polb on-dock rail support facility nop - port of long beach

August 2009 Port of Long Beach On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project

1

NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY FOR THE PORT OF LONG BEACH

ON-DOCK RAIL SUPPORT FACILITY PROJECT 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Port of Long Beach (Port or POLB) is proposing to expand the existing Pier B Rail Yard located in the North and Northeast Harbor Planning Districts. The On-Dock Rail Support Facility Project (Project) would enhance rail operations and the capacity and efficiency of rail facilities at the existing Pier B Rail Yard. The regional vicinity is shown in Exhibit 1. The location of the proposed Project is shown on Exhibit 2. The Project would realign Pier B Street, provide an increase in inbound and outbound freight handling capacity; provide up to 10,000 foot-long staging tracks; accommodate 8,000-foot to 10,000-foot long container trains; provide storage tracks for empty rail cars; and remove the 9th Street grade crossing or realign 9th Street. The Project would be built in three phases as described in Section 4.0, Project Construction and Phasing, and would include the following: the construction addition of a near-dock intermodal facility, on-site locomotive fueling tracks, and an on-site railcar repair facility; realignment of the Terminal Island Freeway (State Route [SR] 47/103) bridge supports across Anaheim Street to provide room for additional tracks; and installation of up to four additional tracks south of the existing Pier B Rail Yard and adjacent to Pico Avenue; and/or construction of a grade separation over the tracks crossing Pier B Street and from Pier B Street to Anaheim Street. The City of Long Beach acting by and through its Board of Harbor Commissioners (Port or POLB) is the state lead agency for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance. On the basis of the Initial Study conducted for the proposed project (Sections 7.0 through 9.0 of this Notice of Preparation [NOP]) the POLB has determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared. The Port is using this NOP to solicit comments from responsible and trustee agencies, other public agencies, and the public on the scope of the environmental analysis that should be included in the EIR.

2.0 BACKGROUND Location The proposed Project site is generally situated between the Alameda Corridor to the west, Interstate (I)-710 to the east, Channel No. 2 in the POLB to the south, and Anaheim Street to the north. Tracks into the Pier B facility would extend west beyond SR 103 to the Alameda Corridor and south as far as Ocean Boulevard. The total site is approximately 170 acres. Project Need and Objectives Project Need Currently, the existing Pier B Rail Yard’s function is to support POLB on-dock rail yards by providing railcar and locomotive storage and staging, which enables the on-dock yards to function more efficiently. However, cargo volumes are projected to increase (POLA/POLB 2007). This in turn will result in an increase in the amount of intermodal cargo handled by on-dock rail yards. As the on-dock volumes increase, there will be an increase in demand for both on-dock capacity and supporting rail facilities, which the existing Pier B Rail Yard, without expansion, would not be able to handle effectively. In addition, Pier B Street is poorly aligned because it follows existing terminal boundaries, and the at-grade crossing located at the intersection of 9th Street and Pico Avenue forces extra train movements (splitting and building the train) to keep the road open.


2


3


4

Project Objectives The key project objectives are to:

• Improve traffic flow on Pier B Street to accommodate projected truck volumes and improve operating safety

• Eliminate an existing at-grade crossing to improve road and rail safety • Provide additional Port rail capacity to support on-dock intermodal operations.

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Project consists of the realignment of Pier B Street and the expansion of the existing Pier B Rail Yard. The Port has identified two possible alternatives to the project to be included in the EIR – the No Project Alternative and the North Harbor Intermodal Yard, With Pico/I-710 Access Alternative (Alternative), and is interested in receiving suggestions for additional alternatives or modifications of the current alternatives in response to this NOP. The Project and the North Harbor Intermodal Yard with Pico/I-710 Access Alternative would each construct an expanded storage and staging yard using the site of the existing Pier B Rail Yard and property to the north, in the North Harbor Planning District. The Project differs largely in the fact that the Alternative would expand the existing storage yard and add an intermodal yard to the north, and also in details of street realignments and closures, track configurations, the size of the facility, and rail service facilities. The Project and the Alternative would both result in a railyard capable of receiving and releasing intermodal trains at least 8,000 feet long. The new on-dock rail support facility would be connected to the Alameda Corridor and Port on-dock railyards via new lead tracks running between approximately the Dominguez Channel and the rail yard on the west and between Ocean Boulevard and the rail yard on the east and south. The impacts associated with rail traffic on the Alameda Corridor were analyzed in the Alameda Corridor EIR (ACTA 1993). 3.1 Preferred Project: Expanded Storage and Staging Yard The Project would provide increased railcar storage and staging capacity, including 10,000-foot staging tracks to facilitate more efficient assembly of trains. The footprint of the rail yard would extend into the North Harbor Area to just south of 12th Street; relocations and/or condemnations may be required. The facility would include additional storage/staging tracks, locomotive fueling tracks, and railcar repair tracks. The Project would require realignment of Pier B Street, closure of the existing 9th Street grade crossing, and additional tracks along Pico Avenue between 9th Street and Ocean Boulevard. The Project would remove the existing ramps to/from the Shoemaker Bridge. In addition, the Project would include a grade separation over existing tracks crossing Pier B Street and from Pier B Street to Anaheim Street. Two options are being considered for the Project that would change some of the details of the facility’s configuration. 3.1.1 Option 1: Expanded Storage and Staging Yard In this option to the Project, the rail yard would include railcar setout/repair tracks and locomotive layover/fueling tracks. The other components of the Project would remain the same. 3.1.2 Option 2: Expanded Storage and Staging Yard with Reconfigured 9th Street This option to the Project would realign 9th Street slightly to the north and maintain the ramp connections to the Shoemaker Bridge, with the goals of minimizing the encroachment of the railyard into the North Harbor Area and maintaining local traffic circulation. Ramp connections to the I-710 freeway would also be slightly reconfigured. The other components of preferred Project would remain the same.


