LUcitig 17 ~ <( ~ 0 u_ I -l
tu;:
18 'SI"
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
provisions of the California Public Records Act (Cal. Government Code Sec. 6250, et seq.), and Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 14, Sec. 15072.
Section 4. The Harbor Department Director of Environmental Planning shall file a notice of determination with the County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles and with the State Office of Planning and Research within five (5) working days after adoption of this resolution.
Section 5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting this resolution.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Long Beach at its meeting of November 15, 2022, by the following vote:
01454273
RESOLUTION
Ayes: Councilmembers: Zendejas, Allen, Price, Supernaw, Mungo, Saro, Austin, Richardson.
Noes: Councilmembers: None. -----------------
Absent: Councilmembers: Uranga.
7 -----------------
A22-01260
DEEP DRAFT NAVIFATION FEASIBILITY STUDY EIR [SNUbel]
1 01434859.DOCX A22-01260
RESOLUTION: CERTIFYING FINAL EIR [REV. 5_09/08/2022] DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY [SNL/bel] 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4664
RESOLUTION NO. HD-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF HARBOR
COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF LONG BEACH
CERTIFYING THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE PORT OF LONG BEACH DEEP DRAFT
NAVIGATION FESABILITY STUDY (SCH NO. 2016111014)
HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT AND STATE AND LOCAL GUIDELINES,
MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
RELATIVE THERETO, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, ADOPTING A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM,
AND APPROVING THE PROJECT AND HARBOR
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
WHEREAS, the Long Beach Harbor Department of the City of Long Beach (“COLB”) requested assistance of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) to address on-going operating constraints to the efficient movement of goods through the Port of Long Beach (“POLB”); and
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2015, a Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement was signed by COLB as the non-federal sponsor, and the Department of the Army, initiating the feasibility phase of a study to improve navigational efficiency and vessel safety throughout the POLB (the “Study”); and
WHEREAS, a range of measures and preliminary alternatives were developed as part of the Study for the Port of Long Beach Deep Draft Navigation Project (the "Project"); and
EXHIBIT A
3103
2 01434859.DOCX A22-01260
RESOLUTION: CERTIFYING FINAL EIR [REV. 5_09/08/2022] DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY [SNL/bel] 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4664
WHEREAS, the Federal lead agency responsible for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) is the USACE Los Angeles District; and WHEREAS, the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") is the City of Long Beach, acting by and through its Board of Harbor Commissioners ("Board"); and
WHEREAS; a Notice of Availability of draft Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) was published in the Federal Register on October 25, 2019 and was amended on November 29, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the draft Integrated Feasibility Report (“IFR”), which contains the draft EIS and the draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") describing the Project and discussing the resultant environmental impacts to be prepared for public and agency comments, was published on the District’s website and POLB’s website on October 25, 2019; and
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2019 USACE and COLB conducted two public hearings on the draft IFR for the Project and received both written and oral comments; and
WHEREAS, the 45-day period for public comment closed on December 9, 2019; and
WHEREAS, all comments received were considered and incorporated as appropriate into the Final IFR, which contains the Final EIS and Final EIR, which presents a summary of the planning process, describes the affected environmental resources and evaluates the potential impacts to those resources as a result of constructing, operating and maintaining the Project; and WHEREAS, the Draft IFR and the Final IFR (collectively the “FIFR”) for the Project have been presented to the Board, as the decision-making body of the lead agency, for certification of the Final EIR as having been completed in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and State and Local Guidelines implementing CEQA and as the permitting agency under the California Coastal Act; and 3 01434859.DOCX A22-01260
RESOLUTION: CERTIFYING FINAL EIR [REV. 5_09/08/2022] DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY [SNL/bel] 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4664
WHEREAS, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing on May 23, 2022, to consider the FIFR and the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the Board has thoroughly reviewed and considered the FIFR and the written communications and oral testimony regarding the same.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long Beach resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings - Preparation and Review of Final Environmental Impact Report. The Board finds as follows:
1.1 COLB conducted a scoping meeting for the Project on January 19, 2016.
1.2 On November 4, 2016, COLB circulated a Notice of
Preparation of a draft EIR for the Project to responsible agencies and interested persons by the Environmental Planning Division of the Long Beach Harbor Department ("Environmental Planning").
1.3 On January 29, 2019, COLB circulated an Amended Notice of Preparation of a draft EIR for the Project to responsible agencies and interested persons by Environmental Planning.
1.4 The consulting firm of ICF ("Consultant") prepared a draft IFR which contains the draft EIR for the Project, which was reviewed and approved by Environmental Planning and published on the District’s website and POLB’s website on October 25, 2019.
1.5 On October 25, 2019, COLB circulated a Notice of Availability of a draft IFR which contains the draft EIR for the Project to responsible agencies and interested persons.
1.6 After publication of the draft IFR, two public hearings on the draft IFR were held on November 13, 2019. Twelve written comment letters and public meeting comment cards were received from governmental agencies, organizations and members of the public. The period for public comment was
4 01434859.DOCX A22-01260
RESOLUTION: CERTIFYING FINAL EIR [REV. 5_09/08/2022] DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY [SNL/bel] 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4664
closed on December 9, 2019.
1.7 Consultant and Environmental Planning prepared the Final EIR for the Project, consisting of revisions to the Draft EIR, together with the comments received and responses thereto.
1.8 On November 8, 2021, USACE published a Notice of
Availability of the Final IFR in the Federal Register.
1.9 On November 8, 2021, members of the Board received copies of the Final EIR. The Board has reviewed and considered the information contained in said document together with all written communications and oral testimony regarding the same prior to approval of this resolution.
1.10 The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Board as lead agency under CEQA.
1.11 The Findings of Fact contained in the “Findings of Fact And Statement of Overriding Considerations” attached hereto as Exhibit “A” are hereby adopted as the factual findings of the Board, and are summarized below.
Sec. 2. Findings - Project Description. As described in Section 2.0 of Exhibit “A”, the Board finds that the Project recommended for approval by staff, which was analyzed as Alternative 3 in the draft IFR and selected as the National Economic Development Plan, consists of the following:
2.1 Construct an approach channel to Pier J South.
2.2 Deepen the West Basin Channel to a new depth of -55 ft MLLW (with a 2-ft over dredge allowance) for cargo vessels.
2.3 Construct a turning basin outside the Pier J slip.
2.4 Deepen the Approach Channel to -80 ft MLLW.
2.5 Bend easing portions of the Main Channel to match the currently authorized depth in the Main Channel of -76 ft MLLW to accommodate liquid bulk vessels.
2.6 Deepen berths at Pier J and Pier T to -55 ft MLLW.
5 01434859.DOCX A22-01260
RESOLUTION: CERTIFYING FINAL EIR [REV. 5_09/08/2022] DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY [SNL/bel] 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4664
2.7 Place dredged material in a combination of a nearshore placement site and two United States Environmental Protection Agency- designated ocean-dredged material disposal sites.
2.8 Construct a new dredge electric station.
2.9 Construct structural improvements to the Pier J breakwater.
2.10 Conform to the Green Port Policy and improve the air quality in the environmental justice communities surrounding the Port.
Sec. 3. Findings - Project Alternatives. As more fully described in Section
4.1 of Exhibit “A”, the Board finds as follows:
3.1 The reasonable range of Project alternatives considered in the FEIR consist of:
3.1.1 Alternative 1 – No Project. The "No Project" alternative assumes that no dredging or construction of the channels and breakwater would occur.
3.1.2 Alternative 2 – Container terminal channels deepened to -53 ft MLLW, Approach Channel deepened to -78 ft MLLM.
3.1.3 Alternative 4 -- Container terminal channels deepened to -57 ft MLLW; Approach Channel deepened to -83 ft MLLM; berths J266- J270 within the Pier J South Slip and berth T140 along Pier T both deepened to -57 ft MLLW; wharf improvements possibly implemented to accommodate the deepening.
3.1.4 Alternative 5 - Container terminal channels deepened to -55 ft MLLW, Approach Channel deepened to -80 ft MLLM. New Standby Area dredged to -67 ft MLLW with a 600-foot diameter center anchor placement at a proposed depth of -73 ft MLLW.
3.2 The “No Project” alternative, Alternative 1, would not result in significant impacts, as no improvements would be made to the channels or the breakwater. Since it would not accomplish any of the Project objectives, the No 6 01434859.DOCX A22-01260
RESOLUTION: CERTIFYING FINAL EIR [REV. 5_09/08/2022] DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY [SNL/bel] 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4664
Project alternative is hereby rejected.
3.3 Alternative 2 is a feasible alternative that would deepen the Pier J channel and the West Basin channel and create a turning basin off Pier J all to a depth of -53 ft MLLW; would widen the Main Channel to the design depth (-76 ft MLLW); and would deepen the Approach Channel to -78 ft MLLW.
Approximately 4.9 million cubic yards of sediment would be dredged and disposed of. Sheet piling and armor rock would be placed along portions of the Pier J Breakwater to accommodate the adjacent deepened Pier J channel.
Dredging would be accomplished by a hydraulic hopper dredge and a clamshell dredge operating simultaneously for approximately 21 months. The hopper dredge would travel to the disposal sites to dispose of dredged material whereas the clamshell dredge would place dredged material on a barge that would be hauled to disposal sites. Disposal sites would include the nearshore Surfside- Sunset site off Huntington Beach and the LA-2 and LA-3 offshore disposal sites.
The nearshore site is expected to receive approximately 2.5 million cubic yards of material from the Approach Channel, Main Channel, and West Basin dredging and the two ocean disposal sites would receive the remaining 2.4 million cubic yards of material from the Pier J and West Basin dredging.
While this alternative would require less dredging which would mean less equipment activity, fewer worker commutes, and less disruption of biological habitats and water quality, these differences are not substantial in nature and result in significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality and health risk. Because Alternative 2 would not meet the overall Project purpose and need of increasing transportation efficiencies for container and liquid bulk vessels operating in the Port, for both the current and future fleet, and to improve conditions for vessel operations and safety, which would be achieved by the proposed Project, Alternative 2 is not considered the environmentally preferred alternative. ///
7 01434859.DOCX A22-01260
RESOLUTION: CERTIFYING FINAL EIR [REV. 5_09/08/2022] DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY [SNL/bel] 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4664
3.4 Alternative 3 is a feasible alternative that was selected by USACE as the Tentatively Selected Project, and is described above in Section 2.
Operational benefits include reduced lightering of liquid bulk vessels, reduced light-loading of containerized vessels, and less time waiting for tides.
Environmental benefits include increased transportation efficiencies, and improved navigational efficiencies that will reduce emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gasses by allowing the largest and cleanest vessels to call fully loaded and reduce idling time. Alternative 3 will result in safety improvements, allowing for increased vessel maneuvering. Financially, Alternative 3 will result in reduced transportation costs, and the potential for beneficial reuse of dredge material. In sum, Alternative 3 would meet the overall Project purpose and need of increasing transportation efficiencies for container and liquid bulk vessels operating in the Port, for both the current and future fleet, and to improve conditions for vessel operations and safety, which would be achieved by the proposed Project and maximizes the net benefits of the alternatives analyzed while considering all of the environmental impacts of each of the alternatives.
Therefore, Alternative 3 is the environmentally superior alternative and has been selected as the National Economic Development Plan.
3.5 Alternative 4 is a feasible alternative that would deepen the Pier J Channel and the West Basin Channel and create a turning basin off Pier J, all to a depth of -57 ft MLLW; would widen the Main Channel to the design depth (-76 ft MLLW); and would deepen the Approach Channel to -80 ft MLLW.
Approximately 11.9 million cubic yards of sediment would be dredged and disposed of. Sheet piling and armor rock would be placed along portions of the Pier J Breakwater to accommodate the adjacent deepened Pier J channel. In addition, Alternative 4 would require modifications of the wharves at Pier J and Pier T to accommodate the deeper (-57 ft MLLW) berths. These modifications would include pile driving and rock placement.
8 01434859.DOCX A22-01260
RESOLUTION: CERTIFYING FINAL EIR [REV. 5_09/08/2022] DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY [SNL/bel] 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4664
Alternative 4 would not have fewer or less severe impacts than the proposed Project in any resource area. Alternative 4 would have greater impacts than the proposed Project in the areas of air quality, biota, hydrology and water quality, noise, ground and vessel transportation, and climate change. This is because Alternative 4 would involve more dredging (11.9 million cubic yards versus 7.4 million cubic yards), which would mean correspondingly more equipment activity, worker commutes, and disruption of biological habitats and water quality.
In addition to increased noise from equipment activity, construction of Alternative 4 would generate more high-intensity underwater noise from pile driving at the Pier J and Pier T wharves. As described in POLB (2019), high- intensity underwater noise can adversely affect marine organisms by damaging their auditory systems, disrupting behavior and communication, and causing mortality through swim bladder damage. These effects would be limited to a small area near the pile driving activity, and the USACE has determined that they would not represent a significant impact on marine mammals, managed fish species, and other marine resources.
