The Corps document ("East San Pedro Bay Ecosystem Feasibility Study/Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report EIS/EIR") cited issues raised by the U.S. Navy and maritime/shipping and Port interests, in addition to constraints in the study (agreed to at its inception) on tolerable wave-restoration impacts coupled with the study's limited scope (not specifically wave restoration but rather "ecosystem restoration" with possible habitat improvements.)

4.5.9 Identification of the Final Array of Alternatives

After careful consideration of all five action plans, both breakwater plans were screened out primarily due to impacts to the Navy’s national security and other maritime operations in violation of Study constraints:

Constraint 1: Avoid negative impacts to U.S. Navy’s operations including activities in support of national security and other missions.

Constraint 2: Do not significantly reduce operational capacity for the ports, THUMS oil extraction islands or other existing maritime operations.

Additionally, both plans carry high construction costs with relatively low habitat output, and therefore do not meet criteria of effectiveness or efficiency...

The City of LB's press release omitted any response/quotation from Long Beach Mayor Robert Garcia. Instead, Garcia issued a Tweet which attached a statement not written on his letterhead in which Garcia said he was "incredibly disappointed with the results and conclusions made by the Army Corps" but said he had always said the we should be guided by science and the data" He added that "The Army Corps conclusions that any modification to the breakwater poses a national security risk is substantial and must be taken seriously."

Mayor Garcia's Tweet made no reference to issues raised by LB maritime related interests ..and a close reading of the Corps' document arguably shows that its choice reflected primarily policy considerations, not new data or science.]

Sponsor

Sponsor

4.5.7 Breakwater Plans Analysis Summary

In this section, the two breakwater modifications were evaluated against two of the planning constraints, both of which point to maritime impacts. This section focuses specifically on the viability of breakwater modifications given the Study’s planning objective and constraints...

Constraint 1: Avoid negative impacts to U.S. Navy’s operations including activities in support of national security and other missions.

Constraint 2: Do not significantly reduce operational capacity for the ports, THUMS oil extraction islands or other existing maritime operations.

Shoreline Impacts

Modifications to the breakwater would allow for more wave energy within the bay. This increase of energy would cause more sediments to be available for transport. Finer sediments would be mobilized and transported by the underlying tidal currents leaving more course materials than are currently not present in the top layers of sediment. Changes to the shoreline configuration is expected. Lowering of the eastern end of the breakwater would widen the zone of erosion to a more western position.

Notching the western side would cause localized pockets of erosion from the Shoreline Marina to Belmont Pier. See Coastal Appendix A for more information.

Navigation Operations Impacts They provided both verbal and written comments addressed to the City. Potential impacts to navigation operations were assumed for this Study including impacts from large wave events. It is understood that even an increase of 12" in wave height disrupts operations and increases safety risks.

At the ports, higher waves the Pier J South terminal would result in increased time to unload vessels at berth, potential breakage to mooring lines and safety risks would also increase. Excessive wave conditions create unsafe berthing conditions for Carnival Cruise Lines. Energy islands would experience the most impacts from either breakwater plan scenario, impacting safe transfer of crew and materials. Port pilots and tug operators guide large vessels into the port complex. They have expressed concerns over increased excessive ship motions that result in safety issues and underkeel clearance risks.

In addition, the City requested online feedback from the public on potential impacts the preliminary alternatives would have on their navigation operations, based on available waves analysis. The respondents were a mix of navigation stakeholders, including port operations, an international transportation service company, ship pilots, and the general public. Of the responses, a majority responded negatively to any modification of the breakwater. The feedback for the breakwater plans included the following concerns:

Increased Transportation Costs -- Need to change itineraries, need to wait for safe transit conditions, including during potential shut down of operations for portions of the Port. Demurrage charges to shippers for delays.

Potential need to relocate Carnival Cruise Lines operations.

Potential damage to vessels, e.g., vessels breaking from moorings

Increased Transportation Costs – Need to change itineraries, need to wait for safe transit conditions, including during potential shut down of operations for portions of the Port.

Potential damages to berths, cranes, marinas, oil islands, coastal flooding.