5

3.2 North Harbor Intermodal Yard, With Pico/I-710 Access Alternative In addition to expanding the existing railyard to provide increased railcar storage and staging capacity as in the Project, this alternative would include a new near-dock intermodal railyard on the north side of the Project site. The facility would include 10,000 foot staging tracks to facilitate more efficient assembly of trains. The footprint of the rail yard would extend into the North Harbor Area to just south of 12th Street. Relocations and/or condemnations may be required. The intermodal facility would use either electric rubber-tire gantry (RTG) or rail-mounted gantry (RMG) cranes for loading and unloading the intermodal railcars. This alternative, like the Project, would require realignment of Pier B Street, closing the existing 9th Street grade crossing, and adding tracks along Pico Avenue between 9th Street and Ocean Boulevard. The enhanced rail yard would allow 8,000 to 10,000-foot inbound and outbound intermodal trains to be staged and would also provide storage tracks for empty rail cars required to support on-dock intermodal operations. Truck access to the intermodal facility would be provided via a gate facility at the east end of the yard, connecting the railyard to Pier B Street/Pico Avenue. In addition, this alternative would include a grade separation over the existing tracks crossing Pier B Street and from Pier B Street to Anaheim Street.

4.0 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND PHASING For the Project and the Alternative, project construction would occur in three phases over an estimated 36-month period. The construction work force would draw on the large southern California regional construction worker pool. Construction would proceed in three phases: Phase I

• Realignment of Pier B Street; • Construction of a grade separation crossing Pier B Street and from Pier B Street to Anaheim

Street. Phase II

• Construction of new track and lengthening of existing track between Pier B Street and 9th Street; • Reconstruction of lead tracks on either end of the facility, extending from just west of the

Dominguez Channel to just south of Ocean Boulevard; • Construction of additional arrival/departure tracks and additional train staging/storage tracks; • Construction of a new intermodal container transfer facility and a near-dock intermodal railyard in

the North Harbor Area (Alternative only); • Installation of diesel locomotive fueling tracks and railcar repair tracks; • Air-brake testing facilities; • Utility protection and relocations, as necessary; and • Drainage improvements.

Phase III

• Continuation of construction of additional arrival/departure tracks and additional train stage/storage tracks out to the Alameda Corridor and down to Ocean Boulevard;

• Installation of diesel locomotive fueling tracks and railcar repair tracks; • Relocation of the existing mainlines north towards Anaheim Street; • Closure of the 9th Street connection from Pico Avenue to Anaheim Street and other streets

between 9th Street and 12th Street; • Removal of the Shoemaker Bridge access ramps; • Reconstruction of the I-710 access ramps as part of the Project, Option 2 only; • Utility protection and relocations, as necessary.


6

5.0 PROJECT OPERATIONS The reconfigured Pier B on-dock rail support facility would be used to stage inbound and outbound intermodal trains and would provide storage tracks for empty rail cars required to support on-dock intermodal operations. The ability to stage inbound trains at the Pier B facility would smooth rail traffic flows between the on-dock rail terminals, which are only available to receive/depart rail traffic at certain times of the day, and the Alameda Corridor. The expanded on-dock rail support yard would also provide staging tracks for non-intermodal cars bound to and from non-container terminals (e.g., dry bulk, scrap, breakbulk, and liquid bulk terminals), and trackage for railcar repair activities, functions that the current railyard provides. The expanded facility would also continue to provide car storage and classification facilities. The expanded rail yard would be used to assemble and break down intermodal trains, instead of using the on-dock railyards for that purpose. In that operation, strings of intermodal railcars, loaded or empty, would be moved between the on-dock rail yards and the Pier B facility by switching locomotives. Empty railcars would be redistributed to the on-dock rail yards by switching locomotives as needed, and loaded railcars would be assembled into full trains for departure onto the Alameda Corridor (outbound) or spotted at the terminals (inbound). Intermodal trains would be hauled by line-haul locomotives operated by the Class I railroads (BNSF and UP). The long arrival/departure tracks would facilitate the departure of outbound trains by providing a location to perform mandatory air brake tests for departing trains that does not block either the leads to the on-dock terminals or at-grade crossings. The locomotive fueling tracks would reduce the number of light-engine moves on the San Pedro Bay rail network between remote fueling facilities and the port terminals. Provision of railcar repair tracks would facilitate the efficient repair of railcars that would otherwise be out of service. These project components would increase the capacity of the existing rail yard, which would allow it to continue to provide support as the volume of on-dock traffic grows, whether through new on-dock facilities, improved efficiencies at existing facilities, or increased cargo volumes. The number of trains leaving and entering the Port would increase, with the exact number dependent on the capacity of the Port’s on-dock rail yards. Outbound trains would depart on the Long Beach lead track and join the Alameda Corridor near the Thenard track connection just west of the Dominguez Channel; inbound trains would make the reverse movement. Possible environmental impacts associated with additional trains will be analyzed in the EIR.


7

EVALUATION OF POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS The environmental analysis of the proposed alternatives will address the potentially significant effects identified in the Environmental Assessment Checklist (see Section 8.0). The Checklist uses the following terms:

• Potentially Significant Impact: Impacts would be potentially significant, and feasible mitigation has not been identified.

• Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated: Impacts would be adverse and potentially

significant, but can feasibly be mitigated to less than significant. • Less Than Significant Impact: Impacts would be adverse, but less than significant. • No Impact: No adverse impacts, or only beneficial impacts, would occur.

