APPENDIX C. Draft Section 404(b)(1) Alternative Analysis: Port of Long Beach Pier S Marine Terminal & Back Channel Improvements.

Transcription

1 Draft Section 404(b)(1) Alternative Analysis: Port of Long Beach Pier S Marine Terminal & Back Channel Improvements July 2011

2 Draft Section 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis: Port of Long Beach - Pier S Marine Terminal & Back Channel Improvements SUBPART A - GENERAL I. INTRODUCTION The following evaluation is provided in accordance with Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act and the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR 230). The impact evaluation is summarized from the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the Pier S Marine Terminal & Back Channel Improvements ( Project or Proposed Project ) and is not intended to be a stand-alone document. References to sections of the Final EIS/EIR where more information may be obtained are provided throughout this analysis. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Port of Long Beach (POLB) Pier S Marine Terminal & Back Channel Improvements involves developing a marine containerized cargo terminal of approximately 160 acres at Pier S in the POLB, including wharfage and required infrastructure in addition to improving safety conditions within the Back Channel in order to accommodate a portion of the anticipated cargo requirements associated with growing export and import volumes at the Port, and to improve navigational safety within the Back Channel. The federal action associated with the Project is the issuance of permits authorizing work and structures in navigable waters of the United States (U.S.) and the discharge of fill in waters of the U.S. Seven alternatives were considered during preparation of this EIS/EIR, including alternative terminal configurations and locations. However, only three of the seven alternatives meet most of the Proposed Project s objectives and have been selected to be carried forward for detailed analysis. The alternatives evaluated in this EIS/EIR include: Three-Berth Alternative (Container Terminal with Rail Access, Full- Length Wharf, and Back Channel Improvements (Proposed Project); Two-Berth Alternative (Container Terminal with Rail Access, Reduced-Length Wharf, and Back Channel Improvements); Multi-Use Storage Alternative (Multi-Use Storage Facility without Wharf or Back Channel Improvements); and No Project Alternative. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative and the No Project Alternative would not involve wharf construction or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel; therefore, US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permits would not be required for these alternatives. Location The Pier S Project site is located in the Port of Long Beach, Terminal Island. The northern half of the Back Channel is in Northeast Harbor District and the southern half is in Middle Harbor District. The site is bounded on the north by Cerritos Channel and Piers A and B; on the east by Piers C and D, on the south by Southern California Edison (SCE) Long Beach Generating Station, Ocean Boulevard, and Pier T; and on the west by State Route 47 (SR 47), the Vopak Terminal, and the Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (SERRF). The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel (Figure ES-1) and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C-1 JULY 2011

3 General Description The Project includes the following components: Construction of a new marine terminal at Pier S with rail access and Back Channel improvements that would accommodate approximately 1.8 million TEUs per year when optimized at maximum throughput capacity (2020). Acquisition of two parcels owned by the City of Long Beach. The first is an approximately 33,000- square-foot area owned by the City and operated as part of the SERRF. The second parcel is an approximately 5,000-square-foot railroad easement between SR 47 and Pier S Avenue. Property acquisition would not involve private property or the use of eminent domain. Driving approximately 2,000 concrete piles (up to 110 feet in length). The wharf would include gantry crane rails for 100-foot-gauge cranes. Approximately 3,200 feet of concrete, pile-supported wharf would be constructed as part of the Project. As part of construction, the existing shoreline would be excavated to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pierhead lines. A total dredge amount of 881,000 cubic yards (cy) from Cerritos Channel as well as the Back Channel. Widening the Cerritos Channel, which would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. Navigational safety improvements in the Back Channel. Targeted areas in the Back Channel would be dredged in order to extend the navigable width of the channel to a total of 315 feet at the full dredge depth. The majority of the backlands of the Pier S site would be developed for container yard portion of the new container terminal and would support both wheeled and grounded operations served by various terminal equipment. Both above-ground and underground utilities and distribution systems would be constructed within the terminal to support operations. These systems would be designed to POLB container terminal standards and are anticipated to include water (fire suppression and potable), sanitary sewer, storm drain, electrical (above- and below-ground distribution, as well as substations), telecommunications and security, and natural gas. The Pier S Marine Terminal would include buildings, facilities, and other structures needed to perform and support container terminal operations and administration. Building construction is anticipated to include, but not be limited to, 13 structures. The wharf would include gantry crane rails for 100-foot-gauge cranes. Electrical and telephone/fiber infrastructure to support up to 12 container cranes and supply power to ships (i.e., cold-ironing) at berth would be installed in the structure. Two truck gates (main gate and secondary gate) including guard booths, sign bridges, communications pedestals, scales, and infrastructure required to mount and operate optical character recognition (OCR) equipment and radiation portal monitors (RPMs) would be constructed at the southwest (main gate) and southeast (future secondary gate) corners of the terminal. The proposed Pier S Marine Terminal would include an intermodal rail yard facility, which is anticipated to include up to 10 sets of track totaling approximately 14,800 lineal feet. Up to 15,000 lineal feet of reinforced concrete runways would be constructed to support the operation of gantry cranes. There is a possibility that a limited amount of consolidation and relocation of existing third-party utilities and oil field infrastructure would be required during construction of this project. PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C-2 JULY 2011