All of the impact determinations under CEQA would, like those of the proposed Project, be either no impact or less than significant impact, with the exception of air quality, human health risk, and biota. Air quality would represent a significant impact. Alternative 4 would have a significant human health risk impact that the other alternatives would not have. Even after mitigation, impacts on air quality and human health risk would be significant and unavoidable.
Because Alternative 4 would not meet the overall Project purpose and need of increasing transportation efficiencies for container and liquid bulk vessels operating in the Port, for both the current and future fleet, and to improve conditions for vessel operations and safety, which would be achieved by the proposed Project, Alternative 4 is not considered the environmentally preferred 9 01434859.DOCX A22-01260
RESOLUTION: CERTIFYING FINAL EIR [REV. 5_09/08/2022] DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY [SNL/bel] 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4664
alternative.
3.6 Alternative 5 is a feasible alternative that would deepen the Pier J channel and the West Basin channel and create a turning basin off Pier J, all to a depth of -55 ft MLLW; would widen the Main Channel to the design depth (-76 ft MLLW); and would deepen the Approach Channel to -80 ft MLLW (Figure 4- 2). A Standby Area adjacent to the Main Channel would be created by dredging to -67 ft MLLW with a 300-ft-diameter area in the center dredged to -73 ft MLLW.
Approximately 8.4 million cubic yards of sediment would be dredged and disposed of (Table 4-8). Sheet piling and armor rock would be placed along portions of the Pier J Breakwater to accommodate the adjacent deepened Pier J channel.
Alternative 5 would not require wharf modifications.
Alternative 5 would have greater impacts than the proposed Project in the areas of air quality, biota, hydrology and water quality, noise, ground and vessel transportation, and climate change. This is because Alternative 5 would involve more dredging (8.4 million cubic yards versus 7.4 million cubic yards), which would mean correspondingly more equipment activity, worker commutes, and disruption of biological habitats and water quality. All of the impact determinations under CEQA would, like those of the proposed Project, be either no impact or less than significant impact, with the exception of air quality and biota. Air quality would represent a significant impact.
As with the proposed Project, the significant impacts to air quality and health risk would be significant and unavoidable for Alternative 5. Because the Alternative 5 even after mitigation would not meet the overall Project purpose and need of increasing transportation efficiencies for container and liquid bulk vessels operating in the Port, for both the current and future fleet, and to improve conditions for vessel operations and safety, which would be achieved by the proposed Project, Alternative 5 is not considered the environmentally preferred alternative.
10 01434859.DOCX A22-01260
RESOLUTION: CERTIFYING FINAL EIR [REV. 5_09/08/2022] DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY [SNL/bel] 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4664
Sec. 4. Findings - Environmental Impacts. The Board adopts the findings regarding the Project’s environmental impacts contained in Section 3.0 of Exhibit “A.” Other than those mitigation measures required or incorporated pursuant to the Final EIR, the Board finds that there are no feasible measures within its jurisdiction which could be adopted at this time, which would avoid or significantly mitigate those significant, potentially significant or cumulatively considerable adverse environmental impacts identified in Section 3.0 of Exhibit “A.”
Sec. 5. Findings - Significant Benefits and Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Board hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Section 5.0 of Exhibit “A.”
Sec. 6. Certification. The Board hereby certifies that the FEIR for the Project has been completed in compliance with the CEQA and the State and local guidelines promulgated pursuant thereto. The Board further certifies that the FEIR was presented to the Board and that the Board reviewed and considered the information contained in it prior to approving the Project. The Board further certifies that the FEIR reflects the Board’s and the Port's independent judgment and analysis.
Sec. 7. Project Approval. Based on the conclusions set forth in Section 6, the Application Summary Report, the Project and Harbor Development Permit No. 19-035 are hereby approved.
Sec. 8. Mitigation Plan Approval. The mitigation measures set forth in the Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit “B” are hereby adopted and approved as part of the Project.
Sec. 9. Location and Custodian of Record Proceedings. The Director of Environmental Planning of the Long Beach Harbor Department, whose office is located at 415 W. Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90802, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Board's decision is based, which documents and materials
11 01434859.DOCX A22-01260
RESOLUTION: CERTIFYING FINAL EIR [REV. 5_09/08/2022] DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY [SNL/bel] 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
CHARLES PARKIN, City Attorney
411 West Ocean Boulevard, 9th Floor
Long Beach, CA 90802-4664
shall be available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act (Cal. Government Code Sec. 6250 et seq.).
Sec. 10. Notice of Determination. The Director of Environmental Planning shall file a notice of determination with the County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles and with the state Office of Planning and Research.
Sec. 11. Certification, Posting and Filing. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the Board of Harbor Commissioners, and the Secretary of the Board shall certify to the vote adopting this resolution and shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed forthwith with the City Clerk. The City Clerk shall post the resolution in three conspicuous places in the City of Long Beach.
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Long Beach at its meeting of _______________, 2022 by the following vote:
Ayes: Commissioners: ___________________________________
___________________________________
Noes:
Commissioners:
___________________________________
Absent:
Commissioners:
___________________________________
Not Voting:
Commissioners:
___________________________________
___________________________________
Secretary
September 12
Neal, Colonna, Lowenthal, Olvera, Weissman
Port of
Long Beach
Environmental Planning Division
415 West Ocean Boulevard
Long Beach, California 90802
September 2022
EXHIBIT A
PORT OF LONG BEACH
DE
EP DRAFT NAVIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY AND
CHA
NNEL DEEPENING PROJECT
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STAT EMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
Port of
LONG BEACH
THE PORT OF CHOICE
Thi
s page intentionally left blank.
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project i September 2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel Deepening Project ....................... 1
2.1 Project Objectives .......................................................................................................... 1
2.2 Project Overview ............................................................................................................ 2
3.0 CEQA Findings ............................................................................................................... 2
3.1 Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts Determined to be Not Significant or Less than Significant ...................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Findings Regarding Cumulative Environmental Impacts Determined to be Not Significant or Less than Significant ................................................................................15
3.3 Findings Regarding Significant Environmental Impacts that Cannot be Mitigated to a Less than Significant Level .....................................................................................15
3.4 Cumulatively Considerable Impacts ...............................................................................17
3.5 Finding Regarding Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR ......................................19
4.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project ..............................................................................19
4.1 Alternatives Analyzed in the Draft EIR ...........................................................................20
4.2 Findings for Alternatives Analyzed .................................................................................22
5.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations ........................................................................26
5.1 Project Significant Impacts ............................................................................................ 26
6.0 Overriding Considerations .............................................................................................27
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project 1 September 2022
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
The City of Long Beach (COLB), acting by and through its Board of Harbor Commissioners 2 (Board), has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the California 3 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to identif y and evaluate potential environmental impacts 4 associated with implementation of the proposed Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and 5 Channel Deepening Project (Project or proposed Project) in the Port of Long Beach (Port or 6 POLB). 7
These Findings of Fact have been prepared by the Port acting by and through its Board in its 8 capacity as lead agency pursuant to CEQA to support a decision on the Project. Section 21081 9 of the California Public Resources Code (PRC) and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines 10 provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been 11 certified that identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the Project unless the 12 public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, 13 accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 14
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid 15 or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. 16
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public 17 agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such 18 other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 19
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provisions 20 of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation 21 measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 22 Additionally, the lead agency must not approve a project that will have a significant effect on the 23 environment unless it finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other 24 benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects (Public Resources 25 Code Section 21081(b); California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15093). The Statement 26 of Overriding Considerations set forth below identifies the specific overriding economic, legal, 27 social, technological, or other benefits of the Project that outweigh the significant environmental 28 impacts identified in the Final EIR. 29
2.0 DEEP DRAFT NAVIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY AND CHANNEL 30 DEEPENING PROJECT 31
2.1 Project Objectives 32
CEQA requires that an EIR state the objectives of a proposed project to explain the reasons for 33 project development and why this particular solution is being recommended. Additionally, the 34 project objectives are instrumental in determining which alternatives should be considered in the 35 EIR. The purpose of the Port of Long Beach Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel 36 Deepening Project is to identify and evaluate alternatives to increase transportation efficiencies 37 for container and liquid bulk vessels operating in the Port, for both the current and future fleet, 38 and to improve conditions for vessel operations and safety. 39 Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project 2 September 2022
The basic objectives of the Project are to do the following: 1 • Reduce transportation costs by allowing a more efficient future fleet mix (e.g., displ ace 2 Panamax and smaller-scale Post-Panamax vessels with larger-scale Post-Panamax vessels, 3 which have increased cargo capacity). 4
• Reduce vessel congestion in the Port. 5
• Increase channel depth to encourage shippers to replace smaller, less efficient vessels w ith 6 larger, more efficient vessels on Long Beach route services. 7 • Remove channel restrictions to increase vessels' maximum loading capacity, thereby resulting 8 in fewer vessel trips to transport the forecasted cargo. 9 • Reduce wait times within the harbor to reduce loading and unloading delays for deeper 10 drafting liquid bulk vessels and to provide a safe area to anchor adjacent to the Main Channel 11 during equipment failures. 12
2.2 Project Overview 13
The proposed Project involves constructing an approach channel to Pier J South and deepening 14 the West Basin Channel to a new depth of -55 ft mean lower low water (MLLW) (with a 2-ft over 15 dredge allowance) for cargo vessels, constructing a turning basin outside the Pier J slip, 16 deepening the Approach Channel to -80 ft MLLW, bend easing portions of the Main Channel to 17 match the currently authorized depth in the Main Channel of -76 ft MLLW, to accommodate liquid 18 bulk vessels, deepening berths at Pier J and Pier T to -55 ft MLLW, and constructing structural 19 improvements to the Pier J breakwaters. Construction would last for 39 months. 20 The proposed Project would involve dredging approximately 7.4 million cubic yards of sediments, 21 of which 2.5 million cubic yards would be disposed of at the nearshore Surfside- Sunset Borrow 22 Site off Huntington Beach and the remainder would be disposed of at the LA2 and LA3 offshore 23 disposal areas. Dredging would involve a hopper dredge and a clamshell dredge as well as 24 tugboats and barges for disposal operations and utility boats for support. The breakwaters at the 25 entrance to the Pier J Slip would be reinforced against the increased depth by driving sheet piling 26 and placing rock riprap over the sheet piling. 27
3.0 CEQA FINDINGS 28
The Findings of Fact are based on information contained in the Final EIR for the proposed Project, 29 as well as information contained within the administrative record. The administrative record 30 includes, but is not limited to, the Project application, Project staff reports, Project public hearing 31 records, public notices, written comments on the Project, proposed decisions and findings on the 32 Project, and all other documents relating to the agency decision on the Project. When making 33 CEQA findings required by PRC Section 21081(a), a public agency shall specify the location and 34 custodian of the documents or other material, which constitute the record of proceedings upon 35 which its decision is based. The Director of Environmental Planning of the Long Beach Harbor 36 Department, whose office is located at 415 W. Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90802, 37 is designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of 38 proceedings upon which the Board's decision is based. These documents and materials are 39 available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California 40 Public Records Act (Government Code §§ 6250 et seq.). 41 Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project 3 September 2022
The Draft EIR addresses the proposed Project’s potential effects on the environment. The Draft 1 EIR was circulated for public review and comment pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. Comments were 2 received from a variety of public agencies, organizations, and individuals. The Final EIR contains 3 copies of all comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR; a list of persons, 4 organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; and responses to comments 5 received during the public review and identifies changes to the Draft EIR. This section provides a 6 summary of the environmental effects of the proposed Project that are discussed in the EIR and 7 provides written findings for each of the significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of 8 the rationale for each finding. 9
While the findings set forth below identify certain specific facts supporting the various 10 determinations and conclusions, additional facts supporting the conclusions are set forth in the 11 corresponding sections of the Draft EIR, and these findings specifically incorporate those facts. 12 In addition, the Board incorporates the facts set forth in the Record of Proceedings on the Project 13 to the extent they relate to and support the findings set forth herein. 14
3.1 Findings Regarding Environmental Impacts Determined to be Not 15 Significant or Less than Significant 16
The Board hereby finds that the following environmental impacts of the proposed Project are less 17 than significant. As shown in Table 3.1.1, under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for 18 impacts that are less than significant (14 Cal. Code Regs. §15126.4[a][3]). 19 TABLE 3.1-1: FINDINGS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE NOT 20 SIGNIFICANT OR LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT 21
Impact Board Finding
Aesthetics/Visual Resources
AES-1: The proposed Project would not
have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista.
The proposed Project is not located within an officially designated scenic vista. Accordingly, the dredging of the navigation channels and berths within the Port complex would be consistent with the existing viewshed and landscape, and the proposed Project would not adversely affect a scenic vista.