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental resources checked below would be potentially affected by this proposed project. Each of these resources involves at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist provided on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing/ Businesses Public Services Recreation Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance Transportation / Traffic

7.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately

supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2) All answers are preliminary and take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as

on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operation.

3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist

answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the

incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).


8

5) According to CEQA Section 15063(c)(3)(D), earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the CEQA tiering, Program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:

a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within

the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Measures

Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.

6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for

potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where applicable, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or

individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, the lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9) The explanation of each issue should identify:

a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and, b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.


9

AESTHETICS. Would the project:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporation

Less Than Significant

Impact

No Impact

a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

(a-b) No Impact. The Project site is not located within an officially designated scenic vista. There are no sensitive viewers with a high-quality view of the Project. The Port area is characterized by heavy industrial land uses, which dominate the landscape and viewshed. Accordingly, the development of rail infrastructure on Pier B would be consistent with the existing viewshed and landscape, and the Project would not adversely affect a scenic vista or an important/valued view for sensitive viewers. No impact on a scenic vista would occur; this issue will be not be further analyzed in the EIR. The Project would not adversely affect a scenic resource within a state scenic highway. There are no state-designated scenic highways within the Port; the closest one is located approximately 23 miles north of the Port in the City of Anaheim where State Route 91 meets State Route 55. Highway 1 (Ocean Boulevard), located approximately one mile south of the Project area is classified as “eligible” for state scenic designation. The Port of Long Beach Port Master Plan (PMP) identifies three sensitive views within the harbor area: predominant structures visible to the east from downtown Long Beach and along the shoreline; ground level views along the boundary of Queensway Bridge; and ground level views along Harbor Scenic Drive from the southbound I-710 lanes south of Anaheim Street. None of these locations are proximate to the study area. As such, construction of the alternatives would not affect the existing visual character or quality of the surrounding uses and would not alter the qualities of the area that contribute to the scenic highway destination. No impact would occur; this issue will be not be further analyzed in the EIR. (c-d) Less than Significant. The existing visual conditions of the Project site have a low-quality visual character rating because the Port is a highly industrialized area and only limited views of the site are provided to passing motorists from the Terminal Island Freeway (SR 103). Residential and recreational views of the site are limited due to the distance (0.5-miles) of residents and recreational sites from the site. At those distances, the proposed project site appears as a background feature that is not easily distinguishable from other port structures. Close-up or near-range views of the site reflect the industrial character of the general area. With development of the Project, the visual condition of Pier B would be altered, yet the overall visual character of the site and the highly industrial Port area remain consistent with its current setting. Because of existing visual character of the site and surroundings would not be degraded by development of the Project, the impact would be less than significant; however, this issue will be discussed in the EIR. The Port is a highly industrialized area that currently has a large amount of nighttime lighting. Port activities occur 24 hours per day, and the required lighting for this large area can be seen from a long distance (over three miles). Several existing sources of light in the vicinity of Pier B include the Pier A Marine Terminal, Pier D Marine Terminal and roadway lighting. The Project can be viewed as an infill


10

project, with heavy industrial land uses in all directions that currently utilize nighttime lighting. New light poles would be installed at the Project site. However, the new lighting at Pier B would not stand out above the existing nighttime lighting in the greater area surrounding the site. Thus, the visual impact from nighttime lighting would be less than significant; however, this issue will be discussed in the EIR.

AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a. 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?

b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

c. Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?

(a–c) No Impact. No agricultural uses are currently located on-site nor has the site historically been used for agricultural purposes. The site is not classified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance by the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. There are no Williamson Act contracts applicable to the Project site. Thus, the proposed Project would not convert farmland to non-agricultural uses. No impact would result, and no further study of this issue is required.


11

AIR QUALITY. Where available, the

significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

(a-d) Potentially Significant Impact. The Project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). As explained further below, the air basin is designated “non-attainment” for some criteria pollutants. In the case of the Project, operations (i.e., train traffic) would result in increases in air emissions compared to emissions currently generated on-site. The San Pedro Bay ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, in cooperation with the United State Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and SCAQMD, have developed an aggressive strategy to significantly reduce health risks posed by air pollution from port-related sources as a means of complying with the SCAQMD’s air quality management plan for the region. The San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) established uniform air quality standards at three key levels: the San Pedro Bay level, Project-Specific level, and Source-Specific Performance level. The CAAP addresses every category of port-related emissions sources, including ships, trucks, trains, cargo-handling equipment, and harbor craft, and outlines detailed strategies to reduce emissions from each category. The Project would incorporate the elements of the CAAP as applicable. These issues will be analyzed further in the EIR. The SCAQMD has established standards for air quality constituents generated by construction and by operational activities for such pollutants as ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). The SCAQMD maintains an extensive air quality monitoring network to measure criteria pollutant concentrations throughout the SCAB. The SCAB is designated a non-attainment area for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The construction and operation of the Project would contribute to an increase in air quality emissions for which the region is non-attainment. Accordingly, air quality impacts from construction and operation of the new facilities will be evaluated using the thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD and the CAAP. Short-term emissions would result from the use of construction equipment and trips generated by construction workers and haul/material delivery trucks. These emissions could result in the violation of air quality standards or the exceedance of air quality thresholds of significance, which may contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Therefore, air quality impacts will be further evaluated in the EIR.


12

In addition, since the SCAB is in non-attainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5, there could be cumulative air quality impacts from the proposed project as well as other projects which may be constructed before, during or after the proposed project. The cumulative air quality impacts that these projects could have will be evaluated in the EIR to determine, what, if any cumulative significance, the Project may have.