4 Containers would be screened and protected by a number of safety and security features, such as RPM, customs and border protection x-ray inspection area, and project site fencing. Terminal operations would include stevedoring (loading/unloading ships), container storage, intermodal rail yard operations, and trucking to off-site locations such as warehouses and other rail yards. Project operations would result in approximately 312 vessel calls per year (six per week) at full operation in The project would result in an average of approximately 3,700 truck trips per day to and from the project site in the first year of operation, and 7,200 truck trips per day at full operation in Approximately 85 percent of the containers (about 1.54 million TEUs) would be moved to and from the terminal via truck. When the project terminal is fully optimized at maximum throughput capacity in 2020, the rail yard would handle approximately 15 percent of the terminal s container throughput (261,000 TEUs) per year via approximately 1.5 train trips per day. The federal action is issuance a permit by USACE authorizing work and structures in navigable waters of the U.S. and the discharge of fill in waters of the U.S. The USACE has identified that potentially significant direct or indirect impacts to the environment would result from their approval of the proposed Project, therefore, requiring preparation of an EIS., Since operational impacts in the uplands are outside of USACE jurisdiction, no upland modifications would be approved under the USACE permit. The Port would obtain approval from the USACE and the Regional Water Quality Control Board for proposed beneficial re-use and/or unconfined (in-water ) disposal of dredged material, including contaminated material. Any contaminated material used for fill would be placed in an engineered Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) within the proposed fill. III. AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE Discharge of fill material into waters of the U.S. requires compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A Section 404(b)(1) alternatives analysis is one of the provisions required to demonstrate compliance with the Clean Water Act. The Port prepared the Port of Long Beach Master Plan (PMP) and the 2025 Capacity Study (JWD Group 2007), which determined that accommodating the projected increase in cargo throughput would require optimization of all existing lands and terminals and construction and operation of approximately 1,500 acres of new terminal lands within the Port. The detailed cargo forecast studies indicate that the volume of containerized cargo transported through the Ports of Long Beach/Los Angeles is projected to increase from 15.7 million Twenty-foot Equivalent Units (TEUs) to approximately 42.6 million TEUs by The recession that began at the end of 2007 resulted in a severe decline in cargo throughput in 2008 and 2009: POLB s 2007 throughput was 7.4 million TEU whereas the 2009 throughout was only 5 million TEU. As a result, the Port prepared a Container Forecast Update (Tioga Group 2009). The 2009 Forecast updated the long-term projections using updated economic forecasts that accounted for the impacts of the recession on trade. The resulting forecast projected a long-term ( ) CAGR for container cargo of 5.3 percent; although that growth rate is similar to the rate from the 2007 Forecast, the fact that the 2009 Forecast started from a lower throughput volume means that its projection for 2025 is substantially lower than the 2007 Forecast s. The slower growth projections and the decline of cargo throughput in 2008 and 2009 delayed the timing of the terminal capacity constraints identified by the 2007 Forecast a recent POLB analysis suggests that the capacity of currently approved POLB terminals would be reached by 2030, rather than Nevertheless, both the 2007 and 2009 forecasts project the need for substantial additional expanded and modernized container terminals in both ports in the long term. In the short term, additional terminal PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C-3 JULY 2011

