CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND PROJECT IMPACTS

Transcription

1 CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND PROJECT IMPACTS 3.0 INTRODUCTION This chapter describes the area of influence, setting (environmental and regulatory), methodology, potential impacts, and mitigation measures used to evaluate effects on environmental resources from the proposed Project and alternatives. The proposed Project and alternatives are assessed against the baseline and compared by resource area in Sections 3.1 through The proposed Project is compared to the alternatives (Reduced Throughput Alternative and No Project Alternative) in Chapter 4, Alternatives Comparison Environmental Analysis Procedures The content and format of this EIR are designed to meet the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines. A discussion of each resource is provided in Sections 3.1 through 3.10 and is organized as follows. Environmental Setting subsections describe the existing conditions for each environmental resource. These subsections provide the context for assessing potential environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Project and its alternatives. For this project, the baseline uses 2006 activity levels which is a representative year of operations at the MCC facility. Impacts and Mitigation Measures subsections describe the potential environmental impacts that would result from development of the Project and alternatives. The Methodology used for each resource area impact evaluation is discussed and Significance Criteria are described that define the level of impact qualifying as significant for each potential impact. The criteria used to establish thresholds of significance are based on CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G Environmental Checklist. The threshold of significance for a given environmental effect is the level at which the Port, as the lead agency, finds the effects of the proposed Project and its alternatives to be significant. Threshold of significance is defined as: An identifiable, quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less significant (CEQA Guidelines Section [a]). The impact evaluation discussion describes potential consequences to each resource that would result from development of the proposed Project and alternatives. For each impact identified in this document, a statement of the level of significance of the impact is provided. The level of significance is determined by applying the threshold of significance applicable for each resource area. The following categories for impact significance are used in this analysis: A designation of no impact is given when no adverse changes in the environment are expected; A less than significant impact would be identified when there would be no substantial adverse change in the environment; A significant (but mitigable) impact would have a substantial adverse impact on the environment, but could be avoided or feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level; and A significant unavoidable impact would cause a substantial adverse effect on the environment that cannot be feasibly mitigated (reduced to a less than significant level) or avoided. Mitigation Measures that would minimize, avoid, or reduce potentially significant impacts are identified for each significant impact. Impacts are then reassessed assuming the available mitigation measures are implemented to determine if the residual impact remains significant. Mitigation could include: Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; MCC CEMENT FACILITY DRAFT EIR

2 Minimizing the impact by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and/or Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. Mitigation measures become conditions of project approval that apply to future development of the Project site and would be monitored to ensure implementation and compliance. Significance of Impacts after Mitigation refers to the level of impact after the implementation of mitigation measures. In the case where mitigation measure(s) would avoid or reduce a significant impact to a level that is less than significant, the residual impact is determined to be less than significant. In the case where a mitigation measure(s) would reduce a significant impact somewhat, but would not reduce it to a level that is less than significant, then the residual impact would remain significant and unavoidable, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section (b). The Cumulative Impacts discussion in each environmental issue section describes potential impacts from Project buildout in combination with existing or reasonably foreseeable projects that would be constructed in the Project region, as described in Chapter 2, Related Projects and Relationship to Statutes, Plans and Other Requirements Baseline used in the Environmental Analysis Baseline conditions are identified for the purpose of determining the significance of impacts for each resource area. The change from baseline conditions due to project development represents the level of impact associated with the Project. Generally, the CEQA baseline is the date when the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is released (August 2011 in this instance). However, as described in Section 1.2, Project History, the MCC facility was not in operation at that time. This was due to economic conditions and the fact that an order for abatement issued by the SCAQMD, which had allowed ships to unload without connecting to shoreside electric power, had expired. This combination of circumstances temporarily suspended operations, although the facility is fully permitted to operate using shoreto-ship power during unloading operations. In order to present a realistic operational baseline for analysis, the year 2006 was chosen as the most representative baseline year to use for all resources except air quality. The air quality analysis in this EIR uses a CEQA baseline that equates to activities generated by the project facility in calendar year To develop emissions for the CEQA baseline, the analysis applied emission factors to these activities that would equate to operating conditions in year 2015, as defined by currently adopted rules and regulations. The rationale for this approach, which is detailed in Section (Air Quality), was to enable an equal comparison to impacts from the Project alternatives, whose emissions also are defined by year 2015 emission factors. Use of this approach therefore eliminates emission reductions that would be realized by a project alternative solely due to its definition with newer and lower emission factors compared to older and higher ones for the CEQA baseline. To evaluate cancer risks, the analysis developed baseline emissions based on the effects of vehicle fleet turnovers and adopted regulations for a future 70-year period, as discussed in Section Cement demand tends to fluctuate widely and is correlated with overall economic conditions. The demand for cement is tied to construction of public infrastructure projects such as roads and highways, private residential construction, and private non-residential construction (BST Associates 2010). Due to the severe recession experienced in the region and throughout the country, the demand for cement temporarily declined. The economic slowdown that began in 2007 and subsequent decline in the housing market severely impacted the demand for cement in the Los Angeles region. As a result, the MCC facility stopped receiving cement by ship in December 2008 and temporarily suspended delivering product to customers in October While the MCC facility is not currently in operation, the facility s entitlements and permits MCC CEMENT FACILITY DRAFT EIR