Due to the possible emission of toxic air pollutants a Health Risk Assessment will also be conducted for the Project. The impacts determined from this analysis will be further evaluated in the EIR.

Construction activities could potentially expose nearby residents and workers to air pollution conditions in the form of dust and exhaust emissions. Compliance with SCAQMD and CAAP rules and regulations, including implementation of the recommended control measures, would be required during construction phases of the selected alternative. Operational activities could expose nearby sensitive receptors to increased levels of air pollution. In addition to evaluating the level of sensitive receptor exposure to the criteria pollutants identified in the Federal Clean Air Act, the California Clean Air Act, and the National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards, an evaluation of the exposure and impacts of toxic diesel combustion emissions will be undertaken. These issues will be analyzed further in the EIR.

(e) Less than Significant Impact. Some objectionable odors could be created during construction activities from such substances as paving, tar, and diesel exhaust. These odors would be temporary and would not affect a substantial number of people and would only occur in localized areas during project construction. Odors produced from the operation of the proposed facilities would be activity-dependent and would not be expected to leave the site. Impacts related to objectionable odors would be less than significant; however, this issue will be discussed in the EIR.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a. 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 California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d. 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?


13

e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

(a) Less than Significant Impact. A plant or wildlife species is defined as having “special status” when it has been afforded recognition by federal, state, or local resources conservation agencies (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG]), and/or resource conservation organizations (e.g., California Native Plant Society [CNPS] or the National Audubon Society).

Several special-status species may be present, at times, in the Project area. However, the area’s terrestrial habitats are degraded to such a degree that they provide little value for native plants or wildlife. Most special-status species within area are not likely to be present because (1) species-specific habitat requirements are not present; (2) species are transitory that occur in the area rarely during migration; and (3) species are not tolerant of disturbance or proximity to human activities that are currently present in the area.

Several special-status species are known to occur within the Long Beach harbor area including three federally- and/or state-listed as endangered (CDFG 2008d)—the California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), and California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni). California brown pelicans roost on the Long Beach Harbor and Los Angeles Harbor breakwaters and occasionally on docks bordering the Long Beach Inner Harbor. California least terns nest in a protected nesting site on Pier 400 in the Los Angeles Harbor and require protected open sandy areas for nesting; they forage throughout the Inner and Outer Long Beach and Los Angeles Harbors. No nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat is present in the Project area for California brown pelican or California least tern. A pair of peregrine falcons has nested within the supporting structure below the Gerald Desmond Bridge, a minimum of 0.5 miles south of the area, for several years and have successfully fledged young most years. Peregrine falcons have also nested on the Schuyler F. Heim Bridge that separates the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles Inner Harbors. No nesting habitat for peregrine falcons is present in the area, although peregrine falcons may forage occasionally, particularly for rock doves, in the area. Double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus), a California Species of Special Concern are known to nest on transmission towers at Piers S and A northwest of the Gerald Desmond Bridge; however, no nesting habitat for this species is present in the Project area. No other special-status species are expected to occur in the area.

As discussed above, other than the peregrine falcon, which may occasionally forage in the Project area, no special-status species identified as such in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS are expected to occur in the area. Accordingly, construction and operation of the Project would have a less than significant impact on special-status species; however, this issue will be further evaluated in the EIR.

(b-d) No Impact. The proposed project would only occur on upland areas of the Port and the site contains no marine, coastal, riparian, or wetland habitats. The Los Angeles River lies east of the Project area but is separated from it by the Long Beach Freeway, and the Long Beach Inner Harbor is separated from the area by roadways and existing structures; thus, no direct or indirect impacts on the river’s habitats are expected to occur due to construction or operation of the Project. No further study of this issue is required.

No federally-protected (or state-protected) wetlands are present in the Project area. The Los Angeles River lies east of the area but is separated from it by the Long Beach Freeway, and the Long Beach Inner Harbor would not be affected by project construction; thus, no direct or indirect impacts on habitats of the river or


14

Inner Harbor (or areas considered Waters of the U.S. per Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) are expected to occur due to construction or operation of the Project. No further study of this issue is required.

The Project area lies within a developed, industrialized area which is not part of a migratory wildlife corridor or wildlife nursery site. No marine or aquatic habitats that support migratory fish are present in the Project area. No further study of this issue is required.

(e) Less than Significant Impact. No native trees that could be protected by local policies or ordinances are present within the Project area. However, the POLB Engineering Division would provide guidance during the design phase of project construction documents regarding replacement of eucalyptus or other non-native trees that will be removed from the area during construction. In addition to local policies and ordinances, the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), first enacted in 1916, prohibits any person to: “pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase...” any migratory bird. The list of migratory birds includes nearly all bird species native to the United States. The statute was extended in 1974 to include parts of birds, as well as eggs and nests. Thus, it is illegal under MBTA to destroy a nest of nearly any bird species, not just endangered species. Activities that result in removal or destruction of an active nest (a nest with eggs or young attended by one or more adults) would violate the MBTA. California Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3512 also prohibit take of birds and active nests. Because construction of the Project could destroy active bird nests during removal of trees and buildings, depending upon the timing of construction, the Project could conflict with the MBTA and related sections of the California Fish and Game Code. Potential impacts and mitigation measures will be discussed in the environmental document and mitigation imposed if necessary.

The Project would not conflict with any local policy or other ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or other ordinances. The Project site is designated for use as harbor facilities and would be consistent with this land use designation. No impacts would occur. No further study of this issue is required.

(f) No Impact. The Project area is not located within the boundaries of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The closest Habitat Conservation Plan to the Project area is the Ocean Trails Habitat Conservation Plan within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. No impact would result and no further study of this issue is required.

CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?


15

(a) Potentially Significant Impact. Structures located in the Project vicinity on both Port-owned and privately-owned parcels would be subject to potential acquisition and demolition to provide sufficient right-of-way for the Project improvements. On a site visit conducted by Parsons’ personnel on June 26, 2008, several buildings were observed that appear to be more than 50 years of age. Although these buildings do not appear eligible for federal, state, or local designation due to loss of integrity or because the buildings were low-style examples of architectural styles, further investigation will be conducted as a part of the EIR process. The oil storage facility located on the north side of Channel 2 appears to warrant further investigation. Further research would be conducted to determine if the silos present at this facility date to the early development of oil drilling and processing at POLB and if these buildings/structures are historically significant within the context of early economic development at POLB and the City of Long Beach. The presence of potential historic resources and adverse effects on those resources will be evaluated in the EIR. (b-d) No Impact. The Project site has been heavily disturbed as the result of past oil and gas drilling. Previous remediation, construction, and operational activities associated with the site did not uncover archaeological resources. Because the site is located on a previously disturbed area, construction of the Project would not affect paleontological resources or remains interred outside of a formal cemetery. No known human remains are known to exist on the site, and the site is not designated nor has it been for use as a cemetery. However, the contractor would be instructed to stop work and contact the proper authorities should any previously unknown archaeological or paleontological resources be encountered. No further study of this issue required.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Potentially Significant

Impact




Impact

No Impact

a. Expose people or structures to 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 issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

• Strong seismic ground shaking?

• Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

• Landslides?

b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?


16

d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

(a) Potentially Significant Impact. The Project site is located in the southwestern portion of the Los Angeles Basin, which is an area of known seismic activity: 17 potentially active faults lie within a 60-mile radius. The Palos Verdes Hills, Newport-Inglewood, Whittier, and San Andreas faults have the greatest potential to affect the Project area. The site may be affected by seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. The risk of seismic hazards such as fault rupture or liquefaction cannot be avoided; however, implementation of standard engineering design measures is required by the State of California Uniform Building Code to minimize potential earthquake impacts. The general intent of the building and construction design codes is to minimize structural damage resulting from a seismic event. The exposure of people to fault rupture or liquefaction is a potential risk with or without any project undertaken in the harbor. Potential impacts will be discussed in the EIR. (b) Less than Significant Impact. The relatively flat nature of the Project site precludes it from being readily susceptible to erosion. However, construction of the Project would result in ground surface disruption during grading and trenching that could create a potential for erosion to occur. Since the Project site is greater than one acre, the construction contractor would prepare and comply with a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would feature erosion control measures. In addition, the construction contractor would comply with the Storm Water Construction Activities General Permit and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Adherence to existing regulations and implementation of standard construction practices would ensure that soil erosion would be reduced to a less than significant level. This issue will be further analyzed in the EIR.

(c-d) Potentially Significant Impact. Liquefaction is the process in which sediments below the water table temporarily lose strength and behave as a liquid rather than a solid. Liquefaction generally occurs in sand and silt in areas with high groundwater levels. The Project site is located within a liquefaction zone. Expansive soils are soils such as clays and claystone that swell when they absorb water and shrink as they dry. Structural damage may occur when buildings are placed on these soils. Expansive soils are often present in liquefaction zones due to the high level of groundwater typically associated with liquefiable soils. As described above, all Project structures would be designed and constructed in accordance with the California Building Code, Uniform Building Code, and other applicable local, state, and federal codes. This would include the use of foundations designed to compensate for the reduced support provided by liquefiable and expansive soils. This issue will be examined further in the EIR.

Land subsidence is the loss of surface elevation due to the removal of subsurface support. Land subsidence is caused by activities that contribute to the loss of support materials within the underlying soils. The Project site is located on an oil and gas field that has experienced considerable subsidence and could be subject to future subsidence hazards. This issue will be examined further in the EIR.

(e) No Impact. The City of Los Beach Water Department provides wastewater service to the Project site. Project implementation would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impacts associated with use of a septic system would occur. No further study of this issue is required.


17

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

(a–b) Potentially Significant Impact. On June 1, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05. The goal of this Executive Order is to reduce California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to (1) 2000 levels by 2010, (2) 1990 levels by 2020, and (3) 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In 2006, this goal was further reinforced with the passage of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 sets the same overall GHG emissions reduction goals while further mandating that the CARB create a plan, which includes market mechanisms, and implement rules to achieve “real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases.” The potential impacts related to GHG emissions generated by the proposed project will be analyzed further in the EIR.

HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b. 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?

c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e. For a project 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, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?


18

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

(a-b) Potentially Significant Impact. Construction activities could last for up to 36 months and would involve the limited transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Some examples of hazardous materials handling include fueling and servicing construction equipment on-site, and the transport of fuels, lubricating fluids, and solvents. These types of materials, however, are not acutely hazardous and all storage, handling and disposal of these materials are regulated by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), USEPA, Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), Los Angeles County Fire Department, and Los Angeles County Health Department. However, because Option 1 of the Project would involve construction of a diesel locomotive fueling facility and the accompanying locomotive fueling, it is expected to result in the storage, use, and/or transport of hazardous or toxic materials. This issue would be considered to have a potentially significant impact and will be discussed in the EIR. (c) No Impact. There are no existing or proposed schools within a quarter mile of the proposed project. No impact would occur. Therefore, no further study of this issue is required.