5 facilities, by providing shippers with more flexibility, enhance competitiveness and help keep cargo costs down. The basic project purpose comprises the fundamental, essential, or irreducible purpose of the proposed project, and is used by the USACE to determine whether the applicant's project is water dependent. The overall project purpose serves as the basis for the USACE's 404(b)(1) alternatives analysis and is determined by further defining the basic project purpose in a manner that more specifically describes the applicant's goals for the project, and which allows a reasonable range of alternatives to be analyzed. The overall Project purpose is to increase container terminal efficiency to accommodate a portion of the predicted future containerized cargo throughput volume and the modern cargo vessels that transport those goods to and from the Port. These larger container vessels need slip widths, water depths, and berth lengths that are greater than previous generations of cargo vessels. Improvements to Back Channel navigational safety would meet the increasing volumes of import and export cargo and accommodate changing requirements for handling modern containerized cargo vessels at primary Port facilities, including Pier S. The Proposed Project would also increase and optimize the cargo handling efficiency and capacity of the Port, by constructing sufficient berthing and infrastructure capacity, and implement environmental controls, including the Port s Green Port Policy and CAAP, to accommodate a portion of the predicted future increases in containerized cargo volume and the modern, larger cargo vessels that are expected to transport these goods to and from the Port. Project throughput volumes (1.80 million TEUs) would adequately accommodate forecasted container throughput growth at the Port. IV. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED During the NEPA process, seven alternatives were considered during preparation of this EIS/EIR, including alternative terminal configurations and locations. However, only three of the seven alternatives meet most of the Proposed Project s objectives and have been selected to be carried forward for detailed analysis. The alternatives evaluated in this EIS/EIR include the Proposed Project (Three-Berth Alternative); the Two-Berth Alternative; Multi-Use Storage Alternative; and No Project alternative (Figures 1 through 4). Cross-sections of the dredge areas for the Three-Berth Alternative and the Two-Berth Alternative are also depicted (Figures 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B). The Three-Berth Alternative (or the Proposed Project) would involve construction of a new container terminal at Pier S with rail access and Back Channel improvements. When optimized at maximum throughput capacity (2020), the proposed Pier S marine terminal would accommodate approximately 1.8 million TEUs of cargo (approximately 1 million containers) per year. Construction of the Pier S Terminal would require the acquisition of two parcels owned by the City of Long Beach. The first is an approximately 33,000-square-foot area owned by the City and operated as part of the Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (SERRF). The second parcel is an approximately 5,000-square-foot railroad easement between SR 47 and Pier S Avenue. Property acquisition would not involve private property or the use of eminent domain. Up to 3,200 feet of concrete, pile-supported wharf would be constructed as part of the Project. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pierhead lines. The excavation would include a total dredge amount of 881,000 cubic yards (cy) from Cerritos Channel as well as the Back Channel. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. Additionally, the Proposed Project would include navigational safety improvements in the Back Channel. Targeted areas in the Back Channel would be dredged in order to extend the navigable width of the channel to a total of 315 feet at the full dredge depth. The majority of the backlands of the Pier S terminal would be developed for container storage and would support both wheeled and grounded operations served by various terminal equipment. Both aboveground and underground utilities and distribution systems would be designed and constructed within the terminal to support operations. These systems would be designed to POLB container terminal standards and are anticipated to include water (fire suppression and potable), sanitary sewer, storm drain, electrical (above and below ground distribution as well as substations), telecommunications and security, and natural gas. The Pier S Marine Terminal would include buildings, facilities, and other structures needed to perform and support container terminal operations and administration. Building PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C-4 JULY 2011

6 construction is anticipated to include, but not be limited to, 13 structures. The wharf would include gantry crane rails for 100-foot-gauge cranes. Electrical and telephone/fiber infrastructure to support up to 12 container cranes and supply power to ships (i.e., cold-ironing) at berth would be installed in the structure. Two truck gates (main gate and secondary gate) including sign bridges, raised pedestals, scales, and infrastructure required to mount and operate optical character recognition (OCR) equipment and radiation portal monitors (RPMs) would be constructed at the southwest (main gate) and southeast (future secondary gate) corners of the terminal. The proposed Pier S Marine Terminal would include an intermodal rail yard facility, which is anticipated to include up to 10 sets of track totaling approximately 14,800 lineal feet. Up to 15,000 lineal feet of reinforced concrete runways would be constructed to support the operation of gantry cranes. Table C-1. Pier S Project Alternatives Construction and Operations Summary Three-Berth Alternative (Proposed Project) Two-Berth Alternative Multi-Use Storage Alternative (No Federal Action / NEPA Baseline) No Project Alternative Gross Site Acreage 160 acres 150 acres 150 acres 150 acres Throughput (Annual) 1.80 Million TEU 1.33 Million TEU 1.27 Million TEU N/A Annual Vessel Calls N/A N/A Wharf Length 3,200 feet 2,800 feet N/A N/A Wharf Excavation 1,500,000 cy 1,310,000 cy N/A N/A Dredged Material from Cerritos Channel and Back Channel Dredge Depth 881,000 cy (631,000 cy for Cerritos Channel and 250,000 for the Back Channel) -54 feet MLLW to -62 feet MLLW 881,000 cy (631,000 cy for Cerritos Channel and 250,000 for the Back Channel) -54 feet MLLW to -62 feet MLLW Dredge Footprint 51.0 acres 44.3 acres N/A N/A Imported Rock for Construction, including Back Channel 551,000 tons 476,000 tons N/A N/A New Water Surface Area 10.3 acres 9.4 acres N/A N/A Source: Port of Long Beach, July 2006, updated March N/A N/A N/A N/A PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C-5 JULY 2011

7 PORT OF LONG BEACH CK BA EL N AN CH Figure 1 Three-Berth Alternative PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C-6 July 2011

8 Figure 1A Proposed Dredging Cross Section A - Three Berth Alternative PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C-7 July 2011

9 Figure 1B Proposed Dredging Cross Section B - Three-Berth Alternative PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C-8 July 2011

10 Figure 1C Proposed Dredging Cross Sections A, B & C - Back Channel PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C-9 July 2011

11 P I E R T P I E R D Figure 1D Proposed Dredging Cross Section D - Back Channel PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C-10 July 2011

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION BACK CHANNEL Figure 2 Two-Berth Alternative PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C-11 July 2011

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION BACK CHANNEL Figure 3 Multi-Use Storage Alternative PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C-12 July 2011

14 PORT OF LONG BEACH CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION CK BA EL N AN CH Figure 4 No Project Alternative PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C-13 July 2011