No impact on a scenic vista would occur.
AES-2: T he proposed would not
substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway.
The proposed Project is not within a high- quality foreground view from a ny officially designated state scenic highways.
Additionally, the project area does not include any scenic resources that would be affected by the proposed Project. As such, the proposed Project would not adversely affect a scenic resource within a state scenic highway , result in impacts on the existing visual character or quality of the surrounding uses, or
not alter the qualities of the area that contribute to the scenic highway designation. No impact would occur.
AES-3: The proposed Project would not
create a new source of substantial light
or glare which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area.
The proposed Project site is located within and adjacent to the highly industrialized Port complex and is characterized by substantial night -time lighting within marine terminals and along roadways. Port activities take place 24 hours per day, and the ligh
ting is visible from a distance. The proposed
Project would create new sources of light from nighttime activities, but this source would be limited to the staging areas, dredges, disposal barges, and tugboats. The new lighting would be nominal in the conte xt of the existing nighttime Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project 4 September 2022
Impact Board Finding
operations at the Port and would be temporary, lasting only as long as construction. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant, and mitigation is not required.
AES-4: The proposed Project would not
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality.
The Port is currently preparing the 2020 PMP Update, which modified the Planning Districts throughout the Port. According to the 2020 PMP Update, the project is located within District 4 – West Basin, and District 5 – Southeast Basin. The
permitted uses in these Districts includes primary Port facilities and Port-related facilities, hazardous cargo facilities, maritime support facilities, institutional facilities, oil and gas production, renewabl e energy resources, environmental
protection, utilities, navigable corridor, maneuvering and berthing, environmental protection, navigable corridor, maneuvering and berthing, and sediment management areas.
The proposed Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
AFR-1: The proposed Project would not
convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use.
The Port complex does not have any agricultural farmland. No impact would occur.
AFR-2: The proposed Project would not
conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract use.
The Port is entirely located within the Port -Related Industrial (IP) zoning district, which is characterized predominately by maritime industry and marine resources. The Port complex does not have any agricultural farmland or existing zoning for agricultural use. No impact would occur.
AFR-3: The proposed Project would not
conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code section 4526) ,
or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g)).
The Port complex does not have any forest land or existing zoning for forest or timberland resources. No impact would occur.
AFR-4: The proposed Project would not
result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non- forest
use.
The Port complex does not have any forest land. No impact would occur.
AFR-5: The proposed Project would not
involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non- forest
use.
The Port complex does not have any farmland or forest land.
Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project 5 September 2022
Impact Board Finding
Air Quality and Health Risk Assessment
AQ-3: The proposed Project would not
create an objectionable odor at the
nearest sensitive receptor pursuant to
SCAQMD Rule 402.
The combustion of diesel fuel used in construction and
operational activities would generate air pollut ants. Diesel exhaust includes some chemical species that are known to have odors. The mobile nature of most proposed Project
emissions over the relatively large Project site would help decentralize, disperse, and dilute odors. Dredged sediment would be transported to offshore disposal sites several miles away from receptors. Therefore, the potential for the proposed Project to produce objectionable odors that would affect sensitive receptors is low. Given the existing industrial setting represents is an already complex odor environment, impacts would be less than significant.
AQ-4: The proposed Project would not
produce emissions that would expose
the public to significant levels of TACs.
Construction activities would occur over a period of
approximately 39 months and would be spread out over a total area of over 1, 700 acres. A ctivities in a given dredging area are unlikely to affect the same receptors affected by activities in a different dredging area. C onstruction activities in any single location would be transitory and short-term and are not anticipated to result in substantial elevated cancer risks to exposed persons.
AQ-5: The proposed Project would not
conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP) or would not
conform to the most recently updated
SIP.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) AQMP proposes emission-
reduction measures that are
designed to bring the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) into attainment of California Ambient Air Qua lity Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). Proposed Project operations would need to comply with these strategies. SCAQMD also adopts AQMP control
measures into rules and regulations, which are then used to regulate sources
of air pollution. Compliance with these
requirements would ensure that the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP or SIP.
Biota and Habitats
BIO-1: The proposed Project would not
have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special -
status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.
There would not be any substantial loss in the population or habitat of any native fish, wildlife, or vegetation. Benthic populations removed during dredging or buried at the
placement/disposal sites are expected to recover following disturbance. The project would not have substantial adverse effects o
n any listed species or their critical habitats.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
BIO-2: The proposed Project would not
have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations or by the
CDFW or USFWS.
No riparian habitat and very limited eelgrass habitat currently exist within the Harbor District. Construction of the proposed Project would not directly affect eelgrass. Eelgrass does not occur in the proposed dredge. Because the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a sensitive natural community, impacts would be less than significant.
BIO-3: The proposed Project would not
have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
No state or federally protected wetlands exist in or near the project area. Therefore, proposed Project activities would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands, and no impact would occur.
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project 6 September 2022
Impact Board Finding
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means.
BIO-4: The proposed Project would not
interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites.
Construction activities could temporarily increase turbidity, thereby degrading water quality in a m anner that could affect fish and other marine life movement within the area. Mobile species are expected to relocate out of the immediate area until dredging activities are completed. Construction activities could affect Essential Fish Habitat by removing or decreasing the functions and values of that habitat. However, any such effects would be temporary and limited in extent to the immediate dredge or disposal area. The movement or
migration of fish or wildlife would not be substantially impeded; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
BIO-5: The proposed Project would not
conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance
Applicable regulations protecting biological resources in the Harbor District are administered by federal and state agencies under the various laws and policies described above and in Section 3.4. Construction of the proposed Project would be conducted in accordance with all applicable regulations protecting biological resources. The proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and mitigation is not required.
BIO-6: The proposed Project would not
conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan.
The project area is not located within an adopted Natural Communities Conservation Plan or Habitat Conservation Plan area. As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable Natural Communities
Conservation Plan or Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Historic and Tribal Cultural Resources
CR-1: The proposed Project would not
cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resources.
Because there are no structures present on the land areas that could be affected by the project that are considered significant historic resources and because no shipwrecks or other submerged cultural resources are known to be present in the dredge footprint, the proposed Project would not adversely change the significance of any historical resources.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
CR-2: The proposed Project would not
cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resources.
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would not have the potential to uncov er archaeological resources because all Project -related activities would occur within sediments of the bay, most of them in previously dredged areas, and on recently placed fill material. Therefore, impacts on archeological resources would be less than
significant.
CR-3: The proposed Project would not
disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries.
Because the proposed Project site is located on a previously disturbed area, the proposed Project would not affect remains interred outside of formal cemetery. No human remains are known to exist on the proposed Project site, and the proposed Project site is not designated, nor has it been designated, for use as a cemetery. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project 7 September 2022
Impact Board Finding
CR-4: The proposed Project would not
cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resources.
The proposed Project would occur within the water areas, and minimal landside areas, which are on documented fill.
Therefore, the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in changes to listed or eligible tribal cultural resources. There is no evidence of tribal resources occurring in the area that could be affected. Accordingly, no impacts would occur.
Geology, Soils, and Seismic Conditions
GEO-1: The proposed Project would not
directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
• Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map;
• Strong seismic ground shaking;
• Landslides, lateral spreading,
subsidence, or collapse; and/or
• Tsunamis or seiches.
The proposed P roject does not involve the development of habitable structures that would be affected by seismic activity, nor does it involve the alteration of existing landforms such that risks of ground rupture, landslides, or tsunamis or seiches would be increased. Accordingly, no impact would occur.
GEO-2: The proposed Project would not
result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil
Construction would occur primarily in the harbor waters and would not result in erosion. The landside construction would be minimal and would occur on existing developed and
disturbed areas; compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit (CGP) and project -specific Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be mandatory and would ensure that any runoff from landside construction would not cause substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Standard, permit-specified best management practices (BMPs) for soil stabilization can include use of vegetation, soil binders, mulches, geotext iles, plastic covers, and erosion control blankets. Construction activities would comply with POLB guidance and applicable permits and applicable sections of the Long Beach Municipal Code and California Building Code.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. No impact would occur.
GEO-3: The proposed Project would not
be located on expansive soil.
Because construction of the project would not affect the expansiveness of soils and does not involve the development of habitable structures that would be affected by geologic constraints, no impact would occur.
GEO-4: The proposed Project would not
directly or indirectly destroy a unique
geologic feature or result in the
permanent loss of, or loss of ac cess to,
a paleontological resource of regional or
statewide significance.
The potential to encounter sensitive paleontological resources during dredging in the San Pedro Bay is also extremely low, since sediments in the Bay are silts and sands deposited b y.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not directly or indirectly destroy unique paleontological resources or geologic
features. Impacts would be less than significant.
GEO-5: The proposed Project would not
render known mineral (petroleum or
natural gas) resources inaccessible.
According to the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal
Resources’ Online Mapping System, the project site is within the Wilmington Oil Field, and several
oil wells exist in the
vicinity of the project. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not increase the rates of existing oil extraction or affect production and abandonment plans for any project area oil Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project 8 September 2022
Impact Board Finding
wells around the project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. No impact on the availability of a mineral resource would occur.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1: The proposed Project would not
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials.
The proposed Project is not expected to result in rout ine transport, use, or disposal of significant quantities of hazardous materials. However, accidents resulting in spills of hazardous materials —including fuel, lubricants, or hydraulic fluid from the equipment used during dredging and disposal— could occur during the proposed Project and adversely affect water quality. Impacts would depend on the amount and type of material spilled as well as specific conditions. As such, impacts related to routine transport, use, or disposal of significant quantities of haz ardous materials would be less than significant.
HAZ-2: The proposed Project would not
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment.
The proposed Project activities could result in contaminated sediments being encountered during dredging, excavation, and associated activities throughout the proposed Project area. However, dredging and placement operations are not expected to result in the release of toxic substances as the dredged materials are expected to be clean enough to be placed in the nearshore or disposed of at one of two nearby ocean-dredged material disposal sites. As such, impacts related to the release o f hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant.
HAZ-3: The proposed Project would not
produce an adverse effect on the public
or environment as a result of being
located on a site that is known to contain
hazardous materials or
create a
significant hazard to people or the
environment because of the presence of
soil or groundwater contamination.
The construction activities associated with the proposed Project would primarily involve dredging of sediment
materials. Dredging and pla cement operations are not
expected to result in the release of toxic substances as the dredged materials are expected to be clean enough to be placed in the nearshore or disposed of at one of two nearby ocean-dredged material disposal sites. As such, impac ts related to the release of hazardous materials into the
environment would be less than significant. Impacts would be less than significant.
HAZ-4: The Project would not impair
implementation, physically interfere
with, or result in an inconsistency with an
adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
The proposed Project would not interfere with any current emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans
for local, state, or federal agencies. Access to all local roads would be mai
ntained during construction and project
operation. Any emergency procedures or design features
required by city, state, and federal guidelines would be implemented during construction and operation of the
proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project w ould not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. No impacts would occur.
HAZ-5: The proposed Project would
comply with state guidelines associated
with abandoned oil wells.
The proposed Project is located within the harbor waters and would not affect existing or abandoned oil wells. No impact would occur.
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project 9 September 2022
Impact Board Finding
HAZ-6: The proposed Project would not
handle hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of
an existing or planned school.
Because there are no schools located or proposed within one- quarter mile of the project site, no impact would occur.
HAZ-7: The proposed Project would not
expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of l
oss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires.
Because there are no wildlands adjacent to or in the general project vicinity, no impacts associated with exposing people or structures to increased wildland fire hazards would occur.
HAZ-8: The proposed Project would not
result in a safety hazard or excessive
noise for people residing or working in a
project area located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport.
The project site is not located within a 2 -mile radius of any public airport. As such, the proposed Project would not result in an airplane safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No impact would occur.
HAZ-9: The proposed Project would not
result in an inconsistency with the Port
of Long Beach Risk Management Plan.
Generally, the Port RMP is associated with the operational use and storage of hazardous materials and not construction- related impacts, unless construction activities would involve large quantities of hazardous materials that could cause off - site impacts. Hazardous materials used during construction would be limited to construction equipment fuels and other construction materials, such as hydraulic oils, solvents, welding gases, or cleaning supplies, with limited potential to affect areas off of the construction site. Therefore,
construction activities would not be inconsistent with the Port RMP. No impact would occur.
Hydrology and Water Quality
WQ-1: The proposed Project would not
violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or groundwater quality.
Construction of the proposed Project, including dredging activities, would potentially affect water quality. Construction activities such as dredging and earthmoving could result in short-term increases in turbidity, decreases in dissolved oxygen, increases in nutrients, and increases in contaminants in areas where contaminated sediments occur adsorbed on susp
ended sediments or dissolved in the water in the
sediments, thus degrading water quality. These impacts
would generally be confined to the immediate vicinity of the dredging activities, though impacts may remain detectable short distances away depending on current. Periodic
monitoring of the water column would be conducted to ensure that turbidity increases and/or decreases in dissolved oxygen do not result in significant impacts. With implementation of water quality monitoring and management strategies as part of project design, proposed Project impacts would be less - than-significant.