(d) Less than Significant Impact. The former Long Beach III Manufactured Gas Plant (MGP) was located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Pier B Street and Edison Avenue, within the Project site. This site is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese sites) and is within the Project footprint. The site consists of approximately five acres. The entire site is paved and approximately eighty percent of the site is used as a parking lot for imported cars and the remaining portion is located under Pier B Street. Investigations at the site identified soil contamination consisting of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), and metals (lead and arsenic). A covenant to restrict use of this property to commercial and industrial uses only has been made between the City of Long Beach, the County of Los Angeles, and the State of California. The three soil management requirements listed in the covenant would have to be followed for construction of the Project: (1) develop a health and safety plan prior to construction activities; (2) properly manage contaminated soils; and (3) notify DTSC fourteen days prior to construction activities. As long as the requirements of the covenant are met, the potential to create a hazard to the public or the environment would be considered less than significant; however, this issue will be discussed in the EIR. (e-f) No Impact. The Project site is not located within two miles of an existing public or public use airport or within the vicinity of a private airstrip The nearest airstrip (public or private) is over four miles away. No impact would occur and no further study of this issue is required.

(g) Less than Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the Project could potentially interfere with any current emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans for local, state, or federal agencies. While public access to some roads would be limited during construction (while Pier B Street is being re-aligned), access to all roads for emergency vehicles would be maintained during construction and project operation. Any emergency procedures or design features required by city, state and federal


19

guidelines would be implemented during construction and operation of the Project. Impacts would be less than significant; however, this issue will be discussed in the EIR.

(h) No Impact. There are no wildlands adjacent to or in the general project vicinity. The majority of the Project site would remain earthen or paved, as under existing conditions, and no increased fire hazard is anticipated. No impact would occur and no further study of this issue is required.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site?

d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on-or off-site?

e. 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?

f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?

i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?


20

j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

(a) Less than Significant Impact. During construction and operation, storm water runoff and other discharges would be managed in accordance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations. Runoff of sediment, construction materials, and potential spills of fuels and/or lubricants during construction or operational activities could potentially have an impact on water quality. Potential impacts can be reduced with implementation of a SWPPP and Source Control Program. Compliance with existing regulations would address potential water quality impacts during construction and operation. Impacts would be considered less than significant; however, this issue will be discussed in the EIR. (b) No Impact. Groundwater within the vicinity of the Project site has significant saltwater intrusion and is therefore not designated for use as drinking water. Construction and operation of the Project would not directly change the quantity of groundwater or have any impact upon aquifers, as groundwater beneath the area would not be utilized as part of the Project. No impacts would occur. No further study of this issue is required.

(c-e) Less than Significant Impact. The Project area is relatively flat and minimal erosion runoff is expected. Construction and operation of the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area and would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The construction of structures and the addition of new rail lines would not be expected to significantly change drainage pattern on- or off-site; accordingly, less than significant impacts would be expected to occur. Drainage patterns would be controlled through on-site installation of new collection and conveyance facilities, and would be designed to be consistent with established drainage plans for the area. This issue will be discussed in the EIR.

The small increase in impervious surface area is not expected to significantly increase surface runoff or alter existing drainage patterns. The change in surface area associated with the realignment of Pier B Street would be negligible. The area north of 9th Street in which additional track might be installed currently contains small scale industrial and commercial buildings. Locations where new structures might possibly be constructed are currently paved. Less than significant impacts are expected to occur; however, this issue will be discussed in the EIR.

The Project site is located at the existing Pier B. This area is already developed with structures, streets, and parking lots. The storm water drainage system would be altered to accommodate any anticipated increase in runoff. While an upset condition with one of the rail cars containing hazardous substances is possible, the likelihood of the upset condition is minimal. No significant impacts are expected to occur with storm water or polluted runoff; however, this issue will be discussed in the EIR.

(f-g) No Impact. Construction and operation of the Project would not result in any other effects that could substantially degrade water quality. No impacts are expected to occur. No further study of this issue is required.

Construction and operation of the Project would not result in the placement of housing in the 100-year flood hazard area. No further study of this issue is required.

(h) Less than Significant Impact. While the Project site is within a 100-year flood zone, the proposed structures associated with it would not impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant; however, this issue will be discussed in the EIR.

(i-j) No Impact. There are no levees or dams in the vicinity of the Project site that would be subject to failure or would expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding. The site is not located in an inundation zone for a dam or levee. No impact would occur. No further study of this issue is required.


21

The Project site is relatively flat and is not near hillsides or canyons such that mudflows would pose a hazard to the site. The site is located in a coastal area that is subject to tsunamis and seiches. However, a recent port-wide study showed that neither tsunamis nor seiches would be expected to inundate this site, which is located deep within the harbor complex. No impacts are expected from inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No further study of this issue is required.

LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a. Physically divide an established community?

b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

(a-c) No Impact. The Project site is entirely within the boundaries of the Port. There are no residential uses within the site. There are several roadways which will be closed or affected. These roadways include Anaheim Street, Pier B Street, 9th Street, 11th Street, 12th Street, Canal Avenue, Santa Fe Avenue, Caspian Avenue, Harbor Avenue, and the Shoemaker Bridge ramps. Although these roadways might be closed or affected, no communities would be physically divided by the proposed project. No impacts would occur. No further study of this issue is required. The Project site is designated as Harbor within the City of Long Beach General Plan and is zoned as IP – Port Industrial according to the PMP. The PMP further delineates land uses into nine other land use categories. The Project is located in an area best described as Port-related industries and facilities, which includes warehousing, distribution centers, container storage, railroad facilities, container freight stations, and processing operations. Additional trackage, Pier B Street improvements, and other planned portions of the proposed project would be consistent with the PMP. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations. No impacts would occur. No further study of this issue is required. The Coastal Zone Permit would be under dual jurisdiction (City of Los Angeles and POLB). This is due to the Los Angeles City limits being just west of the intersection of “I” Street and Anaheim Street. As a result, both Coastal Zone management plans will be reviewed and followed. This issue will be investigated in the EIR.