15 The Two-Berth Alternative is similar to the Proposed Project, but would involve construction of a reducedlength wharf. When optimized at maximum throughput capacity (2016), the proposed Pier S marine terminal would accommodate approximately 1.33 million TEUs per year. As shown for the Proposed Project, the Two-Berth Alternative would develop an approximately 150-acre Project site. The shorter wharf in this alternative would only allow two docking stations for ships. Up to 2,800 feet of concrete pile supported wharf would be constructed as part of Two-Berth Alternative. As with Three-Berth Alternative, construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the Cerritos Channel Dike and widening the channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pierhead lines. The future width of the Cerritos Channel would accommodate the passage of a 22-container-wide vessel through the channel while similar vessels are berthed at both Piers S and A with respective container crane booms in the lowered, working position. Widening of the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 9.4 acres of new water surface area under Two-Berth Alternative. Wharf excavation as part of Two-Berth Alternative would include a total dredge amount of 788,000 cy from Cerritos Channel as well as Back Channel. The wharf would include gantry crane rails for 100-foot gauge cranes. Electrical and telephone/fiber infrastructure to support up to 8 container cranes would be installed in the structure. Electrical, telephone/fiber, and water infrastructure to support ships at berth would also be constructed as part the wharf structure. All other Project features and terminal operations would be the same as the Proposed Project, including the Back Channel improvements. The additional vessel use anticipated with the Project and Two-Berth Alternative could lead to adverse effects upon benthic habitats associated with maintenance dredging and shading. If applicable, the evaluation and approval of maintenance dredging would be covered under a separate assessment document (e.g. USACE Regional General Permit No. 28). The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel. Under this alternative, no dredging or wharf excavation would occur, and rock for construction would not be imported. The Back Channel improvements would not be implemented as part of this alternative. The 150-acre terminal would require the same utilities as the previous alternatives and five buildings would be constructed. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would provide two functions as follows: (1) additional container yard area (which would consequently provide additional throughput) for other terminals in both POLB/Port of Los Angeles (POLA) that are projected to be at capacity in 2030 (i.e., it would accommodate latent demand at other terminals); and (2) empty container (for local exports) storage for all other POLB/POLA terminals that are projected to be berth constrained in There are no additional TEUs directly associated with this alternative; however, by providing storage for other terminals, this alternative would help accommodate additional TEUs for other terminals. Therefore, this alternative would result an increase of 1.27 million TEUs per year. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not have a secondary truck gate nor would it include a rail yard. Under the No Project Alternative, the wharf construction and Back Channel improvements would not occur, and Pier S would not be developed as a marine terminal (Figure 1-9). The site would continue to be operated as a partially paved lot. On-site activities would be limited to the on-going activities related to the maintenance of the remediation and construction staging. A description of other alternatives considered but eliminated from consideration is included in Draft EIS/EIR Section SUBPART B COMPLIANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES I. Compliance with Applicable Water Quality Standards The Proposed Project or alternatives would be implemented in accordance with all applicable federal and state water quality standards. Some of the measures to be implemented for in-harbor work to ensure compliance with these standards include: PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C-14 JULY 2011

16 Soils to be used for fill would be tested for contaminants prior to placement in the proposed landfills to determine the appropriate disposal method; Contaminated soils and dredge material would be placed in a CDF or not used in the fill; and, Monitoring would be conducted to ensure compliance with permit conditions. II. FINDINGS Evaluation of Compliance with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (restrictions on discharge, 40 CFG ). No adaptations of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines were made relative to this evaluation. A. Alternatives Test YES _X NO (1) Based on the discussion in Section II.D, are there available, practicable alternatives having less adverse impacts on the aquatic ecosystem and without other significant adverse environmental consequences that do not involve discharges into waters of the United States or at other locations within these waters. Discussion: The Three-Berth Alternative (or the Proposed Project) would involve construction of a new container terminal at Pier S with rail access and Back Channel improvements. Construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pierhead lines. The excavation would include a total dredge amount of 850,000 cubic yards (cy) from Cerritos Channel as well as the Back Channel. Widening the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area. Additionally, the Proposed Project would include navigational safety improvements in the Back Channel. Targeted areas in the Back Channel would be dredged in order to extend the navigable width of the channel to a total of 315 feet at the full dredge depth. The Two-Berth Alternative is similar to the Proposed Project, but would involve construction of a reduced-length wharf. As shown for the Proposed Project, the Two- Berth Alternative would develop an approximately 150-acre Project site. The shorter wharf in this alternative would only allow two docking stations for ships. Up to 2,800 feet of concrete pile supported wharf would be constructed as part of Two-Berth Alternative. As with Two-Berth Alternative, construction of the wharf would include excavation of the existing shoreline to realign the Cerritos Channel Dike widening the channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pierhead lines. The future width of the Cerritos Channel would accommodate the passage of a 22-container-wide vessel through the channel while similar vessels are berthed at both Piers S and A with respective container crane booms in the lowered, working position. Widening of the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 9.4 acres of new water surface area under Two- Berth Alternative. Wharf excavation as part of Two-Berth Alternative would include a total dredge amount of 775,000 cy from Cerritos Channel as well as Back Channel. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not involve wharf construction or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel. Under this alternative, no dredging or wharf excavation would occur, and rock for construction would not be imported. The Back Channel improvements would not be implemented as part of this alternative. There are no additional TEUs directly associated with this alternative; however, by providing storage for other terminals, this alternative would help accommodate additional TEUs for other terminals. Therefore, this alternative would result an increase of 1.27 million TEUs per year. PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C-15 JULY 2011