WQ-2: The proposed Project would not
substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin.
Because the proposed Project would not directly change the quantity of the groundwater and groundwater would not be used as part of the project, no impacts associated with groundwater supply depletion or gro undwater recharge
interference would occur.
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project 10 September 2022
Impact Board Finding
WQ-3: The proposed Project would not
substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
• Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site.
• Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or
offsite.
• Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
• Impede or redirect flood flows.
Proposed dredging activities and construction activities would not alter drainage patterns that could result in substantial soil erosion or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff that could result in flooding. All construction would occur within the water, or on disturbed and existing paved areas. Therefore, no impacts pertaini ng to drainage pattern alterations would occur.
Proposed dredging activities and construction activities would not alter drainage patterns or increase impervious surfaces.
All construction would occur within the water, or on disturbed and existing paved areas. Therefore, no impacts pertaining to drainage pattern alterations would occur.
No structures that would impede or redirect flood flows are proposed as a part of the proposed Project. The site would remain relatively level and drainage patterns would be similar to existing conditions. As such, the proposed Project would not impede, or redirect flood flows compared to existing conditions. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
WQ-4: The proposed Project would not
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones.
The project site is within the Tsunami Hazard Zone as mapped by the California Emergency Management Agency. Further, tsunami flood hazard conditions already exist for much of the Port area, and the propo
sed Project would not contribute
toward intensifying this condition. Impacts would be less than significant.
Seiches are seismically induced water waves that surge back and forth in an enclosed basin and could occur in the harbor as a result of earthquakes. Dredging of approximately 7 million cubic yards of sediments would result in moderate alterations of the bottom topography of the harbor. The Port is an
industrial area where previous dredging has been completed.
Dredging would temporarily disrupt underwater depositional processes; however, similar to prior dredging episodes in this area, depositional equilibrium would be reestablished within a short period of time. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
WQ-5: The proposed Project would not
conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan.
Because the proposed Project would not conflict with any water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater
management plans, no impacts would occur.
WQ-6: The proposed Project would not
substantially alter water circulation or
currents, or result in the long- term
detrimental alteration of harbor
circulation that would cause reduced
water quality.
The proposed Project would deepen existing channels,
basins, and slips, but not substantially from existing
conditions. The small changes in depth could result in a slight increase in tidal flushing, but not in substantial alterations to water circulation or currents. Impacts would be less than significant.
Land Use/Planning
LU-1: The proposed Project would not
conflict with any applicable land use
According to the General Plan Land Use Element, land uses within the Port boundaries are designated and controlled by Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project 11 September 2022
Impact Board Finding
plan, policy, or regulation of any agency
with jurisdiction over the proposed
Project adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect.
the PMP. The proposed Project is consistent with (a)
permitted Port -related industrial uses and navigation uses associated with these Harbor Planning Districts; and (b) overall goals stipulated in the PMP and the long- range planning goal for the Terminal Island, Middle Harbor, and Southwest Harbor Planning Districts to increase Primary Port use, as well as the goal of Nav igation and Outer Harbor Planning Districts to help navigation. The proposed Project would improve existing navigation channels within the Port complex and would not require zone changes or changes to existing land uses. As such, the proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable land use designations and zoning and would also be consistent with a PMP goals to encourage maximum use of facilities by improving the
efficiency of cargo handling facilities and developing land for primary Port facilitie s and Port -related uses. Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations. No impacts would occur.
LU-2: The proposed Project would not
introduce uses or activities incompatible
with existing and future land uses.
The proposed Project would not introduce any uses or
activities that are incompatible with existing Port operations.
Dredging activities are common within Port environments for channel deepening and maintenance of existing channels. No impacts would occur.
LU-3: The proposed Project would not
physically divide an established
community.
The proposed Project would occur entirely within the
boundaries of the Port. There are no residential uses within the proposed Project site. Therefore, no communities would be physically divided by the proposed Project. No impacts would occur.
Noise
NOI-1: The proposed Project would not
result in a substantial temporary or
permanent increase (3 dBA or more in
Leq) in ambient noise levels at the
property line of a noise- sensitive
receptor.
Construction activities, including dredging activities, would generate increased noise levels. However, there are no
sensitive located within 1.25 miles of the proposed Project site. Noise associated with vehicle trips would be negligible due to the small number of daily trips throughout the
construction period. Noise levels would return to ambient conditions upon project completion. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
NOI-2: The proposed Project would not
exceed Land Use Noise District noise
levels allowed by the LBMC.
The proposed Project is entirely located in Noise Land Use District Four, which is characterized as predominantly
industrial with other land use types present. T here are no sensitive receptors located within 1.25 miles of the proposed Project area. I t is expected that by 1.25 miles, sensitive receptors will not be able to detect construction- related noise emissions. Noise associated with vehicle trips would be negligible due to the small number of daily trips throughout the construction period. Noise levels would return to ambient conditions upon project completion. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
NOI-3: The proposed Project would not
result in exposure of persons to or
generation of ground- borne vibration in
Construction of the proposed Project would generate varying degrees of groundborne vibration, depending on the
construction procedure and the construction equipment used.
Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project 12 September 2022
Impact Board Finding
excess of the standards established by
the LBMC.
spread through the ground and d iminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effects of vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground-borne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures. Groundborne vibration sources
associated with the project include dredging as well as potential pile driving. However, both of these activities would generate vibration at the ocean floor below the water surface and away from landside structures. Additionally, the closest buildings are all industrial structures within the Port that are not typically susceptible to damage from groundborne
vibration. There are no sensitive within 1.25 mile of the proposed dredging activity. At these distances, project - generated groundborne vibration would be completely
imperceptible. Therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
NOI-4: The proposed Project would not
result i n a substantially increased
number of vibration events that exceed
the standards established by the LBMC.
The proposed P roject would not generate groundborne
vibration that could affect sensitive receptors and would not substantially increase the number of vibration events.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Population/Housing
POP-1: The proposed Project would not
induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly or
indirectly.
The proposed Project would not induce unplanned population growth in the area. Jobs generated during construction of the proposed Project would be expected to be filled from the local population and would be nominal. Therefore, no impacts
pertaining to substantial unplanned population growth would occur.
POP-2: The proposed project would not
displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere.
The proposed Project would neither displace existing housing nor require the co
nstruction of replacement housing.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
Public Services and Safety
PSS-1: The proposed Project would not
require the addition, expansion,
modification, or relocation of an existing
government facility to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response
times, or other performance objectives,
the construction or operation of which
could cause significant environmental
impacts.
Implementation of the proposed Project would not increase demand for fire or police protection services given the limited amount of equipment involved and the temporary nature of the project. Accordingly, there would be no increase in demand over the baseline level of public service currently required that would require construction of new facilities. Because the proposed Project would not increase demand for fire, police, and other public services, nor necessitate the construction of new public service facilities, no impacts would occur.
PSS-2: The proposed Project would not
result in substantial adverse physical
impacts on existing school or park
facilities, or create a need for new or
physically altered schoo l or park
facilities, the construction or operation of
which could cause significant
The proposed Project does not include the development of residential land use s that would result in an increase in population or increased enrollment at schools in the proposed Project area, and would not increase population in a manner that would generate an increase in demand on existing public or private parks or other recreational facilities that would either Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project 13 September 2022
Impact Board Finding
environmental impacts, to maintain
acceptable service ratios or other
performance objectives.
result in or increase physical deterioration of the facility.
Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Recreation
REC-1: The proposed Project would not
increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recre ational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated.
Because no residential uses are proposed, the proposed
Project would not increase population in a manner that would generate an increase in demand on existing public or private parks or other recreational facilities that would either result in or increase physical deterioration of the facility. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
REC-2: The proposed Project would not
require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities that might have an
adverse physical effect on the
environment.
The proposed P roject does not involve the construction or expansion of recreation facilities, no r other land uses that would require the provision of such facilities. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Ground Transportation
TRANS-1: The proposed Project would
not increase an intersection’s V/C ratio
in accordance with the guidelines, which
show tra
ffic impact thresholds of
significance for intersections (signalized
and unsignalized) of the affected
jurisdictions in the area of influence for
the proposed Project.
Construction of the proposed Project would result in vehicle trips from construction crews that would operate the clamshell dredge and hopper dredge. Construction of the proposed
Project would occur between 2024 and 2029. Given the
relatively modest peak hour trips, the broad distribution of those trips across the study area, and the relative ly
uncongested setting in which they would occur, it can be concluded that the addition project traffic would result in less - than-significant impacts according to the City of Long Beach’s criteria. Additionally, with completion of the proposed Project, the operations at all the facilities would continue as usual and are not anticipated to result in additional vehicular traffic.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
TRANS-2: The proposed Project would
not cause an increase of 0.02 or more in
the V/C ratio with a resulting LOS E or F
at an analyzed freeway segment.
The construction traffic would be nominal with a maximum of 240 daily trips. This negligible number of trips would not have the potential to increase the V/C ratio of a freeway segment by 0.02 or more. Impacts would be less than significant.
TRANS-3: The proposed Project would
not conflict with adopted policies, plans,
or programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities.
The proposed Project would not affect existing public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the performance of such facilities. All construction work would occur within the areas of the harbor that are not served by public transportation nor support bicycle, pedestrian, or other non-
vehicular transportation modes. Therefore, no impacts
would occur.
TRANS-4: The proposed Project would
not result in inadequate emergency
access.
Construction of the proposed Project would not affect
emergency access. All local roads would be maintained
during construction. Any emergency procedures or design features required by city, state, and federal guidelines would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project .
Therefore, no impacts pertaining to emergency access would occur.
Vessel Transportation
VT-1: The proposed Project would not
result in a change in vessel traffic
The proposed dredging activities involve barges and tugs that would occur over an approximately three -year period. These Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project 14 September 2022
Impact Board Finding
patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks.
activities would be scheduled by the POLB and the
construction contractors to minimize potential conflicts with vessel traffic in the Approach Channel, Main Channel, West Basin, Pier J Basin, and Pier J Approach areas. Construction operators contracted by the POLB are required to have
completed training in protocols specific to Long Beach Harbor and POLB marine navigation. The proposed Project would be subject to the USACE restrictions and requirements specified in the conditions of the USACE construction permit. Dredges would also be required to display appropriate lights and day shapes warning approaching vessels of the nature of the work and of the restricted ability of the dredge to maneuver, and to perform their work in a manner that does not obstruct
navigation. With these controls in place, impacts would be less than significant.
Utilities, Service Systems, and Energy Conservation
UTIL-1: The proposed Project would not
require or result in the relocation or
construction of new, or expansion of,
water, wastewater, storm drains, natural
gas, electrical utility lines or facilities, or
oil lines, the construction or relocation of
which could c
ause significant
environmental effects.
The proposed Project would not require the relocation or expansion of any existing utility or the construction of any new utility infrastructure. Impacts would be less than significant.
UTIL-2: The proposed Project would not
exhaust or exceed existing water supply,
wastewater treatment, electrical power,
or landfill capacities.
The proposed Project would not require an increase in water supply, does not involve wastewater treatment facilities, and would not generate significant amounts of solid waste. All dredged sediments would be disposed of at permitted in-water sites. Therefore, no impacts associated with solid waste generation in excess of state or local standards would occur.
UTIL-3: The proposed Project would not
result in potentially significant
environmental impacts due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources during project
construction or operation.
Construction-period energy consumption would result from the use of construc tion equipment, material delivery and hauling, and worker commute trips. The temporary increase in energy use during the construction period would not be considered a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources because it would be
required for project implementation. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
UTIL-4: The proposed Project would not
conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency.
The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct any state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Global Climate Change
GCC-1: The proposed Project would not
cause GHG emissions to exceed the
SCAQMD interim significant emissions
threshold for industrial projects of
10,000 MT CO2e per year.
The proposed Project’s amortized GHG emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD interim significant emissions threshold for industrial projects of 10,000 MT CO2e per year. Impac ts would be less than significant.
GCC-2: The proposed Project would not
conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
The proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The project would not conflict with any of the Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project 15 September 2022
Impact Board Finding
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing GHG emissions.
applicable federal, state, regional, or local GHG emission - reduction plans, policies, or regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
GCC-3: The proposed Project would not
expose people and structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving flooding as a result of sea-level
rise.
Nearly all of the proposed Project components would consist of in-water dredging and disposal. The small land- side areas temporarily required to support construction activities are not located within the areas predicted to be inundated as part of the 16- inch or the 55 -inch seal level rise ( SLR) scenarios according to the Climate Adaptation and Coastal Resiliency Plan (CRP) (POLB 2016). In addition, the current POLB
Harbor Development Permit process requires SLR analyses to ensure that any future project is
designed to avoid
significant risks from SLR. Impacts would be less than
significant.