Inability to bunker and service vessels, including crew changes, supply deliveries, etc. Potential 3 releases of petroleum during bunkering due to unsafe wave conditions.

Safety -- potential line breaks, wave action impacts to crane operators and dock workers resulting in potential injury or death.

Regional Economic Development impacts -- Loss in revenues, jobs, negatively impacting the Port and Long Beach city economy.

In addition to the survey responses above, more specific feedback was received on potential impacts on Navy and the THUMS Energy Island operations.

Impacts to Navy Operations

The Navy operates explosives anchorage used for transfer of ammunition inside the breakwater -- these operations are required for Navy contingency operations in support of the National Defense Strategy.

Because of its purpose as a strategic contingency asset, the anchorage must be available for use on short notice at any given time. The breakwater provides a protected bay environment consistent with the operating criteria to facilitate safe and efficient ordnance and fuel transfer operations. Feedback from the Navy indicates:

Any modifications to the breakwater resulting in an increase to wave energy will impact the Navy's ability to safely perform ordnance and fuel transfer operations.

Any modifications to the breakwater would result in an increase in dynamic vessel motion, a decrease in safety for Navy personnel conducting the operations, and would hinder the ability to perform ordnance and fuel transfer operations year-round.

Proposed modifications to the breakwater exhibit a high probability of impacting the National Defense Strategy.

Relocation of Navy operations to alternative sites would be cost prohibitive and unlikely to be supported due to public opposition.

Impacts to the Navy’s D-7 and D-8 anchorages are best visualized by the wave impacts graphics shown in Figure 4-28 and Figure 4-29. From breakwater notches to the west, the edge of anchorage D-7 would experience an additional 100 days a year of 12" wave heights. Ships can be anchored but close to the edge of the anchorage circle. Anchorage D-8 would experience severe impacts from western notches, where ships would encounter approximately 300 additional days per year of waves >12" high. For the eastern removal, anchorage D-8 receives no protection from the breakwater and is subject to open ocean wave energy. For more details of the wave analysis and impacts, see Appendix A: Coastal Engineering

Impacts to THUMS Energy Island Operations

Feedback on the THUMS Energy Island operations indicates that their operation costs could increase between $12 million to $48 million per year with implementation of the breakwater modification alternatives. In addition, all crew boats, barges, and tugs would have an increased safety risk due to larger swells resulting from any removal of the breakwater. This increased risk to personnel, equipment, 8 and the environment may require the acquisition of new vessels to mitigate this impact. New vessel costs are not included in the cost estimate.

Environmental Assessment

Removing portions of the breakwater would result in permanent loss of existing rocky reef and kelp habitat. However, the loss of breakwater habitat would be regained through relocation and reuse of breakwater rock to construct rocky reef or kelp beds. Required protective measures would result in similar temporary habitat losses on the oil islands for both plans, with additional rocky reef and kelp habitat loss at Pier J and the Shoreline Marina and nearby detached breakwater as well.

Incidental Recreation Assessment

A qualitative assessment of incidental recreation impacts from both restoration and breakwater measures were provided by the City for the following activities: beach/boardwalk visitation, near beach water activities (swimming, wading, etc.), paddle boarding (prefer calm water), surfing, and various types of boating. Breakwater modifications had a positive benefit for near beach swimming and wading as well as for surfing, but had equally strong negative impacts to paddle boarding and boating activities..

"The purpose of this study is to evaluate ecosystem restoration measures within East San Pedro Bay. To design a restoration project, reconfigurations of the Long Beach Breakwater, as it affects the water quality and hydrodynamics of the area, may be analyzed as part of an array alternatives. Potential reconfiguration could provide an opportunity for rocky materials from the breakwater reconfiguration to be used for ecosystem restoration measures." [Source: Corps of Engineers East San Pedro Bay Ecosystem Feasibility Study, June 21, 2016, p. 2.