3 are still in effect and the facility is able to reopen and resume operations at any time. The Project site has been operated as a cement import facility since the late 1980s and MCC has been the lessee and has occupied the facility since MCC currently has a long term lease, valid until June 2022, with the Port for the existing facility. Additionally, over the years MCC has made a significant capital investment in the existing facility and its equipment in order to increase cement handling capacity and improve operational efficiency. The proposed Project would further enable MCC to operate more efficiently and resume receiving and shipping cement to meet local market demands as economic conditions improve. The existing MCC facility has SCAQMD permits that limit the amount of cement that can be unloaded from ships and loaded onto trucks for distribution. The current SCAQMD permits have a ship unloading limit of 9.66 million short tons per year (8.76 million metric tons per year) and a truck loading limit of 3.8 million short tons per year (3.45 million metric tons per year). In 2006, the facility throughput was approximately 1.51 million short tons (1.40 million metric tons) of cement from 35 ship visits, resulting in 53,067 truck trips. Although MCC s existing SCAQMD permits allow for a higher facility throughput than what actually occurred in 2006, the SCAQMD ship unloading and truck loading permit limits are not used as the baseline. Instead, the baseline for this EIR analysis is the actual operating conditions in 2006, a representative year of operations prior to the economic recession. Because those conditions were less intense than what is permitted under the SCAQMD permits, using the 2006 conditions results in a more conservative analysis. Utilization of 2011 NOP levels is inappropriate because it would ignore the fact the Project site is developed with an existing cement facility that is currently leased to MCC and fully permitted to operate. The NOP described that the analysis would utilize 2006 as the baseline year. No comments were received relating to that aspect of the analysis. Based on these factors, 2006 is considered the baseline year for this EIR, and the CEQA impact analysis is based on a comparison of the changes caused by the proposed Project and alternatives as compared to MCC terminal operations in Requirements to Evaluate Alternatives CEQA Guidelines Section requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project, compare merits of the alternatives, and determine an environmentally superior alternative. Section , Reduced Throughput Alternative, and Section , No Project Alternative, describe the alternatives to the proposed Project, and Sections 3.1 through 3.10 evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed Project and these alternatives. Chapter 4, Alternatives, compares the impacts of the alternatives and identifies the environmentally superior alternative Environmental Resources Not Affected by the Proposed Project The scope of this EIR was established based on the NOP/IS and comments received on the NOP/IS. In accordance with CEQA, the NOP/IS and scoping process for the Project determined that impacts on several resource areas would not occur or would be less than significant. Public comments on the NOP/IS raised no concerns regarding the resource areas described below. They are, therefore, not evaluated in depth in The following sections briefly address the issues associated with those resources not analyzed further Aesthetics/Visual Resources The Project is located within an existing industrial area of the Port and far from public views. In addition, the Project site is hidden by intervening structures from the nearest publically accessible locations (e.g., Queen Mary, hotels, and parkways adjacent to Queensway Bay). Public views of the Project site from these locations are obscured by a large petroleum coke storage shed and other tall structures associated with Piers J and G. No facilities proposed for the Project would be readily visible to the public. Therefore, the public would not experience the visual effects of the Project. Consequently, aesthetics/visual resources will not be evaluated further in MCC CEMENT FACILITY DRAFT EIR