1 3.2 Findings Regarding Cumulative Environmental Impacts Determined to be 2 Not Significant or Less than Significant 3
The Board hereby finds that the following cumulative environmental impacts of the proposed 4 Project are not significant or less than significant. Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are 5 required for impacts that are less than significant (14 Cal. Code Regs. §15126.4[a][3]): 6 • Aesthetics/Visual Resources 7
• Biota and Habitats 8
• Historic and Tribal Cultural Resources 9
• Geology, Soils, and Seismic Conditions 10
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials 11
• Hydrology and Water Quality 12
• Land Use 13
• Noise 14
• Population and Housing 15
• Public Services and Safety 16
• Recreation 17
• Ground Transportation 18
• Vessel Transportation 19
• Utilities, Service Systems, and Energy Conservation 20 • Global Climate Change 21
Please refer to Chapter 12, Section 12.4, Cumulative Impacts of the Deep Draft Navigation 22 Feasibility Study and Channel Deepening Project Final IFR EIS-EIR for a complete analysis. 23
3.3 Findings Regarding Significant Environmental Impacts that Cannot be 24 Mitigated to a Less than Significant Level 25
The Draft EIR identified certain potentially significant effects that could result from the Deep Draft 26 Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel Deepening Project. The Port finds for each of the 27 significant impacts identified in this section, based on substantial evidence in the record of 28 proceedings that, to the extent feasible, changes or alterations have been required or 29 Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project 16 September 2022
incorporated into the proposed Project that substantially lessen these significant impacts. 1 However, even with the incorporation of mitigation measures for the resource areas discussed 2 below, impacts from the proposed Project are significant and unavoidable. 3 The Board finds and determines that all other mitigation measures and alternatives suggested in 4 public comments on the Draft EIR are infeasible in light of specific economic, legal, social, 5 technological, and other considerations. 6
AIR QUALITY AND HEALTH RISK 7
As discussed in Section 12.2.3 of the Draft IFR EIS -EIR, there would be two significant impacts 8 to air quality and human health as a result of the proposed Project that would remain significant, 9 and unavoidable. 10
Impact AQ-1: Construction of the proposed Project would produce emissions that exceed an 11 SCAQMD significance threshold. 12
Construction of the proposed Project would produce emissions that exceed the SCAQMD daily 13 thresholds of significance. Without mitigation, the peak daily emissions associated with 14 construction activities would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for NOX in years 2024, 2025, 2026, and 15 2027; and for PM 2.5, CO, and VOC in 2025. These exceedances would represent significant 16 regional air quality impacts. The proposed Project would contribute to an increase in criteria 17 pollutant emissions during construction. Short- term emissions would result from the use of 18 construction equipment, including equipment used for dredging (clamshell, hydraulic, or hopper 19 dredge barges) and disposal (tugs and barges), and trips generated by construction workers and 20 haul/material delivery trucks. 21
Finding 22
The following measures have been incorporated into the proposed Project such that they would 23 av
oid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Deep Draft 24 Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel Deepening Project Final IFR EIS -EIR. They are as 25 follows: 26
MM-AQ-1: Electric Clamshell Dredge. The use of an electric clamshell dredge shall be required 27 for project clamshell dredging activities during the entire construction period of the project, and 28 the construction of an electrical substation at Pier J is also required to provide electric power to 29 the clamshell dredge. 30
MM-AQ-2: Construction- Related Harbor Craf t. Construction-related harbor craft (tugboats, 31 crew boats, and survey boats) with Category 1 or Category 2 marine engines will meet at least 32 EPA Tier 3 emission standards for marine engines. In addition, the construction contractor will 33 require all construction-related tugboats that home fleet in the San Pedro Bay Ports: 1) to shut 34 down their main engines and 2) to refrain from using auxiliary engines while at dock and instead 35 use electrical shore power, if feasible. 36
MM-AQ-3: Fleet Modernization of Off-Road Construction Equipment. Self-propelled, diesel-37 fueled off-road construction equipment 25 horsepower or greater will meet EPA/CARB Tier 4 final 38 emission standards for non-road equipment. 39
MM-AQ-4: Additional Mitigation for Off -Road Construction Equipment . Off-road diesel -40 powered construction equipment will comply with the following: 41
3.3.1 Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel Deepening Project 17 September 2022
• Construction equipment will be maintained according to manufacturer’s specifications. 1 • Construction equipment will not idle for more than five minutes when not in use. 2 Although this measure would reduce combustion emissions, the benefits achieved from its 3 implementation were not quantified due to the wide range of variables involved. 4 Rationale for F inding 5
Table 12.7 in the Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel Deepening Project Final 6 IFR EIS-EIR summarizes the peak daily emissions associated with construction of the proposed 7 Project after implementation of the Mitigation Measures AQ -1, AQ -2, AQ -3, and AQ -4. The 8 emissions include construction of the electrical substation at Pier J, as required by MM-AQ-1. The 9 table shows that although emissions would be reduced with mitigation, NOx would remain above 10 significance thresholds in years 2024, 2025, 2026, and 2027; and PM 2.5, CO, and VOC would 11 remain above significance thresholds in 2025. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable. 12 Impact AQ-2: Construction of the proposed Project would result in offsite ambient air pollutant 13 concentrations that exceed an SCAQMD significance threshold. 14 Construction of the proposed Project would result in ambient air pollutant concentrations that 15 exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS. Tables 12- 8 and 12-9 in the Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility 16 Study and Channel Deepening Project Final IFR EIS -EIR present the maximum offsite pollutant 17 concentrations associated with construction, which demonstrate that the total 1- hour NO 2 18 concentration would exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS; the annual NO2 concentration and the SO2 19 and CO concentrations would not exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS; neither PM 10 nor PM 2.520 concentrations would exceed NAAQS or CAAQS. The NO 2 exceedances would represent 21 significant local air quality impacts. Appendix H2 provides figures showing the locations of the 22 maximum 1-hour NO2 concentrations and the geographical areas where the NAAQS and CAAQS 23 would be exceeded. The maximum concentrations and significant impact areas would occur on 24 Port property. 25
Finding 26
Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4 described under Impact AQ-1 previously, would reduce 27 impacts from off-site pollutant concentrations. 28
Rationale for Finding 29
Table 12- 10 and Table 12- 11 in the Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel 30 Deepening Project Final IFR EIS-EIR present the maximum local offsite pollutant concentrations 31 associated with construction of the proposed Project with mitigation. These tables show that the 32 1-hour state NO 2 concentration would be reduced to below the CAAQS. Although the 1- hour 33 federal NO2 concentration would be reduced with mitigation, it would remain above the NAAQS. 34 All other pollutants would be reduced and would remain below the level of significance. Because 35 the 1-hour federal NO2 would remain above the NAAQS, local impacts would be significant and 36 unavoidable. Figure H2.4 in Appendix H2 shows the location of the maximum federal 1-hour NO2 37 concentration and the significant impact area. They are both located on Port property. 38
3.4 Cumulatively Considerable Impacts 39
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 requires that an EIR evaluate the cumulative impacts of a project 40 be analyzed when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. Cumulative 41 Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project 18 September 2022
impacts refer to “two or more individual effects, when considered together, are considerable or 1 which compound or increase other environmental impacts” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15355). 2 This section identifies the cumulatively significant and unavoidable impacts of the Deep Draft 3 Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel Deepening Project. The Board of Harbor 4 Commissioners has determined that there are no mitigation measures available that would reduce 5 these impacts below significance; it would be technologically and economically infeasible to 6 implement any additional measures beyond those described herein. 7 A IR QUALITY AND HEALTH RISK 8
The greatest cumulative impact on the air quality of the regional air basin would be the incremental 9 addition of pollutants from the use of heavy equipment and trucks associated with the 10 construction, and operations of ocean- going vessels, terminal equipment, and trucks from the 11 cumulative projects. Air quality impacts from the cumulative projects would result in cumulatively 12 significant impacts, which would exceed the emission thresholds for VOC, CO, NO x, PM10, and 13 PM2.5 and possibly SO x. Additionally, many of the cumulative projects could also contribute to 14 significant health risks. 15
Mitigated construction activities for the proposed Project would contribute emissions of these 16 pollutants and would exceed the SCAQMD daily construction emission thresholds for PM2.5, NOx, 17 CO, and VOC. Therefore, emissions from the proposed Project would make a cumulatively 18 considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact to air quality. The Port would impose 19 a special condition on the HDP that would require implementing and funding the Community 20 Grants Program (see below). However, implementation of the CGP would not mitigate the 21 proposed Project’s contribution to a significant cumulative impact, and that contribution would 22 remain cumulatively considerable. The proposed Project’s health risk impact would be less than 23 significant, and due to the distance to sensitive receptors, is not expected to make a cumulatively 24 considerable contribution to significant cumulative health risks. 25 Special Condition. Community Grants Program (CGP). 26
In 2016, the Port adopted a Community Grants Program (CGP) following a public hearing 27 process. The CGP contains mitigation measures for environmental impacts as policies and 28 requirements within the program. As applied to projects within the Harbor District, projects must 29 mitigate environmental impacts to the extent feasible, and when impacts remain, compliance with 30 the CGP can be a condition of project approval such that the project must provide funding to future 31 projects that apply to the CGP for such grant awards. The Port will participate and fund the CGP, 32 as determined by the methodology described below. The timing of the payment will be made by 33 the later of the following two dates: (a) the date that the Port issues a Notice to Proceed (NTP) or 34 otherwise authorizes commencement of construction; or (b) the date that the Final EIS/EIR is 35 conclusively determined to be valid, either by operation of PRC Section 21167.2 or by final 36 judgment or final adjudication. 37
Contribution to the CGP was considered for pollutants that would exceed the SCAQMD peak day 38 significance thresholds, following mitigation. Emissions greater than the threshold were multiplied 39 by the cost per ton of emissions, per SCAQMD Rule 301, July 1, 2019. Table III. The CGP funding 40 contribution for the proposed Project is expected to be $146,753. 41
3.4.1 Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel Deepening Project 19 September 2022
3.5 Finding Regarding Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 1 The Board of Harbor Commissioners finds that information added to the EIR after public notice of 2 the availability of the Draft EIR for public review, but before certification, merely clarifies or makes 3 minor modifications to an adequate EIR and does not require recirculation. Recirculation is 4 required only when “significant” new information is added to an EIR after public review and 5 comment on the draft EIR but before certification (PRC § 21092.1). Not all new information added 6 to an EIR is “significant.” According to CEQA Guidelines, new information added to an EIR is 7 significant only if “the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity 8 to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to 9 mitigate or avoid such effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents 10 have declined to implement” (14 C.C.R. § 15088.5). Examples of significant new information 11 include: (1) a new significant impact of the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to 12 be implemented; (2) a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact for which 13 no mitigation measures are added which reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; or (3) a 14 feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously 15 analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project proponent 16 declines to adopt it. 17
Based on these standards, there is no reason to recirculate the Draft EIR. Although some new 18 information has been added to the Final EIR in response to comments, none of the information is 19 significant. No new impacts have been identified, the severity of the impacts identified in the Draft 20 EIR are not substantially increased over what is described in the document, and no feasible 21 alternatives or mitigation measures were identified which would clearly lessen the environmental 22 impacts of the proposed Project. 23
4.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 24
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR examine alternatives to a project to 25 explore a reasonable range of alternatives that meets most of the basic project objectives, while 26 reducing the severity of potentially signif icant environmental impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 27 15126.6(a) states: 28
An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location 29 of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but 30 would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and 31 evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every 32 conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of 33 potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public 34 participation. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives 35 for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. 36 There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be 37 discussed other than the rule of reason. 38
The alternatives were also assessed in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f), 39 which states: 40
The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that 41 requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned 42 choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen 43 Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project 20 September 2022
any of the significant effects of the proposed project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need 1 examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain 2 most of the basic objectives of the project. 3
The POLB as lead agency under CEQA is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives 4 for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. The 5 purpose of the Port of Long Beach Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel 6 Deepening Project is to identify and evaluate alternatives to increase transportation efficiencies 7 for container and liquid bulk vessels operating in the Port, for both the current and future fleet, 8 and to improve conditions for vessel operations and safety. From a CEQA perspective, the 9 evaluation below presents a reasonable range of alternatives that are consistent with the POLB’s 10 legal mandates under the California Coastal Act of 1976, which identifies the POLB and its 11 facilities as a primary economic/coastal resource of the state and an essential element of the 12 national maritime industry for promotion of commerce, navigation, fisheries, environmental 13 preservation, and public recreation. To comply with CEQA requirements, all alternatives 14 considered in the EIR have been evaluated in accordance with the following: 15 • Does the alternative accomplish all or most of the basic objectives of the proposed Project? 16 • Is the alternative potentially feasible (from economic, environmental, legal, social, and 17 technological standpoints)? 18