There are a number of business establishments located on small parcels within the Project study area that may need to be acquired. This issue will be investigated in the EIR.

The Project site is not located within a Natural Communities Conservation Plan, Habitat Conservation Plan or Significant Ecological Area. No impacts would occur and no further study of this issue is required.


22

MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

b. 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?

(a-b) Less than Significant Impact. Pier B has been an active oil and gas production field from the 1930s, and oil reserves beneath the site are still being extracted from off-site locations through directional drilling techniques. The Project would not increase rates of existing oil extraction or affect production for any on-site oil wells; however, it may be necessary to relocate or buy out existing operating wells or abandon/reabandon wells in accordance with the guidelines set forth by the California Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources. This issue will be discussed in the EIR. The Project site is located within the Wilmington oil field. The Project would not result in the loss or availability of recovery sites, but it could require some reconfiguration of extraction locations within the Wilmington oil field. This issue will be discussed in the EIR.

NOISE. Would the project result in:


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

e. For a project 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, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?


23

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

(a-d) Potentially Significant Impact. The Project site is located in an industrialized area within the Port. One sensitive noise receptor (residences, schools, parks, community facilities) is located inside the Port, and several sensitive receptors are located within 0.5 miles to the north and northeast of the site. Construction activities and the movement of trains during operations could potentially generate substantial noise levels. Noise levels could increase on and off the site during operation. Noise levels and their impacts will be further analyzed in the EIR. Rail movement of containerized cargo associated with Project operations could generate groundborne vibration. This issue will be further analyzed in the EIR.

(e-f) No Impact. The Project site is not located within two miles of an existing public or public use airport. Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing near or working in the area to excessive noise levels from aircraft noise. No impact would result, and no further study of this issue is required. The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The nearest airstrip (public or private) is over four miles away. Therefore, the Project would not expose people residing near or working in the area to excessive noise levels from aircraft noise. No impact would result, and no further study of this issue is required.

POPULATION, HOUSING AND BUSINESSES. Would the project:


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

d. Displace substantial numbers of existing businesses, necessitating the construction of replacement facilities elsewhere?

(a) Less than Significant Impact. The Project involves construction and operation of additional trackage and improvements to the Pier B area. Implementation of the Project would increase the amount of train cars moving through the area. Jobs generated during the construction and operation of the Project would be expected to be filled from the existing local population. Accordingly, any impacts are expected to be less than significant; however, this issue will be discussed in the EIR. (b-c) No Impact. There are no residences currently located on or adjacent to the Project site and no persons would be displaced as a result of the proposed project. No replacement housing would be required. No impacts would occur. No further study of this issue is required.


24

(d) Potentially Significant Impact. The Project would involve acquisition of businesses between 9th Street and Anaheim Street. This issue will be discussed further in the EIR.

PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a. Fire protection?

b. Police protection?

c. Schools?

d. Parks?

e. Other public facilities?

(a-b) Potentially Significant Impact. The Project would include fire suppression and emergency response systems, as required by the Long Beach Fire Department. The two closest Long Beach Fire Department stations are Fire Station 20 (1900 Pier D Street) and Fire Station 3 (1222 Daisy Avenue). The fire suppression and emergency response systems would be designed in accordance with fire department recommendations and other applicable design standards. However, the implementation of the Project could cause a small increase in demand for fire protection services. This issue will be analyzed further in the EIR. Police services at the Port are provided by the City of Long Beach Police Department and the Port of Long Beach Harbor Patrol. The Harbor Patrol maintains 24-hour land and water patrols within the Port and currently patrols the Project site. Additional police protection may be required from time to time to manage traffic or respond to calls as a result of increased activity on the site. This issue will be analyzed further in the EIR.

(c) Less than Significant Impact. Construction and operation of the Project would create additional jobs, but they would be expected to be filled from the existing local population. As a result, any impacts to schools are expected to be less than significant; however, this issue will be discussed in the EIR.

(d-e) No Impact. The Project site is not located on or adjacent to any public recreational facilities. No recreational activities occur on the Project site in the North Harbor District or the adjacent Northeast Harbor District. Accordingly, development of the Project would not directly or indirectly affect existing recreational facilities. Although the Project would generate some additional jobs during construction and operation, the increase would not be sufficient to necessitate construction of additional parks or recreational facilities. No impacts would occur. No further study of this issue is required.

The only other public facility located within the Project site is the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Pump Station. The Project may require that the pump station be relocated. This issue will be discussed in the EIR.


25

RECREATION. Would the project: Potentially Significant

Impact




Impact No Impact

a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

c. Would the project affect existing recreational opportunities?

(a–c) No Impact. The Project site is not located on or adjacent to any public recreational facilities, or do recreational activities occur on the site. Accordingly, development of the Project would not directly impact the quality or quantity of existing recreational facilities. Although the Project would generate some additional jobs during construction and operation, the increase would not be sufficient to necessitate construction of additional parks or recreational facilities. No impacts would occur. No further study of this issue is required.

TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a. Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?

b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

e. Result in inadequate emergency access?

f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?