In June 2018, City of LB staffers plus the Corps of Engineers L.A. District Planning Division Chief had bad news on the doorstep for the Surfrider Foundation's LB Chapter, which advocates sinking the breakwater to restore wave action. The COE rep said the federal agency's "Ecosystem Restoration" study -- which at its inception and for roughly ten years was deemed a Breakwater study -- is nearing the point of choosing two options to pursue that may or may not include breakwater issues because the study's modifications isn't focused on restoring waves but rather on restoring ecosystems

On Sept. 24, 2018, the City held a press event, prominently featuring Mayor Garcia, at which he stated (VIDEO here) that "we're looking at whether stones removed from the Long Beach breakwater could be used to build mitigation measures and this includes protective structures around the oil islands, the Belmont Pier, and of course we are working with our Navy partners." Mayor Garcia said that "just a few weeks ago, I met with the Navy and the top leadership...over here at the Navy base to discuss this measure and to work together in partnership as we move forward."

Another possible reconfiguration, a Western Notching Alternative, would create two 1,000 ft. notches in the western portion of the LB Breakwater that "preliminary wave modeling" indicates would "result in some increased swells that could impact the oil islands, Pier J as well as the Carnival Cruise terminal. However stones removed from the Long Beach Breakwater could be used to build mitigation measures, including protective structures along the oil islands, Pier J and open along the coast."

A little over a week later, the Commanding Officer of the Navy's Seal Beach Weapons Station informed City of LB Public Works staff by letter that any modifications to the breakwater will impact the Navy's mission with increases in wave energy affecting vessel motion, increasing the risk to safety of personnel and damage to vessels and equipment which "would seriously impact the Navy's ability to respond during a time of national or international crisis." (LBREPORT.com coverage here.)

And three days after Capt. Dahlke signed his letter voicing the Navy's concerns to the City, Mother Nature weighed in. On October 5, 2018, an unexpected turn by Hurricane Sergio off Baja California, coinciding with a fairly regular high tide (not a "King Tide") that overtopped the roughly 7 foot high protective sand berm along the Peninsula (with overtopping mainly eastward of 61st Place, most visible around 64th Place.) LBREPORT.com provided VIDEO coverage with on-scene comments by 3rd dist. Councilwoman Suzie Price (who urged those supporting the return of waves to see for themselves what happened.) LBREPORT.com included additional video of the evening high tide at 64th Place, which showed that the beach had basically disappeared. It was filled by the ocean with waves overtopping the berm and knocking against (and in some spots penetrating) gaps in wood planks hurriedly installed by city crews using temporary struts; while this took place, other city workers drove heavy equipment to bolster the sand berm.

The Corps action comes after the City Council spent several million dollars in Tidelands Funds over the past decade to pursue the possibility of restoring some wave activity, urged by the Surfrider Foundation and other grassroots groups. Breakwater modification was resisted by various maritime interests, by Peninsula homeowners and ultimately by the U.S. Navy. which in October 2018 voiced its objections to breakwater modifications that could increase wave activity. (LBREPORT.com coverage here.

An Oct. 2018 distant Pacific hurricane brought a southerly swell that sent the ocean onto parts of the Peninsula beach and boardwalk and city crews scrambled to erect wooden and sand berm to prevent more serious flooding, bolstering Peninsula residents' opposition to modifying federal breakwater.

Sponsor

Sponsor

In its Executibe Summnary to the EIS/EIR which can be viewed in full at this link, the Corps states:

...[I]n terms of efficiency, the two breakwater plans were inefficient in terms of costs per acre of restoration. For example, the western notching alternative BW1 had an average annual cost/average annual habitat unit value of over 10 times Alternative 2. Overall, the breakwater plans had low acceptability due to significant navigational impacts and violation of constraints. Navigational impacts from breakwater modifications were evaluated against the planning constraints. Stakeholders characterized impacts based on wave modeling results showing locations, increase in occurrence and height of wave impacts. Impacts to the U.S. Navy, port ship pilots, THUMS oil islands, Carnival Cruise Line, and other maritime stakeholders including recreational activities were evaluated. Due to impacts to national security, ports operations and safety, only the three restoration focused plans were carried forward in the Final Array of Alternatives.