17 Under the No Project Alternative, the wharf construction and Back Channel improvements would not occur, and Pier S would not be developed as a marine terminal. The site would continue to be operated as a partially paved lot. On-site activities would be limited to the on-going activities related to the maintenance of the remediation and construction staging. Water Quality. Modifications to backlands and transportation systems within the Project area are not water-dependent activities, although their use is related to operation of the marine terminal berths. Runoff from construction activities at these locations, however, could similarly affect water quality in the harbor with the exception of the No Project alternative, where no backland construction would occur. Compliance with existing regulations and Project permits would minimize impacts on water quality. Construction activities in harbor waters (Proposed Project and the Two-Berth Alternative) would have short-term effects on water quality but would remain in compliance with federal and state water quality standards. The Proposed Project would have more inwater activity, due to the larger volume of dredging and extent of wharf construction, compared to the Two-Berth Alternative. However, no contaminants would be discharged in concentrations that could be toxic to aquatic biota for either the Proposed Project or the Two-Berth Alternative. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative and the No Project alternative would not involve in-water activities. Aquatic Biota. The Proposed Project would not permanently remove any marine habitat as a result of construction and operation, and would create approximately 10.3 acres of new water surface area, primarily at the pier face. In-water construction activities would temporarily affect aquatic biota for the Proposed Project and the Two-Berth Alternative through turbidity, underwater noise, and habitat alteration. Impacts would be less than significant because the effects would occur in a small area, have a relatively short duration, would not permanently disrupt communities, and mobile species would temporarily avoid the work areas. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative and the No Project alternative would have no in-water construction or discharges and, therefore, not require federal action. No threatened or endangered species or special aquatic sites would be adversely affected by the Project or alternatives. These activities would affect aquatic biota and EFH at a less than significant level. The potential for introduction of invasive species via ballast water and vessel hulls would not be increased by the Project or alternatives. The number of vessel calls for the Proposed Project and the Two-Berth Alternative would increase., while the number of vessel calls under the Multi-Use Storage Alternative and the No Project alternative would not change. Vessel hulls are generally coated with antifouling paints and cleaned at intervals to reduce the frictional drag from growths of organisms on the hull, thereby reducing the potential for transport of exotic species. Due to these standard procedures and current ballast water regulations, the potential to introduce additional exotic species via ballast water would not be increased by the Proposed Project or alternatives. Human Health and Welfare. The Proposed Project and alternatives would have no significant impacts on human health and welfare, including recreational and commercial fishing, municipal and private water supplies, water-related recreation, flooding, and aesthetics. Waters of the U.S. The Proposed Project and the Two-Berth Alternative would result in no permanent loss of waters of the U.S., and would create approximately 10.3 and 9.4 acres, respectively, of new water surface area. The Proposed Project and the Two- Berth Alternative also would have temporary impacts within waters of the U.S during construction activities. The extent and duration of these temporary impacts would be less for the Two-Berth Alternative than for the Proposed Project. PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C-16 JULY 2011

18 Terminal Function. As described in Section II.C, without expansion or significant improvements, the capacity of existing Port facilities is estimated to be approximately 12 million TEUs per year and that level of throughput would be reached by 2015, based on predicted future containerized cargo throughput volume. In addition to the total TEUs, the number of vessel calls required to transport this throughput have also been projected. The results of these forecasts are shown in Table C-2. _NA_ YES NO (2) Based on Section II.C, if the project is in a special aquatic site and is not waterdependent, has the applicant clearly demonstrated that there are no practicable alternative sites available? B. Special Restrictions Will the discharge: YES YES YES YES X_ YES X_ NO X_ NO X_ NO X_ NO NO (1) Violate state water quality standards? (2) Violate toxic effluent standards (under Section 307 of the Act)? (3) Jeopardize endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat? (4) Violate standards set by the Department of Commerce to protect marine sanctuaries? (5) Evaluation of the information in Sections II.D and II.E above indicates that the discharge material meets testing exclusions criteria for the following reason(s): ( ) Based on the above information, the material is not a carrier of contaminants. ( ) The levels of contamination are substantially similar at the extraction and disposal sites and the discharge is not likely to result in degradation of the disposal site and pollutants will not be transported to less contaminated areas. (X) Acceptable constraints are available and will be implemented to reduce contamination to acceptable levels within the disposal site and prevent contaminants from being transported beyond the boundaries of the disposal site. C. Other Restrictions Will the discharge contribute to significant effects to waters of the U.S. through adverse impacts to: YES YES YES X_ NO X_ NO X_ NO (1) Human health or welfare, through pollution of municipal water supplies, fish, shellfish, wildlife and special aquatic sites? (2) Life states of aquatic life and other wildlife? (3) Diversity, productivity and stability of the aquatic ecosystem, such as the loss of fish or wildlife habitat, or loss of the capacity of wetland to assimilate nutrients, PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C-17 JULY 2011