26

g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

(a-b) Potentially Significant Impact. The Project include components which could affect traffic and transportation. The Project involves the relocation of Pier B Street and rerouting traffic as a result of closing the at-grade crossing at 9th Street and Pico Avenue. A traffic analysis will be completed to determine the effects of these potential changes on the level of service of surrounding roadways. This issue will be further analyzed in the EIR. The changes in rail operations under the Project could improve levels of service at some local intersections and roadways in the Project’s area of influence by reducing drayage to near- and off-dock rail yards. The project may degrade levels of service at other locations, including at-grade rail crossings throughout the region. This issue will be further analyzed in the EIR. (c) No Impact. The Project would not result in the change in air traffic patterns or result in any air safety risks. The Project does not propose tall buildings that would require re-routing air traffic. No impacts to air traffic would occur and no further study of this issue is required. (d-e) Less than Significant Impact. The Project has been designed in accordance with Port design requirements and local and state regulations to provide adequate turning radii, lane widths, gate closures, and air space to accommodate emergency vehicles. Pier B Street would be realigned under the Project to improve intersections and improve traffic flow characteristics to accommodate projected traffic volumes and improve operating safety. However, emergency vehicle response times may be affected due to changes in train traffic volumes. This issue will be discussed in the EIR. During construction, Pier B Street and other streets would be closed for the realignment of Pier B Street. The Port would work with emergency service providers to develop a Transportation Management Plan to reduce potential impacts to emergency service vehicle access during construction. Once construction is complete, no impact to emergency service vehicle access is anticipated. This issue will be analyzed further in the EIR. (f-g) No Impact. The Project includes parking for employees and visitors to the Project facilities. Parking capacity would meet Port and City requirements. No impacts to parking would occur. No further study of this issue is required.

The Project would include a railyard and realignment of Pier B Street. No conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation would occur. No impact would occur. No further study of this issue is required.


27

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

(a-g) Less than Significant Impact. Wastewater generated by the Project build alternatives would be conveyed to the City of Long Beach Water Department to be treated. The volumes involved would be minimal in comparison to system capacity. Effects on the treatment facility are expected to be less than significant; however, this issue will be discussed in the EIR. The Project site is currently developed. The increase in pavement and structures as a result of the proposed project would not be expected to increase the amount of storm water runoff. The effects on storm water runoff would be expected to be less than significant. The Los Angeles Flood Control District operates a pump station, located within the study area that may require relocation.

Construction of the Project could include small changes in to the storm water drainage system. However, the effects of these changes on the environment are expected to be less than significant, given the minor changes involved; however, this issue will be discussed in the EIR.

The Project would not be expected to increase water demand and would have little or no effect on water supplies and would not require new entitlements or resources. Less than significant impacts to water supplies are expected; however, this issue will be discussed in the EIR.

Operation of the Project may increase the amount of wastewater generated at the site over current rates. The increase is not expected to be significantly higher over current water usage. Therefore, the current provider (City of Long Beach Water Department) would have adequate capacity to treat the wastewater


28

volumes from the proposed project. Less than significant impacts are expected to the treatment facility; however, this issue will be discussed in the EIR.

The closest location for disposal of waste material for the Project is the Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (SERRF). This facility incinerates wastes and recycles metals. Since the facility incinerates the waste, capacity is not an issue. However, if Project wastes cannot be sent to SERRF and must be landfilled, the nearest operating landfill is Scholl Canyon, located approximately 32 miles from the proposed project site. In 2006, the landfill had an estimated remaining capacity of 10.8 million cubic yards (15.6 percent of its total capacity). The Scholl Canyon landfill is capable of accommodating waste that needs to be landfilled from the Project; accordingly, it would have a less than significant impact on surrounding landfill available capacities; however, this issue will be discussed in the EIR.

The Project would be in compliance with all federal, state, and local codes and regulations pertaining to the disposal of solid waste. These codes include Part 13 Title 42 – Public Health and Welfare of the California Health and Safety Code, and Chapter 39 Solid Waste Disposal – of the United States Code. The Project would also be compliant with AB 939, the California Solid Waste Management Act, which requires each city in the state to divert at least 50 percent of their solid waste from landfill disposal through source reduction, recycling, and composting. Most construction/demolition debris is crushed and reused for other construction projects at the Port. Because the Project would implement and be consistent with the procedures and policies detailed in these codes, there would be no impacts associated with consistency related to laws pertaining to solid waste disposal. Impacts would be considered to be less than significant; however, this issue will be discussed in the EIR.

MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.


Impact




Impact

No Impact

a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

c. Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

(a) Less than Significant Impact. The Project site is located in a highly industrialized area not providing suitable habitat for fish or wildlife species. As such, adverse effects on plant or animal communities would be highly unlikely. The Project site is not known to contain historic or archaeological resources and therefore the elimination of important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory is


29

equally unlikely. Investigations related to cultural resources will be conducted for purposes of the EIR, however. (b-c) Potentially Significant Impact. The Project has the potential to result in significant cumulative impacts. There are potentially over thirty identified future projects planned in the vicinity of the Project site. Project construction and operation would likely occur at the same time as some of these other projects in the area, and the incremental effect of the Project could be cumulatively considerable. In addition, certain impact categories, including air quality and noise, in particular, could have impacts of a cumulative nature in areas beyond the immediate Project vicinity. This issue will be further analyzed in the EIR. Construction and operation of the Project has the potential to result in substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Both air quality and noise are potential sources of such effects. Further analysis will be provided in the EIR to determine potentially significant impacts and identify mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to the extent feasible.


30

8.0 DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not

be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant

unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all

potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

_______________________________________________________ __________________ Signature: Date Title


31

9.0 REFERENCES Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA). 1993. Alameda Corridor Environmental Impact Report. Prepared by Mayra L. Frank & Associates, Inc. et al. January. Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach (POLA/POLB). 2009. San Pedro Bay Container Forecast Update. Prepared by The Tioga Group and IHS Global Insight, Inc. July.

polb on-dock rail support facility nop - port of long beach

Documents