APPENDIX B COMMENTS ON FINAL EIS/EIR AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Transcription

1 APPENDIX B COMMENTS ON FINAL EIS/EIR AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Comment: See following page for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) comment letter. Response: Comments on air quality emissions and public health impacts are noted. As recognized by USEPA, priority pollutant emissions and corresponding health risks of the revised proposed Project (Two-Berth Alternative) are substantially reduced in comparison to the Three- Berth Alternative, which was the originally proposed Project in the DEIS/EIR. Project-specific emission reduction measures applied to reduce air emissions and public health impacts are largely consistent with, and in some cases exceed, the emission-reduction strategies of the POLB/POLA Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) (November, 2010). In order to further reduce emissions and corresponding health risks to the local community, the POLB has developed a multitude of environmental control measures and mitigation measures to be implemented with the revised proposed Project. As described in Section IV (Evaluation of Alternatives), in order to reduce pollutant emissions during construction of the proposed Project, the POLB would implement fugitive dust controls (Mitigation Measure AQ-1), construction equipment BMPs (Mitigation Measure AQ-2a), construction traffic BMPs (Mitigation Measure AQ-2b), USEPA Tier 4 engine standards for non-road construction equipment (Mitigation Measure AQ-2c), construction tugboat home fleeting BMPs (Mitigation Measure AQ-3a), and, USEPA Tier 3 engine standards for construction tugboats (Mitigation Measure AQ-3b). In order to reduce operational emissions, the POLB would implement a Vessel Speed Reduction Program for ocean-going vessels (OGV) (Environmental Control Measure AQ-1), shore-to-ship power ( cold ironing ) (Environmental Control Measure AQ-2), California Air Resources Board (CARB) low sulfur fuel regulations for OGV (Environmental Control Measure AQ-3), main engine slide valves for OGV (Environmental Control Measure AQ-4), USEPA Tier 4 engine standards for container handling equipment (Environmental Control Measure AQ-5), USEPA highway rule emissions standards for heavy-duty trucks (Environmental Control Measure AQ-6), truck idling reduction measures (Environmental Control Measure AQ-7), periodic technology review for air quality technological advancements (Environmental Control Measure AQ-8), and, electrified rubber-tired gantry (RTG) or rail-mounted gantry (RMG) cranes to offload cargo from container vessels (Mitigation Measure AQ-4). No additional, feasible mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the cancer burden risk below significance thresholds. In response to comments received during the EIS/EIR development process, with the revised proposed Project, the Port committed to make substantial contributions towards several grant programs in order to reduce cumulative air quality impacts (Mitigation Measure AQ-5: Mitigation Grants Program, and Zero Emission Grant Program). In addition, the POLB had previously committed to making substantial contributions towards a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Program (Mitigation Measure GCC-7). With respect to the Mitigation Grant Programs, under the proposed Project the POLB would contribute $3.15 million for the Schools and Related Sites Program and $3.15 million for the Health Care and Seniors Facility Program.

2 Consistent with USEPA s recommendation, the POLB regularly evaluates the effectiveness of the Mitigation Grant Programs, which is overseen by an Advisory Committee that includes both community members and regulatory representatives from AQMD and CARB. However, the POLB does not currently track or evaluate the Programs ability to change health outcomes over the long-term. The POLB acknowledges USEPA s suggestion, but has chosen to not take further action at this time. USEPA s comment on the Corps general conformity determination is noted. As summarized in the Corps Final Clean Air Conformity Determination (December 2013), the Corps found that the projected maximum annual NOx emissions from construction activities that would result from the Federal action portion of the revised proposed Project are minor relative to the SIP annual emission budgets in the SCAB (0.1 percent), and further that the predicted NOx emissions from construction activities resulting from the Federal action are accounted for in the growth forecasts of the approved (2007) SIP. On 13 November 2013, the Corps submitted a draft Conformity Determination (dated October 2013) to USEPA Region 9, California Air Resources Board, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and Southern California Association of Governments. No comments were received during or following the 30-day review period. Based upon this information, the Corps has determined the Federal action associated with the revised proposed Project would conform to the most recent federally-approved SIP. The availability of the final general conformity determination was announced under a Los Angeles District Special Public Notice on 7 February 2014 and also posted in a local newspaper (Long Beach Press Telegram) on the same date. Hard copies of the document will be made available to the general public for a 30-day period at five separate locations in the vicinity of the POLB. In addition, on 4 February 2014, the final general conformity determination was distributed to USEPA Region 9, California Air Resources Board, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the Southern California Association of Governments.