• Does the alternative avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the proposed 19 Project, including consideration of whether the alternative itself could create significant effects 20 greater than those of the proposed Project? 21
4.1 Alternatives Analyzed in the Draft EIR 22
Three action alternatives, in addition to the proposed Project (Alternative 3), were carried forward 23 to meet the Project’s needs and objectives. Numerous scenarios were explored to determine the 24 most prudent and practicable designs, which are described in more detail in Section 4 of the Draft 25 EIR. The following alternatives are analyzed in this CEQA document: 26 • Alternative 1. No Project Alternative. 27
• Alternative 2. Container terminal channels deepened to -53 feet MLLW, Approach Channel 28 deepened to -78 feet MLLW. 29
• Alternative 4. Container terminal channels deepened to -57 feet MLLW, Approach Channel 30 deepened to -83 feet MLLW; berths J266– J270 within the Pier J South Slip and berth T140 31 along Pier T deepened to -57 feet MLLW; wharf improvements possibly implemented to 32 accommodate the deepening. 33
• Alternative 5. Container terminal channels deepened to -55 feet MLLW, Approach Channel 34 deepened to -80 feet MLLW. New Standby Area dredged to -67 feet MLLW, with a 600-foot-35 diameter center anchor placement at a proposed depth of -73 feet MLLW. 36 The proposed Project and other three action alternatives include widening the Channel, 37 deepening the added width to the authorized depth of -76 feet MLLW, and constructing 38 reinforcement of the Pier J breakwaters. These activities are needed to fully implement the 39 General Navigation Features discussed above and to allow the POLB to fully realize all of the 40 economic benefits of the project. These features are designed to prepare wharves for the selected 41 channel depths and to deepen berths to match the selected channel depths. Reduced features 42 Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project 21 September 2022
would not fully enable the POLB to realize all project benefits and were not considered. Enhanced 1 measures would result in greater costs with no increase in benefits and were also excluded. 2 For the purposes of CEQA, a qualitative comparison of the impacts associated with each 3 alternative are compared to the respective impacts associated with the proposed Project. Table 4
4.1-1 provides a summary comparison of the impacts relative to the proposed Project; the basis 5 for the determinations in Table 4.1- 1 are discussed below. The anticipated significance of each 6 impact is shown, along with a relative comparison to the proposed Project denoted by either ( -) 7 representing fewer impacts, (+) representin g greater impacts, or (0) representing equivalent 8 impacts. 9
TABLE 4.1-1: COMPARISON OF IMPACTS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJ ECT 10 Resource Area
Proposed
Project
No
Project Alt 2 Alt 4 Alt 5
Aesthetics/Visual
Resources
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
(-)
Less Than
Significant
(0)
Less Than
Significant
(0)
Less Than
Significant
(0)
Air Quality and Health
Risk
Significant No Impact
(-)
Significant
(-)
Significant
(+)
Significant
(+)
Biota and Habitats Less Than
Significant
No Impact
(-)
Less Than
Significant
(-)
Less Than
Significant
(+)
Less Than
Significant
(+)
Historic and Tribal
Cultural Resources
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
(-)
Less Than
Significant
(0)
Less Than
Significant
(0)
Less Than
Significant
(0)
Geology, Soils, and
Seismic Conditions
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
(-)
Less Than
Significant
(0)
Less Than
Significant
(0)
Less Than
Significant
(0)
Hazards and
Hazardous Materials
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
(-)
Less Than
Significant
(0)
Less Than
Significant
(0)
Less Than
Significant
(0)
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
(-)
Less Than
Significant
(-)
Less Than
Significant
(+)
Less Than
Significant
(+)
Land Use Less Than
Significant
No Impact
(-)
Less Than
Significant
(0)
Less Than
Significant
(0)
Less Than
Significant
(0)
Noise Less Than
Significant
No Impact
(-)
Less Than
Significant
(-)
Less Than
Significant
(+)
Less Than
Significant
(+)
Population and
Housing
No Significant No Impact
(-)
No Impact
(0)
No Impact
(0)
No Impact
(0)
Public Services and
Safety
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
(-)
Less Than
Significant
(0)
Less Than
Significant
(0)
Less Than
Significant
(0)
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project 22 September 2022
Resource Area
Proposed
Project
No
Project Alt 2 Alt 4 Alt 5
Recreation Less Than
Significant
No Impact
(-)
Less Than
Significant
(0)
Less Than
Significant
(0)
Less Than
Significant
(0)
Ground Transportation Less Than
Significant
No Impact
(-)
Less Than
Significant
(-)
Less Than
Significant
(+)
Less Than
Significant
(+)
Vessel Transportation Less Than
Significant
No Impact
(-)
Less Than
Significant
(-)
Less Than
Significant
(+)
Less Than
Significant
(+)
Utilities, Service
Systems, and Energy
Conservation
Less Than
Significant
No Impact
(-)
Less Than
Significant
(0)
Less Than
Significant
(0)
Less Than
Significant
(0)
Global Climate Change Less Than
Significant
No Impact
(-)
Less Than
Significant
(-)
Less Than
Significant
(+)
Less Than
Significant
(+)
Relative Impact Score - -16 -7 +7 +7
Notes:
(+) = Alternative would increase impact when compared with the proposed Project. (0) = Alternative would have similar impacts when compared with the proposed Project and would be considered neutral.
(–) = Alternative would reduce impact when compared with the proposed Project. 1 4.2 Findings for Alternatives Analyzed 2
In compliance with CEQA, an EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative. The No 3 Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative because it would likely result 4 in none of the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project. However, the No Project 5 Alternative would achieve none of the project objectives described in Section 2.1. It should also 6 be recognized that there could be adverse economic and environmental consequences from 7 making no or limited improvements to the existing Port of Long Beach Deep Draft Navigation 8 Study area, and none of the benefits that could occur under the proposed Project would occur 9 under the No Project Alternative scenario. 10
Pursuant to CEQA regulations (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)), when the No 11 Project Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR will also 12 identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives. The Board has 13 reviewed the significant impacts associated with each of the alternatives. The Plan Formulation 14 and Array of Alternatives presented in detail in Chapter 4 of the Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility 15 Study and Channel Deepening Project Final IFR EIS -EIR identified Alternative 3 as the Port’s 16 proposed Project for the purposes of CEQA. Furthermore, the Board finds that Alternative 3 would 17 be environmentally superior to all other alternatives under CEQA. 18 Alternative 2 would likely result in a reduction in the severity and extent of impacts compared to 19 Alternative 3. However, this alternative would not avoid significant and unavoidable air quality 20 impacts. Additionally, Alternative 2 would not achieve the project objectives and would not realize 21 economic benefits to the fullest. Alternatives 4 and 5 would achieve the project objectives, but 22 Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project 23 September 2022
both would have more severe impacts, including an additional significant impact for Alternative 4, 1 than the Alternative 3. 2
ALTERNATIVE 2 3
• Alternative 2 would deepen the Pier J channel and the West Basin channel and creat e a 4 turning basin off Pier J all to a depth of -53 ft MLLW; would widen the Main Channel to the 5 design depth (-76 ft MLLW); and would deepen the Approach Channel to -78 ft MLLW (Figure 6 4-2). Approximately 4.9 million cubic yards of sediment would be dredged and disposed of. 7 Sheet piling and armor rock would be placed along portions of the Pier J Breakwater to 8 accommodate the adjacent deepened Pier J channel. As with the proposed Project, pile 9 driving would not occur at night. 10
• Dredging would be accomplished by a hydraulic hopper dredge and a clamshell dredge 11 operating simultaneously for approximately 21 months. The hopper dredge would travel to the 12 disposal sites to dispose of dredged material whereas the clamshell dredge would place 13 dredged material on a barge that would be hauled to disposal sites. Disposal sites would 14 include the nearshore Surfside- Sunset site off Huntington Beach and the LA -2 and LA -3 15 offshore disposal sites. The nearshore site is expected to receive approximately 2.5 million 16 cubic yards of material from the Approach Channel, Main Channel, and West Basin dredging 17 and the two ocean disposal sites would receive the remaining 2.4 million cubic yards of 18 material from the Pier J and West Basin dredging. 19
Finding 20
The Board hereby finds that the Alternative 2 is a feasible alternative that generally meets the 21 P
roject objectives. Alternative 2 would have similar impacts as the proposed Project in the areas 22 of aesthetics, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, land use, 23 population and housing, public services and safety, recreation, and utilities and service systems. 24 This is because the geographic scope and nature (i.e., type of activities and equipment) of this 25 alternative are very similar to those of the proposed Project. Alternative 2 would have fewer or 26 less severe impacts than the proposed Project in the areas of air quality, biota, hydrology and 27 water quality, noise, ground and vessel transportation, and climate change. This is because 28 Alternative 2 would involve less dredging (4.9 million cubic yards versus 7.4 million cubic yards), 29 which would mean less equipment activity, fewer worker commutes, and less disruption of 30 biological habitats and water quality. However, these differences are not substantial in nature and 31 result in the same number of significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality and health risk. 32 Facts in Support of Finding 33
As with the proposed Project, the significant impacts to air quality and health risk would be 34 s
ignificant and unavoidable for Alternative 2. Because the Alternative 2 would not meet the overall 35 Project purpose and need of increasing transportation efficiencies for container and liquid bulk 36 vessels operating in the Port, for both the current and future fleet, and to improve condit ions for 37 vessel operations and safety, which would be achieved by the proposed Project, Alternative 2 is 38 not considered the environmentally preferred alternative. 39 ALTERNATIVE 4 40
Alternative 4 would deepen the Pier J channel and the West Basin channel and cr eate a turning 41 basin off Pier J, all to a depth of -57 ft MLLW; would widen the Main Channel to the design depth 42 (-76 ft MLLW); and would deepen the Approach Channel to -80 ft MLLW. Approximately 11.9 43
4.2.1 4.2.2
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project 24 September 2022
million cubic yards of sediment would be dredged and disposed of. Sheet piling and armor rock 1 would be placed along portions of the Pier J Breakwater to accommodate the adjacent deepened 2 Pier J channel. In addition, Alternative 4 would require modifications of the wharves at Pier J and 3 Pier T to accommodate the deeper (-57 ft MLLW) berths. These modifications would include pile 4 driving and rock placement. As with the proposed Project, pile driving would not occur at night. 5 Finding 6
The Board hereby finds that the Alternative 4 is a feasible alternative that generally meets the 7 Project objectives. Alternative 4 would have similar impacts as the proposed Project in the areas 8 of aesthetics, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, land use, 9 population and housing, public services and safety, recreation, and utilities and service systems. 10 This is because the geographic scope and nature (i.e., type of activities and equipment) of this 11 alternative are very similar to those of the proposed Project. 12 Alternative 4 would not have fewer or less severe impacts than the proposed Project in any 13 resource area. Alternative 4 would have greater impacts than the proposed Project in the areas 14 of air quality, biota, hydrology and water quality, noise, ground and vessel transportation, and 15 climate change. This is because Alternative 4 would involve more dredging (11.9 million cubic 16 yards versus 7.4 million cubic yards), which would mean correspondingly more equipment activity, 17 worker commutes, and disruption of biological habitats and water quality. 18 In addition to increased noise from equipment activity, construction of Alternative 4 would 19 generate more high-intensity underwater noise from pile driving at the Pier J and Pier T wharves. 20 As described in POLB (2019), high -intensity underwater noise can adversely affect marine 21 organisms by damaging their auditory systems, disrupting behavior and communication, and 22 causing mortality through swim bladder damage. These effects would be limited to a small area 23 near the pile driving activity, and the USACE has determined that they would not represent a 24 significant impact on marine mammals, managed fish species, and other marine resources. 25 Furthermore, pile-driving activities would include a “soft -start” feature by which the construction 26 contractor would be required to initiate pile driving at reduced force. This measure would give 27 animals the opportunity to vacate the area before full -force driving began, thus further reducing 28 the potential for adverse effects on marine resources. 29 All of the impact determinations under CEQA would, like those of the proposed Project, be either 30 no impact or less than significant impact, with the exception of air quality, human health risk, and 31 biota. Air quality would represent a significant impact. Alternative 4 would have a significant 32 human health risk impact that the other alternatives would not have: the maximum estimated 33 cancer risk at a residential/sensitive receptor would be 1.3 x 10-5 (13 in a million), which exceeds 34 the SCAQMD significance threshold of 1.0 x 10-5 (10 in a million). Mitigation measures MM-AQ-35 1 through MM -AQ-5, as described above for the proposed Project, would be imposed on 36 Alternative 4, but even after mitigation, impacts on air quality and human health risk would be 37 significant and unavoidable. Therefore, Alternative 4 is not considered the environmentally 38 preferred alternative. 39
Facts in Support of Finding 40
As with the proposed Project, the significant impacts to air quality and health risk would be 41 significant and unavoidable for Alternative 4. Because the Alternative 4 would not meet the overall 42 Project purpose and need of increasing transportation efficiencies for container and liquid bulk 43 Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project 25 September 2022
vessels operating in the Port, for both the current and future fleet, and to improve conditions for 1 vessel operations and safety, which would be achieved by the proposed Project, Alternative 4 is 2 not considered the environmentally preferred alternative. 3 A LTERNATIVE 5 4
Alternative 5 would deepen the Pier J channel and the West Basin channel and create a turning 5 basin off Pier J, all to a depth of -55 ft MLLW; would widen the Main Channel to the design depth 6 (-76 ft MLLW); and would deepen the Approach Channel to -80 ft MLLW (Figure 4-2). A Standby 7 Area adjacent to the Main Channel would be created by dredging to -67 ft MLLW with a 300 -ft-8 diameter area in the center dredged to -73 ft MLLW. Approximately 8.4 million cubic yards of 9 sediment would be dredged and disposed of (Table 4- 8). Sheet piling and armor rock would be 10 placed along portions of the Pier J Breakwater to accommodate the adjacent deepened Pier J 11 channel. As with the proposed Project, pile driving would not occur at night. Alternative 5 would 12 not require wharf modifications. 13