19 YES X_ NO purify water or reduce wave energy? (4) Recreational, aesthetic and economic values? D. Actions to Minimize Potential Adverse Impacts (Mitigation) YES NO Will all appropriate and practicable steps (40 CFR ) be taken to minimize the potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem? Discussion: Actions taken to minimize potential impacts are described in Section III. No permanent loss of aquatic habitat due to project construction or operation would take place. The temporary impacts of dredging, excavation, and berth construction/reconstruction would be minimized by limiting the area of disturbance to that needed for these activities, as well as through mitigation measures summarized in Table ES-2 of the EIS/EIR. Any contaminated sediments dredged or imported for fill would be placed in an approved CDF. Temporary construction impacts on water quality and aquatic biota would be minimized by compliance with conditions of the Project 401 Water Quality Certification and Section 404 permit. Plans and specifications for channel dredging and wharf construction would include measures to prevent turbidity from leaving the site and monitoring to verify the Project complies with water quality standards. Runoff of pollutants during backland construction activities would be minimized through use of construction and industrial SWPPPs and standard Port BMPs listed in EIS/EIR Section 3.4. Minimization measures and/or compensatory mitigation for EFH would be applied to the Project to reduce impacts. Based on the above information, the USACE has made a preliminary determination that the Project would avoid and minimize impacts to waters of the U.S. to the maximum extent practicable while meeting the overall project purpose of increasing container terminal efficiency to accommodate a portion of the predicted future containerized cargo throughput volume and the modern cargo vessels that transport those goods to and from the Port. SUBPART C POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM I. Physical Substrate Determinations The substrates in the Back Channel are composed of rocky riprap dikes along Piers D, E, and T, and earthen dikes along Piers C and S, vertical sheet piles, pilings, and soft sediments (clay, silt, and sand). The substrates are infrequently disturbed due to rare maintenance dredging within the Harbor. Soft sediments in the areas proposed to be dredged are predominantly silts and clays (30 to 81 percent near surface and 46 to 64 percent deeper) and sand (18 to 70 percent near surface and 34 to 52 percent deeper) with small amounts of gravel. In some of the areas proposed to be dredged, existing rip-rap would be removed, and then replaced after dredging is completed. Contaminants in the sediments proposed to be dredged and excavated were discussed previously in Section II.E. Approximately 2,000 concrete piles, up to 110 feet in length, would be installed as part of the berth construction and shoreline stabilization activities. Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts Dredging and excavation would occur for the Project and the Two-Berth Alternative. The amount of dredging required for the Project and Two-Berth Alternative is 850,000 cy and 757,000 cy, respectively. The amount of excavation for the Project and Two-Berth Alternative is 1,500,000 cy and 1,310,000 cy, respectively. Dredging and excavation, in the Project and the Two-Berth Alternative, would be limited to areas needed to allow access by larger container vessels to the berths. Contaminated sediments for both PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C-18 JULY 2011

20 alternatives would be placed in an approved CDF using dredging and filling. Fill placement would be behind rock dikes that would limit movement of the sediments during and after placement. The Multi-Use Storage Alternative and the No Project Alternative would involve no in-water construction and, therefore, would not result in impacts or require mitigation measures for in-water activities. II. Suspended Particulate/Turbidity Determinations In-water construction activities that involve excavation of existing fill, removal of the existing wharves and riprap, pile driving, rock riprap placement, and dredging would cause short-term increases in suspended sediments and turbidity. Following completion or interruption of dredging, the time required for suspended materials to settle-out, combined with the current velocity, would determine the size and persistence of the turbidity plume. Settling rates are largely determined by the grain size of the suspended material but are also affected by the chemistry of the particles and the receiving water (USACE and LAHD 1992). Approximately 3,200 feet of concrete, pile-supported wharf would be constructed as part of the Project. As part of construction, the existing shoreline would be excavated to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pierhead lines. Wharf construction would include the following: Excavating approximately 1,500,000 cy of material from upland areas to be disposed of as described below; Reconstructing the shoreline with approximately 551,000 tons of imported quarry run and rock; Dredging approximately 631,000 cy of material to key in the toe of the rock dike and allow ships to safely berth; minimum and maximum dredge depths extending 80 feet north of the future Pier S pierhead line would be -60 feet MLLW and -62 feet MLLW, respectively, which include a 2-foot overdredge allowance (Figure 1-4); and Driving approximately 2,000 concrete piles (up to 110 feet in length) and constructing a steelreinforced concrete wharf on top of the piles; the wharf would include 100-foot-gauge crane rails and electrical and telephone/fiber infrastructure to support container cranes and supply power to ships (i.e., cold-ironing) at berth; and Installing twelve, 100-foot-gauge, 150-foot-high gantry cranes. Work would take approximately 270 days and would be both waterside and land-based. The dredging and dike realignment work would involve a barge-mounted, electrical-powered dredge; two disposal scows; a flat rock delivery barge and a dozer; two tugboats; several small workboats; and landside equipment for some of the dike work. Wharf construction would require a barge-mounted pile-driver crane; a tugboat and workboat; a truck-mounted crane; small earthmoving equipment; a variety of trucks delivering concrete, steel, asphalt, and other structural elements; generators and concrete saws; and support vehicles. The cranes would be delivered from the water by three or four oceangoing vessels assisted by tugboats. Dredged material and excavated upland material would be deposited at an approved Middle Harbor landfill (i.e., Piers D, E, and F). A small amount of chemically suitable dredged material could be disposed of at the Western Anchorage Disposal Site and the approved LA-2 ocean disposal site, if required by timing or capacity constraints at the Middle Harbor sites. Disposal at the Western Anchorage and LA-2 sites would only be undertaken with the approval of USACE and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) following chemical, and possibly bioassay, testing of the material. PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C-19 JULY 2011