3

4

5 Comment: See following page for National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) comment letter. Response: In a letter dated 9 December 2013, NMFS provided comments in response to the Corps 8 November 2013 Public Notice announcing the release of the FEIS/EIR. In the letter, NMFS indicated that a statement in Section 3.5 (pg , Biota and Habitats) negating the need for compensatory mitigation for shallow water impacts was inconsistent with FEIS/EIR Section 10 (Response to Comments) and the Corps commitments described in our 25 September 2012 response letter to NMFS former comments on the DEIS/EIR. The Corps would like to clarify that the statement in section 3.5 was in error, and in collaboration with the POLB intends to adhere to these prior commitments, including the preparation of compensatory mitigation plans for anticipated impacts to eelgrass and shallow water habitats, conducting pre- and postconstruction eelgrass surveys (also see FEIS/EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-1, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, POLB, September 2013), conducting detailed monitoring of non-native species abundance in the project area, and if necessary, development of a non-native species control plan. Pursuant to the Corps-EPA Mitigation Rule (33 CFR 332.4(c)(1)(i)), compensatory mitigation plans must be finalized before permit issuance for standard individual permits. The Corps and POLB intend to collaborate with NMFS in the development of these various plans. Based upon these commitments, also referenced in the Corps Special Conditions included herein, the Corps has determined that adverse effects upon eelgrass and shallow water habitats would be adequately compensated. NMFS agreed with this determination, and concluded EFH consultation on 25 June 2014 (pers. comm., Bryant Chesney, 25 June 2014). In addition, NMFS expressed concern over the potential effects of revised proposed Project construction upon pinnipeds, particularly California sea lions (Zalophus californianus), which are known to frequent the harbor. NMFS stated that marine mammals have shown behavioral changes when exposed to impulse sound levels greater than or equal to 160 decibels (db) and continuous sound levels greater than 120 db, and that the proposed mitigation measures (Environmental Control Measure BIO-1: Sound Abatement Techniques, Environmental Control Measure BIO-1A: Pile-Driving Monitoring) may not be sufficient. Accordingly, certain Project activities (i.e., pile driving) may result in harassment of marine mammals as defined under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and thus might require the Port to obtain an Incidental Harassment Authorization, pursuant to sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA. In addition, consistent with Environmental Control Measure BIO-1 (Sound Abatement Techniques) and Environmental Control Measure BIO-1A (Pile-Driving Monitoring) (FEIS/EIR, November 2013), the Corps will add the following special conditions to the Department of the Army permit in order to further avoid potential adverse impacts upon marine mammals: 1) The Permittee shall ensure contractor(s) use sound-abatement techniques to reduce both noise and vibrations from pile-driving activities. Sound-abatement techniques shall include, but are not limited to, vibration or hydraulic insertion techniques, drilled or augured holes for cast-in-place piles, bubble curtain technology, and sound aprons where feasible. At the initiation of each piledriving event, and after breaks of more than 15 minutes, the pile driving shall also employ a "soft-start" in which the hammer is operated at less than full capacity (i.e., approximately 40-60% energy levels) with no less than a 1-minute interval between each strike for a 5-minute period; and, 2) Pile-driving activities shall include establishment of a safety zone, and the area surrounding the operations shall be monitored by a qualified marine biologist for pinnipeds. As the

6 disturbance threshold level sound is expected to extend at least 1,000 feet from the steel piledriving operations, a safety zone shall be established around the steel pile-driving site and monitored for pinnipeds within a 1,200-foot-radius safety zone around the pile. As the steel piledriving site will move with each new pile, the 1,200-foot-radius safety zone shall move accordingly. Observers onshore or by boat shall survey the safety zone to ensure that no marine mammals are seen within the zone before pile driving of a steel-pile segment begins. If marine mammals are found within the safety zone, pile driving of the segment shall be delayed until they move out of the area. If a marine mammal is seen above water and then dives below, the biologist shall instruct the contractor to wait at least 15 minutes, and if no marine mammals are seen by the biologist in that time, it may be assumed that the animal has moved beyond the safety zone. This 15-minute criterion is based on a study indicating that pinnipeds dive for a mean time of 0.5 minutes to 3.3 minutes; the 15-minute delay will allow a more than sufficient period of observation to be reasonably sure the animal has left the project vicinity. If pinnipeds enter the safety zone after pile driving of a segment has begun, pile driving will continue. The biologist shall monitor and record the species and number of individuals observed, and make note of their behavior patterns. If the animal appears distressed and, if it is operationally safe to do so, pile driving shall cease until the animal leaves the area. However, it is recognized that in some cases, pile driving cannot be terminated safely and without severe operational difficulties until reaching a designated depth. Therefore, if it is deemed operationally unsafe by the project engineer to discontinue pile-driving activities, and a pinniped is observed in the safety zone, piledriving activities shall continue until the critical depth is reached (at which time pile driving will cease) or until the pinniped leaves the safety zone. Prior to the initiation of each new pile-driving episode, the area shall again be thoroughly surveyed by the biologist.

7

8

9

10

11

12 Comment: See following page for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) comment letter. Response: Comments on the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) floodplain management building requirements are noted. The revised proposed Project would involve construction of X buildings, including office buildings (administration), operations and maintenance, and security booths. As the revised proposed Project would not occur within a riverine floodplain or a Regulatory Floodway 1, the associated building requirements and post-construction reporting requirements (e.g., to support FIRM revision) are not applicable. Based upon review of the countywide Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) no C1965F (dated 26 September 2008), the majority of the proposed Project site is designated as AE (areas subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event determined by detailed methods), and a small portion of the site located in the Back Channel (Long Beach Generating Station (LBGS) intake structure) is designated as X (minimal risk areas outside the 1-percent and 0.2-percent-annual-chance floodplains). Accordingly, the proposed Project site does not fall in a coastal high hazard area (designed as V flood zones) 2, and thus the associated building requirements and post-construction reporting requirements are not applicable. 1 Regulatory Floodway means the area regulated by federal, State or local requirements to provide for the discharge of the base flood (100-year) so the cumulative increase in water surface elevation is not to exceed one foot as set by the National Flood Insurance Program (44 CFR 9.4). 2 Zone V consists of areas along coasts subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event with additional hazards associated with storm-induced waves (also known as Coastal High Hazard Areas).

13

14