About three weeks ago, the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners released for 45 days of public comment a long-awaited environmental analysis report for the Middle Harbor Project. The draft report, termed an “EIS/EIR,” was released in accordance with federal law (the National Environmental Policy Act or NEPA) and state law (the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA). These similar but not identical laws are intended to disclose the impacts of proposed projects to the public so that decision makers – in this case, our Harbor Commissioners – can decide whether and how to proceed. Both laws require the analysis of project alternatives, including a no-action alternative (i.e., leaving things the way they are), and importantly, both require mitigation measures for project impacts.
On Wednesday night I attended the first of two scheduled public hearings where port staff received public comments on the project (several of the Commissioners were in the audience listening). Over the span of ten years, the project will consolidate two outdated and inefficient port terminal properties into one modern, clean, efficient terminal. Some existing shallow channels will be filled in to create a rectangular terminal with enough dock space for today’s larger ships and enough “backland” for the numerous cargo containers they handle. (The port will offset this fill with credits earned earlier through restoration of the Bolsa Chica wetlands.)
The project is expected to create a thousand temporary construction jobs and, when operational, to support 14,000 new goods movement-related jobs in Southern California. If you were to look to the left as you drove uphill over the Gerald Desmond Bridge towards San Pedro (westbound), you’d see the project site. (But please drive safely if you do this!)
The current state of the future Middle Harbor site.
Overall, according to port staff presentations, the project will reduce emissions of all port-related air pollutants – and public health risk – to lower levels than today. This is true for the complete project at its full capacity, handling at least twice as many containers as the combined operations do now. How is this possible? The existing equipment – cranes, trucks, locomotives, and more – will be replaced over the coming years with newer, cleaner versions, as laid out in the port Clean Air Action Plan. Moreover, the revamped facility’s lease will require that all ships calling at the terminal reduce their speed within 40 nautical miles of shore (currently a voluntary requirement), use shore power (now done at only a couple of San Pedro Bay terminals), and use low-sulfur fuel in both main and auxiliary engines. The project will also dramatically expand the capacity for on-dock loading of containers to rail, reducing the need for as many as 1,000 trucks a day that now traverse both local freeways (think I-710) and local streets, especially near West Long Beach.
Twenty-six of the commenters Wednesday night were in favor of the project. Local residents and business owners, employees of the existing terminals, union members, industry groups, and engineering firms were among those speaking in support. Four commenters were opposed to the project, including two speakers representing the Coalition for a Safe Environment. Two commenters, East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice and the South Coast Air Quality Management District, asked for more time to review the voluminous project documents. There were calls for additional public outreach and for ways to ensure that the mitigation measures are actually implemented. (Port staff point out that the lease will require compliance.)
The second public hearing will take place next Wednesday night, June 18th, starting at 6:30 at Silverado Park in West Long Beach. It’s possible that more project opposition will be voiced in this heavily impacted location. You can see the port staff presentation and a video about the project here (scroll to the bottom of the piece for these links), and view the full environmental documents here. You can also submit written comments according to instructions on the page at the first of these two links. Port staff are eager to get your input.