Finding 14
The Board hereby finds that the Alternative 5 is a feasible alternative that generally meets the 15 Project objectives. Alternative 5 would have similar impacts as the proposed Project in the areas 16 of aesthetics, cultural resources (after mitigation), geology and soils, hazards and hazardous 17 materials, land use, population and housing, public services and safety, recreation, and utilities 18 and service systems. This is because the geographic scope and nature (i.e., type of activities and 19 equipment) of this alternative are very similar to those of the proposed Project. Alternative 5 would 20 have greater impacts than the proposed Project in the areas of air quality, biota, hydrology and 21 water quality, noise, ground and vessel transportation, and climate change. This is because 22 Alternative 5 would involve more dredging (8.4 million cubic yards versus 7.4 million cubic yards), 23 which would mean correspondingly more equipment activity, worker commutes, and disruption of 24 biological habitats and water quality. All of the impact determinations under CEQA would, like 25 those of the proposed Project, be either no impact or less than significant impact, with the 26 exception of air quality and biota. Air quality would represent a significant impact. Mitigation 27 measures MM-AQ-1 through MM-AQ-5, as described above for the proposed Project, would be 28 imposed on Alternative 5, but even after mitigation, impacts on air quality would be significant and 29 unavoidable. Therefore, Alternative 5 is not considered the environmentally preferred alternative. 30 Facts in Support of Finding 31
As with the proposed Project, the significant impacts to air quality and health risk would be 32 significant and unavoidable for Alternative 5. Because the Alternative 5 would not meet the overall 33 Project purpose and need of increasing transportation efficiencies for container and liquid bulk 34 vessels operating in the Port, for both the current and future fleet, and to improve conditions for 35 vessel operations and safety, which would be achieved by the proposed Project, Alternative 5 is 36 not considered the environmentally preferred alternative. 37 N O PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 38
Under CEQA, the No Project Alternative must consider the conditions that would exist if a project 39 does not proceed, which includes consideration of predictable action, such as the proposing of 40 some other project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B)). Under the No Project 41 Alternative, no dredging or disposal would take place, and no wharf or breakwater improvements 42 would be constructed. The baseline configuration of channels and basins would be maintained, 43
4.2.3 4.2.4
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project 26 September 2022
and the Port’s ability to accommodate large cargo vessels and increased vessel traffic would 1 remain unchanged from baseline conditions. 2
Finding 3
The Board finds that the No Project Alternative, by virtue of the absence of any development, 4 w
ould be environmentally superior to all other alternatives under CEQA. However, without any 5 improvements, the Port would not be able to meet its desired objectives to increase transportation 6 efficiencies for container and liquid bulk vessels operating in the Port, for both the current and 7 future fleet, and to improve conditions for vessel operations and safety. Therefore, this alternative 8 will not be adopted. 9
Facts in Support of Finding 10
Because there would be no construction and no changes to the physical environment, the No 11 P
roject Alternative would have no direct impacts under any of the resource areas considered in 12 this environmental document. 13
5.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 14
CEQA requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its 15 unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the project. 16 Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides the following: 17
1. CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, 18 social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable 19 environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific 20 economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the 21 unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be 22 considered “acceptable.” 23
2. When the lead agency approves a project that will result in the occurrence of significant 24 effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, 25 the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final 26 EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall 27 be supported by substantial evidence in the record. 28
3. If an agency makes a Statement of Overriding Considerations, the statement should be 29 included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of 30 Determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings 31 required pursuant to Section 15091. 32
5.1 Project Significant Impacts 33
The proposed Project would result in significant unavoidable impacts related to air quality and 34 health risk. 35
AIR QUALITY AND HEALTH RISK 36
During a peak day of construction activity, construction activities associated with the proposed 37 Project would produce emissions of VOC, CO, NOx, and PM2.5 that would exceed SCAQMD daily 38 emission significance thresholds. Additionally, proposed Project construction would result in 39
5.1.1 Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel Deepening Project 27 September 2022
offsite ambient air pollutant concentrations that would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance 1 for 1-hour NO2, and 1-hour federal NO2. Although the 1-hour federal NO2 concentration would be 2 reduced with mitigation, it would remain above the NAAQS. All other pollutants would be reduced 3 and would remain below the level of significance. Because the 1-hour federal NO2 would remain 4 above the NAAQS, local impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, these mitigated 5 emissions and ambient concentrations would remain significant and unavoidable. This impact 6 would also be a significant cumulative impact that would be unavoidable. 7
6.0 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 8
The proposed Project would offer numerous benefits that outweigh the unavoidable adverse 9 environmental effects of the undertaking. The Board of Harbor Commissioners recognizes that 10 significant and unavoidable environmental impacts will result from implementation of the proposed 11 Project, as discussed above. The Port has adopted all feasible mitigation measures for the 12 proposed Project, recognized all significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, and 13 balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against the significant and unavoidable impacts. 14 Given these conditions, the Board finds that there are specific overriding economic, legal, social, 15 technological, and other benefits of the proposed Project which outweigh those impacts and 16 provide sufficient reasons for approving the proposed Project. These overriding considerations 17 justify certification of the Final EIR and approval of the proposed Project, as discussed below. 18 Improves Transportation Efficiencies. The Port currently experiences navigational challenges, 19 including existing channel depths that do not meet the draft requirements of the current and future 20 fleet of larger container and liquid bulk vessels. Tide restrictions, light loading, lightering, and other 21 operational inefficiencies result in economic inefficiencies that translate into increased costs for 22 the national economy. Container movements along the secondary channels serving Pier J and 23 Pier T/West Basin, as well as liquid bulk vessel movements along the Main Channel, have been 24 identified as constrained by current conditions. The proposed Project would address these 25 navigational challenges and increase transportation efficiencies for container and liquid bulk 26 vessels operating in the POLB for both the current and future fleet and improve conditions for 27 vessel operations and safety. 28
Improves Navigational Safety. The proposed Project would improve navigational efficiency and 29 vessel safety throughout the POLB. The deepening and widening of the federal channels would 30 facilitate the safe and efficient transportation of all types of cargo into and out of the POLB 31 because larger vessels are calling at the POLB that need deeper and wider channels in order to 32 safely operate. Additionally, the proposed Project would reduce vessel congestion in the Port, 33 thereby contributing to safer conditions within the harbor. 34 Reduces Delays and Wait Times. The proposed Project would reduce wait times within the 35 harbor and reduce loading and unloading delays for deeper -drafting liquid bulk vessels. The 36 proposed Project would allow deeper-drafting vessels to enter and exit the Port without having to 37 account for tide restrictions, light loading, lightering, and other operational constraints. 38 Additionally, the proposed Project would provide a safe area to anchor adjacent to the Main 39 Channel during equipment failures, thereby not taking up valuable berthing space. 40 Reduce Transportation and Product Costs. The proposed Project would have national 41 significance because it will decrease costs as a result of transportation efficiencies. These costs 42 will be reduced by allowing a more efficient future fleet mix (e.g., displace Panamax and smaller-43 Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project 28 September 2022
scale Post -Panamax vessels with larger -scale Post -Panamax vessels, which have increased 1 cargo capacity). 2
Reduces Vessel Trips. Removal of channel restrictions would increase vessels' maximum 3 loading capacity, thereby resulting in fewer vessel trips to transport the forecasted car go. 4 Additionally, increased channel depth would encourage shippers to replace smaller, less efficient 5 vessels with larger, more efficient vessels on Long Beach route services. 6 Consistent with Port Master Plan (PMP). The proposed Project is consistent with the 7 development goals of the PMP and all other applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations. 8 Contributes to the Community Grants Program. To assist in mitigating the proposed Project’s 9 cumulative impacts to air quality, health risk, and global climate change, the Port will make a total 10 contribution of $146,753 in funding for the Port’s CGP. The CGP is aimed at mitigating the impacts 11 of goods movement over 12- 15 years in three specific programs: community heal th, facility 12 improvements, and community infrastructure. 13
Port of Long Beach
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and
Channel Deepening Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Report ing Program
Port of
Long Beach
Environmental Planning Division
415 West Ocean Boulevard
Long Beach, California 90802
Sept ember 202
2 EXHIBIT B
Port of
LONG BEACH
THE PORT OF CHOICE
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project
September 2022
Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Responsible Party ........................................................................................................... 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Procedures .............................................. 3 Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan Completion Forms ......................................... 3 Mitigation and Monitoring Annual Reporting .................................................................... 3 Special Conditions........................................................................................................... 4
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project MMRP-1 September 2022
Introduction 1
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the Deep Draft 2 Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel Deepening Project (Project) in the City of Long Beach 3 (COLB). When a public agency conducts an environmental review of a proposed project in 4 conjunction with approving it, the lead agency shall adopt a program for monitoring or reporting 5 on the measures it was imposed to mitigate or avoid significant adverse environmental effects 6 pursuant Public Resources Code section 21081 and Title 14 California Code of Regulations 7 section 15097. Public Resources Code section 21081.6 states in part that when making the 8 findings required by section 21081(a): 9
“... the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the 10 project or conditions of project app roval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects 11 on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance 12 during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into 13 the project at the r equest of a responsible agency or a public agency having j urisdiction by law 14 over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or 15 responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program.” 16 The primary purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in the Final 17 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project are implemented to reduce or avoid identified 18 environmental effects and to appropriately assign the mitigation responsibilities for implementing 19 the Project. If the Project is approved, the mitigation measures listed in this MMRP will be adopted 20 by the Port of Long Beach (POLB or Port) Board of Harbor Commissioners (Board) as a condition 21 of Project approval. The mitigation measures and special conditions would be mandatory 22 components of the Harbor Development Permit (HDP) for this Project. 23 Responsible Party 24
The POLB (Lead Agency, or its designee, would be responsible for implementing and reporting 25 mitigation measures in this program. The Lead Agency would have responsibility for ensuring that 26 mitigation measures are accomplished in an environmentally responsible manner, ensuring that 27 the status of mitigation measures is reporting in accordance with this program, and would be 28 responsible for program oversight to ensure that applicable mitigation measures are carried 29 forward. 30
Mitigation measures will be included in applicable Requests for Proposals (RFP), specifications, 31 plans, drawings, and procedures issued for construction of the Project and during operation of 32 this facility. When Project work is undertaken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 33 and/or the Port’s contractors, the pertinent mitigation measures will be included in the terms and 34 conditions of the contracts. Port construction inspectors will undertake regular inspections of the 35 job site to ensure that contractors are implementing the mitigation measures and complying with 36 their contract. The Port’s Environmental Planning Division will be responsible for ensuring that 37 mitigation measures that are the responsibility of the Port are carried out. Mitigation measures 38 and Special Conditions for the Project are summarized in Table 1. 39 Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project MMRP-2 September 2022
Table 1. Summary of Mitigation Measures and Special Conditions Air Quality and Health Risk
1 Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Electric Clamshell Dredge. The use of an electric clamshell dredge shall be required for project clamshell dredging activities during the entire construction period of the project, and the construction of an electrical substation at Pier J is also required to provide electric power to the clamshell dredge.
2 Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Construction-Related Harbor Craft. Construction-related harbor craft (tugboats, crew boats, and survey boats) with Category 1 or Category 2 marine engines will meet at least EPA Tier 3 emission standards for marine engines. In addition, the construction contractor will require all construction-related tugboats that home fleet in the San Pedro Bay Ports: 1) to shut down their main engines and 2) to refrain from using auxiliary engines while at dock and instead use electrical shore power, if feasible. 3 Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Fleet Modernization of Off-Road Construction Equipment. Self- propelled, diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment 25 horsepower or greater will meet U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)/California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 final emission standards for non-road equipment.