21 Dredging would resuspend bottom sediments, predominately silt, clay, and organic material, while inwater excavation (i.e., removal of existing fill to create open water) would suspend sediments from the fill being excavated. A typical mixing zone in a permit for dredging is 328 feet (USACE et al. 2002). Based on this information, turbidity from Proposed Project (and Two-Berth Alternative) dredging would affect small areas of Cerritos Channel and Back Channel near the dredging sites, but would not substantially affect water quality outside the mixing zone. Therefore, water quality objectives for turbidity/light transmittance would not be exceeded outside the mixing zone, and effects on marine organisms would be minor and less than significant. Potential turbidity impacts to the existing water and sediment quality would be addressed by implementing the requirements of the various permits and management programs that would govern construction activities at the Project site and potential sediment disposal sites (i.e. Western Anchorage, LA-2 ocean disposal site). These include the requirements of WDRs and 401 certification from the RWQCB, RWQCB storm water permit for construction activities, and POLB s SWPPP under the City of Long Beach MS4 NPDES permit and Industrial Storm Water General Permit. No dredging or excavation would occur for the Multi-Use Storage Alternative or the No Action alternative. Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts A CWA Section 401 Certification would be obtained from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for construction dredging, excavation, pile and filling activities. The certification contains standard Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and would specify receiving water monitoring requirements during construction activities. Monitoring requirements typically include measurements of water quality parameters such as DO, light transmittance (turbidity), ph, and suspended solids at varying distances from the dredging, excavation, and filling activities. Analyses of contaminant concentrations (metals, DDT, PCBs, and PAHs) in waters near the dredging, excavation, or filling activities may also be required if the contaminant levels in the dredged, excavated, or discharged sediments are known to be elevated and represent a potential risk to beneficial uses. Monitoring data would be used by the Port s dredger to demonstrate that water quality limits specified in the permit are not exceeded. The dredging, excavation, and filling permit could identify corrective actions, such as use of silt curtains that would be implemented if the monitoring data indicate that water quality conditions outside of the mixing zone exceed the permit-specified limits. III. Effects on Chemical and Physical Properties of the Water Column Dredging, excavation, and filling within Cerritos Channel and Back Channel would have minor and temporary effects on water quality in the immediate vicinity of those activities. Terminal operations would also have minor effects on the water column after operation commences. These effects are described in EIS/EIR Section 3.4 and summarized below. Salinity No change in salinity would occur as a result of construction. As described previously in Section III.B [Salinity Gradients], salinity gradients could be altered by stormwater runoff from the Proposed Project or the Two-Berth Alternative as minor, localized changes in salinity gradients in the harbor during rainfall events. Discharging the stormwater runoff from the Pier S fill surface at specific points would locally reduce salinity in the adjacent harbor water until mixing occurs, but salinity gradients would not be substantially altered by runoff from the terminal surfaces. These effects would be of short duration, occur in a limited area, and have minor effects on the water column. Terminal operations under the Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not affect salinity gradients because the amount of runoff would remain essentially the same. The No Action alternative would not change the backlands configuration or generate any new runoff from those areas. PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C-20 JULY 2011

22 Clarity/Light Penetration Turbidity in the immediate vicinity of dredging, excavation, fill placement, and pile work would reduce water clarity in a small area for the duration of the activity in the Proposed Project and the Two-Berth Alternative. The effects of turbidity are discussed in more detail above. Construction activities would not alter other factors that affect water clarity, such as phytoplankton abundance. Light penetration in the dredged areas would not be reduced in the long term. Terminal operations under the Proposed Project or any of the operations alternatives would have minor effects, if any, on water clarity because runoff would be similar to that from the existing terminal areas. Color Color of harbor waters would be changed little if any due to Proposed Project or alternative construction activities, and operations would have no effects on color. Turbidity during dredging or placement of fill could have minor, short-term effects on water color in those areas. Dredging, excavation, pile removal and installation, and rock placement for the Proposed Project and Two-Berth Alternative would also produce turbidity that could have minor but less than significant effects on water color adjacent to the areas when the work is in progress. Odor Any odors resulting from construction activities would be expected to be localized, temporary, and less than significant. Taste Not applicable. Dissolved Gases Dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in aquatic habitats can be reduced by the introduction of high concentrations of suspended particulates. This is especially true if the particulates are from anaerobic sediments, which would place an oxygen demand on the surrounding waters. DO levels would be reduced in the immediate vicinity of dredging, excavation, pile work and fill placement activities (Proposed Project and Two-Berth Alternative) by the introduction of high concentrations of suspended particulates and by the oxygen demand on surrounding waters from any anaerobic sediments encountered. Any reduction in DO levels, however, would be brief and of limited spatial extent. Studies in New York Harbor showed a small reduction in DO near the dredge but no reductions in DO levels 200 to 300 feet away from the dredging activities (Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly 1983). A study of dredge material releases in San Francisco Bay showed only a three-to four-minute reduction in DO levels near the point of release (USACE and LAHD 1973). These results are consistent with the findings and conclusions from studies of the potential environmental impacts of open water disposal of dredged material conducted as part of the USACE Dredged Material Research Program (Lee et al. 1978; Jones and Lee 1978). Therefore, water quality objectives for DO would not be exceeded outside the mixing zone for either the Project or Two- Berth Alternative. Nutrients and Eutrophication Nutrients could be released into the water column during dredging and excavation as well as pile and filling operations (Proposed Project and Two-Berth Alternative), and could promote temporary growth of phytoplankton. Observations of previous dredge projects (including the Port of Los Angeles Deep Draft Navigation Improvement Project [USACE and LAHD 1992]) indicate that phytoplankton blooms have occurred during the spring while dredging was underway, although phytoplankton blooms are normal in the spring in the southern California Bight (Gruber and McWilliams 2005, Nezlin and Li 2003). Dredging, excavation, and filling could release nutrients that may contribute to natural phytoplankton blooms, although there is no evidence that this has happened as a direct result of previous projects. The Basin PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C-21 JULY 2011

23 Plan (SWQCB 1994) limits on biostimulatory substances are defined as concentrations that promote aquatic growth to the extent that such growth causes nuisance or adversely affects beneficial uses. Given the limited spatial and temporal extent of Proposed Project activities with the potential for releasing nutrients from bottom sediments, significant adverse effects on phytoplankton populations and beneficial uses of the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel areas are unlikely to occur as a result of the Proposed Project or the Two-Berth Alternative. Toxic Metals and Organics Testing of sediments proposed to be dredged in the Three-Berth and Two-Berth Alternative indicated slightly elevated concentrations, relative to ER-L and ER-M values, for several metals and organic compounds in top sediments but not in bottom sediments. Elutriate tests, however, found no contaminants that exceeded water quality objectives for the protection of marine life (Weston Solutions 2006). Testing of soils to be excavated for widening in the Three-Berth and Two-Berth Alternative indicated elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons and other organic compounds at several locations but concentrations of all metals were below threshold limits. Based on these results, dredging, excavation, and disposal of these sediments in the proposed landfills would not cause significant toxicity, contaminant bioaccumulation, or degraded water quality and adversely affect beneficial uses. Sections II.E and III.D provide a more detailed discussion. Pathogens No pathogens are expected to be released to harbor waters as a result of the Proposed Project or Two- Berth Alternative dredging, excavation, pile and filling activities. Temperature Activities associated with the Proposed Project and alternatives would not affect water temperatures. Other The hydrocarbon ion concentration (ph) may decrease slightly in the immediate vicinity of dredging locations. This change would be caused by the reducing conditions found in the dredged sediments as the sediments are released into the water column. Seawater, however, is a buffer solution (Sverdrup et al. 1942) that acts to minimize changes in ph. Therefore, any measurable change in ph would be highly localized and short in duration with changes in ambient ph of less than 0.2 units. Thus, water quality objectives for ph would not be exceeded outside the mixing zone. Actions Taken to Minimize Impacts A CWA Section 401 Certification would be obtained from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for construction dredging, excavation, pile and filling activities. The certification contains standard Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and would specify receiving water monitoring requirements during construction activities. Monitoring requirements typically include measurements of water quality parameters such as DO, light transmittance (turbidity), ph, and suspended solids at varying distances from the dredging, excavation, and filling activities. Analyses of contaminant concentrations (metals, DDT, PCBs, and PAHs) in waters near the dredging, excavation, or filling activities may also be required if the contaminant levels in the dredged, excavated, or discharged sediments are known to be elevated and represent a potential risk to beneficial uses. Monitoring data would be used by the Port s dredger to demonstrate that water quality limits specified in the permit are not exceeded. The dredging, excavation, and filling permit could identify corrective actions, such as use of silt curtains that would be implemented if the monitoring data indicate that water quality conditions outside of the mixing zone exceed the permit-specified limits. Dredged material and excavated upland material would be deposited at an approved Middle Harbor landfill (i.e., Piers D, E, and F). A small amount of chemically suitable dredged material could be disposed PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS C-22 JULY 2011