4 Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Additional Mitigation for Off-Road Construction Equipment. Off-road diesel-powered construction equipment will comply with the following:
• Construction equipment will be maintained according to manufacturer’s specifications. • Construction equipment will not idle for more than five minutes when not in use.
The benefits to be achieved by the above-listed components of this measure were not quantified in the analysis due to the wide range of variables involved. This measure is applied, however, to further reduce combustion emissions
Special Conditions
5 Special Condition. Water Resource Protection. The Permittee shall complete the provided stormwater BMP checklist for small construction projects (under 1 acre in total disturbed area) and implement those best management practices (BMPs) as identified in the checklist. 6 Special Condition. Transportation Management Plan (TMP). The Permittee shall coordinate with the POLB Traffic Engineering Bureau during the development of the Project to determine if a TMP is warranted, and if yes, what it needs to address. Permittee shall coordinate with adjacent construction projects at the time, if any, to ensure proper traffic circulation in the area is maintained. If a TMP is warranted during any phase of the project, the Permittee shall submit a Transportation Management Plan to POLB Traffic Engineering for review and approval.
7 Special Condition. Discovery of Archaeological Materials or Human Remains. In the unlikely event that any archaeological material is discovered during construction, construction activities are to be halted, archeological experts are to be notified, and the USACE/Port will complete an evaluation of the significance of those resources and will determine the appropriate resolution of any potential adverse effects. Permittee shall immediately notify the Director of Environmental Planning of any discoveries.
8 Special Condition. Community Grants Program (CGP). The Port will contribute a total of $146,743 to the Community Grants Program (CGP) to address cumulative air emissions impacts associated with construction activities for the Project.
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project MMRP-3 September 2022
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Procedures 1 The designated POLB Environmental Monitor, in coordination with POLB Construction 2 Management and Inspection, assigned to the Project , will track and document compliance with 3 mitigation measures, note any problems that may result, and take appropriate action to remedy 4 problems. Specific responsibilities of the POLB Environmental Monitor are: 5 • Coordination of all mitigation monitoring activities;6 • Management of the preparation, approval, and filing of monitoring or permit7 compliance reports; 8
• Maintenance of records concerning the status of all mitigation measures;9 • Retaining a file containing documentation of the completion of all mitigation10 measures; 11
• Quality control assurance of field monitoring personnel;12 • Coordination with regulatory agencies for compliance with mitigation and permit13 requirements; 14
• Reviewing and recommending acceptance and certification of implementation15 documentation; 16
• Serving as the point of contact for interested parties or surrounding property owners17 who wish to register complaints; and 18
• Documenting observations of unsafe conditions or environmental violations, and19 identifying any necessary corrective actions. 20
Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan Completion Forms 21 The MMRP includes a Completion Form for each mitigation measure shown on a separate page 22 and identifies the following for each measure: 23
• Required action;24
• When the action is required to be taken;25
• Agency responsible for action;26
• Agency responsible for tracking the action;27
• Specific action(s) to ensure implementation of the mitigation measure;28 • Submittal date;29
• Person verifying implementation (name and title);30
• Any attachments for the Completion form to verify implementation; and31 • Any comments by verifying personnel.32
The agency res ponsible for taking the action will submit the appropriate completion form wit h 33 attachments to the agency responsible for tracking and verifying the action (POLB Environmental 34 Planning Division). 35
Mitigation and Monitoring Annual Reporting 36
This MMRP will require an annual report within the first year of Project approval (including during 37 design activities) and then annually thereafter. The MMRP will document compliance with 38 implementing the mitigation measures included in the Final EIR , Project HDP and construction 39 contracts. 40
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project MMRP-4 September 2022
Special Conditions 1
Special Conditions would be implemented as condition of issuance of the Harbor Development 2 Permit, in Project specifications, or other applicable documents governing site use and or facility 3 operations. Special Conditions are consistent with the Green Port Policy, Clean Air Action Plan, 4 and the Water Resources Action Plan. Special Conditions that would be incorporated as part of 5 the Project are described below and the various means used to implement the Special Conditions, 6 as well as their timing, are also provided.7
This page is intentionally left blank.
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project
September 2022
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and
Channel Deepening Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Completion Forms
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project
September 2022
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel Deepening Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Completion Form Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Electric Clamshell Dredge and Electrical Substation Required Action: Use of an electric clamshell dredge shall be required for all clamshell dredging activities during the entire construction period of the project; Construction of an electrical substation at Pier J is required to provide electric power to the clamshell dredge.
When Required: During construction activities.
Agency Responsible for Action: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or Port of Long Beach Engineering Services.
Agency Responsible for Tracking: Port of Long Beach Construction Management and Environmental Planning Division.
Action (i): U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or Port of Long Beach Engineering Services to include this requirement in Project construction specifications and bid process.
Submittal Date:
Verified By: Title:
Comments:
I
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project
September 2022
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel Deepening Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Completion Form Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Construction-Related Harbor Craft Required Action: Construction-related harbor craft (tugboats, crew boats, and survey boats) with Category 1 or Category 2 marine engines shall meet United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Tier 3 emission standards for marine engines. In addition, the construction contractor shall require all construction-related tugboats that home fleet in the San Pedro Bay Ports:1) to shut down their main engines and 2) to refrain from using auxiliary engines while at dock and instead use electrical shore power, if feasible.
When Required: During all construction activities.
Agency Responsible for Action: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or Port of Long Beach Engineering Services.
Agency Responsible for Tracking: Port of Long Beach Construction Management Division and Environmental Planning Division.
Action (i): U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or Port of Long Beach Engineering Services to include this requirement in Project construction specifications and bid process.
Action (ii): Port of Long Beach Construction Management Division to verify that harbor craft (tugboats, crew boats, and survey boats) with Category 1 or Category 2 marine engines to meet United States EPA Tier 3 engine emission standards. A copy of each unit’s certified tiered specification and any required CARB or South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) operating permit will be made available at the time each piece of equipment is mobilized.
Action (iii): Port of Long Beach Construction Management Division to require all construction-related tugboats that home fleet in the San Pedro Bay Ports:1) to shut down their main engines and 2) to refrain from using auxiliary engines while at dock and instead use electrical shore power, if feasible.
Submittal Date:
Verified By: Title:
Attachments:
Comments:
I
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project
September 2022
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel Deepening Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Completion Form Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Off-Road Construction Equipment Required Action: Self-propelled, diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment 25 horsepower (hp) or greater shall meet United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)/California Air Resources Board (CARB) Tier 4 final emission standards for non-road equipment.
When Required: Daily during all construction activities.
Agency Responsible for Action: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or Port of Long Beach Engineering Services.
Agency Responsible for Tracking: Port of Long Beach Construction Management Division and Environmental Planning Division.
Action (i): U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or Port of Long Beach Engineering Services to include this requirement in Project construction specifications and bid process.
Action (ii): POLB Construction Management Division to verify that self-propelled, diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment 25 hp or greater meet USEPA/CARB Tier 4 final engine emission standards. A copy of each unit’s certified tiered specification and any required CARB or South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) operating permit will be made available at the time each piece of equipment is mobilized.
Submittal Date:
Verified By: Title:
Attachments:
Comments:
I
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project
September 2022
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel Deepening Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Completion Form Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Additional Mitigation for Off-Road Construction Equipment Required Action: Off-road diesel-powered construction equipment shall comply with the following:
• Maintain all construction equipment according to manufacturer’s specifications. • Construction equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes when not in use.
When Required: During all construction activities
Agency Responsible for Action: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or Port of Long Beach Engineering Services.
Agency Responsible for Tracking: Port of Long Beach Construction Management Division and Environmental Planning Division.
Action (i): Port of Long Beach Engineering Services to include requirements in Project construction specifications and bid process.
Action (ii): Construction Management Division to verify that off-road diesel-powered construction equipment are in good maintenance condition, and do not idle more than 5 minutes when in use.
Submittal Date:
Verified By: Title:
Attachments:
Comments:
I
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project
September 2022
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Completion Form Special Condition. Water Resources Protection.
Required Action: The Permittee shall complete the provided stormwater BMP checklist for small construction projects (under 1 acre in total disturbed area) and implement those best management practices (BMPs) as identified in the checklist. A copy of the completed stormwater BMP checklist shall be submitted to the Director of Environmental Planning fourteen (14) days prior to the start of construction activities for approval. Upon approval of the stormwater BMP checklist, the Permittee shall be responsible for installing, constructing and implementing all control measure requirements described in the stormwater BMP checklist and other stormwater BMPs that may be appropriate during construction. The Permittee shall perform visual observations to verify that all control measures are implemented and performing properly. If control measures being implemented by the Permittee are inadequate to control water pollution effectively, the Port may require the Permittee to revise the operations and amend the stormwater BMP checklist. The Port’s review and approval of the Permittee’s stormwater BMP checklist shall not waive any contractual requirements and shall not relieve the Permittee from achieving and maintaining compliance with all Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, statutes, rules and regulations. All records shall remain on site and readily accessible for review by the Port of Long Beach and any responsible agencies. In the event that the Project scope changes and the landside disturbed area is greater than 1 acre, the Permittee shall work with the Port to obtain coverage under the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board's General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbing Activities (CAS000002). A copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the Director of Environmental Planning prior to the start of construction.
When Required: Fourteen (14) days prior to the start of construction activities for approval.
Agency Responsible for Action: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or Port of Long Beach Engineering Services.
Agency Responsible for Tracking: Port of Long Beach Construction Management Division and Environmental Planning Division.
Action (i): Port of Long Beach Engineering Services to include each of the above requirements in Project construction specifications and bid process.
Action (ii): Port of Long Beach Construction Management Division to verify that each of the above requirements are carried out during each construction phase.
Submittal Date:
Verified By: Title:
Attachments:
Comments:
I
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project
September 2022
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Completion Form Special Condition. Transportation Management Plan.
Required Action: The Permittee shall coordinate with the Port of Long Beach Traffic Engineering Bureau during the development of the Project to determine if a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) is warranted, and if yes, what it needs to address. Permittee shall coordinate with adjacent construction projects at the time, if any, to ensure proper traffic circulation in the area is maintained. If a TMP is warranted during any phase of the project, the Permittee shall submit a Transportation Management Plan to POLB Traffic Engineering for review and approval.
When Required: During all phases of the Project.
Agency Responsible for Action: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or Port of Long Beach Traffic Engineering.
Agency Responsible for Tracking: Port of Long Beach Traffic Engineering, Transportation Planning Division, Construction Management Division, and Environmental Planning Division.
Action (i): Port of Long Beach Engineering Services to include each of the above requirements in Project construction specifications and bid process.
Action (ii): Port of Long Beach Traffic Engineering to verify that each of the above requirements, if it is determined that a TMP is required, are carried out during each construction phase.
Submittal Date:
Verified By: Title:
Attachments:
Comments:
I
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project
September 2022
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Completion Form Special Condition. Discovery of Archaeological Materials or Human Remains.
Required Action: In the unlikely event that any archaeological material is discovered during construction, construction activities are to be halted, archeological experts are to be notified, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or the Port of Long Beach will complete an evaluation of the significance of those resources and will determine the appropriate resolution of any potential adverse effects. Permittee shall immediately notify the Port of Long Beach Director of Environmental Planning of any discoveries.
When Required: During all earthwork and construction activities.
Agency Responsible for Action: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or Port of Long Beach Engineering Services.
Agency Responsible for Tracking: Port of Long Beach Construction Management Division and Environmental Planning Division.
Action (i): Port of Long Beach Engineering Services to include a requirement for its construction contractor to provide a qualified archaeologist (on-call) in its Project construction specifications and available as needed), if any archaeological material is discovered during construction. These requirements shall be included in Project construction specifications and bid process.
Submittal Date:
Verified By: Title:
Attachments:
Comments:
I
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel
Deepening Project
September 2022
Deep Draft Navigation Feasibility Study and Channel Deepening Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Completion Form Special Condition. Community Grants Program
Required Action: The Port of Long Beach will contribute to the Community Grants Program (CGP) to address cumulative air emissions impacts associated with construction activities for the Project. For the Project, the contribution to the CGP would be $146,753 total.
When Required: The later of the following two dates: (a) the date that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or the Port of Long Beach issues a Notice to Proceed (NTP) or otherwise authorizes commencement of construction; or (b) the date that the Final EIS/EIR is conclusively determined to be valid, either by operation of PRC Section 21167.2 or by final judgment or final adjudication Agency Responsible for Action: Port of Long Beach Environmental Planning Division.
Agency Responsible for Tracking: Port of Long Beach Environmental Planning Division.
Action: Port of Long Beach Environmental Planning Division to ensure the timing of the payment contribution to the Community Grants Program determined by the methodology described in the EIR.
Submittal Date:
Verified By: Title:
Attachments:
Comments:
I