4 Agricultural and Forest Resources No agricultural resources or natural forests occur in the Port or near the Project site. Therefore, no adverse impacts on agricultural and forest resources would result from the Project. Consequently, agricultural or forest resources will not be evaluated further in Cultural Resources The Project area is located on artificial fill material. Soils located in the vicinity of Pier F are generally underlain by fill material to a depth of approximately 30 feet below ground surface (Parsons-HNTB 2005). The Project area does not represent landforms that existed during the time of Native American occupation of the area. Artificial fill material in the Project area does not have the potential to contain intact, potentially significant, prehistoric or historic archaeological or cultural resources. Thus, the Project would not reasonably be expected to impact significant archaeological resources. Construction of the Project would not result in the loss of, or loss of access to, a paleontological resource because the artificial fill within the upland portion of the Project area has no potential to contain intact vertebrate fossils. Therefore, construction of the Project would not result in the loss of, or loss of access to, a paleontological resource. Accordingly, there would be no impacts on cultural resources from the Project and this resource will not be evaluated further in Land Use The Project would not result in a change in land use designation at the Project site. The existing cement terminal would be modified to add up to four new storage silos and a second larger capacity unloader, but the proposed land use would be consistent with the Project site s current land use designation. No changes to land use, or adverse effects to adjacent land uses, would occur. Therefore, land use will not be evaluated further in Mineral Resources The Project site is located within the Wilmington Oil Field and several oil wells, including an oil drill site (A-1-A), are located in a fenced area, which is not owned or operated by MCC, immediately north of the Project site. These oil wells and the drill site are not associated with and would not be impacted by the Project. No other known well sites exist on or adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, no impacts on mineral resources would occur and this resource will not be evaluated further in Population and Housing The Project would involve the addition of two employees (a longshoreman and technician) to operate the additional truck loading lanes and DoCCS. The small number of additional workers would not appreciably affect population or increase demand for housing. Therefore, population and housing will not be evaluated further in Public Services The Project operations and activities would remain essentially the same as baseline conditions. While the NOP/IS indicated that impacts associated with increased vehicle movements could affect emergency access, the transportation analysis (Section 3.6, Ground Transportation) concluded that Project traffic would not significantly impact traffic levels in the Project vicinity. Consequently, emergency access would not be adversely affected, and public services will not be evaluated further in Fire Protection Anticipated changes in MCC facility operations and configuration would not substantially alter the potential for fire at the facility or change the ability of the Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD) to respond to emergencies within the Port. As such, impacts to fire protection would be less than significant, and will not be evaluated further in Police Protection Anticipated changes in facility operations and configuration would not substantially increase demand for or affect the ability of the Long Beach Police Department (LBPD) to respond to emergencies within the Port. As such, impacts to police protection would be less than significant, and will not be evaluated further in MCC CEMENT FACILITY DRAFT EIR

5 Schools The anticipated increase of two employees at the facility would not appreciably increase the demand for school facilities. Therefore, no impacts on the demand for schools would occur, and this issue will not be evaluated further in Parks The anticipated increase of two employees at the facility would not appreciably increase the demand for parks or recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts on parks would occur, and this issue will not be evaluated further in Other Public Services Neither changes in MCC facility operations, nor the anticipated increase of two employees at the facility, would appreciably increase the demand for any other public services. Therefore, no impacts on other public services would occur, and this issue will not be evaluated further in Recreation The MCC facility is located within the Southeast Harbor Planning District (District 8) of the Port and is adjacent to Basin Six. The entrance to Basin Six and Southeast Basin is between Pier J and Pier F and immediately adjacent to and east of the Long Beach Channel entrance to the Port. Recreational boating is discouraged within the channel and basins in the Port to prevent conflicts between recreational boaters and OGV and associated commercial vessels. Therefore, the potential for conflicts between recreational boaters and facility-related vessels is considered minimal. In addition, there are no public recreational facilities in proximity to the Project site, nor are areas frequented by the public in proximity to activity at the MCC facility. Therefore, there is no opportunity for the facility to have an adverse effect on their recreational experience. The Project would involve the modification and operation of an existing industrial facility that neither adds nor eliminates recreational facilities or opportunities. The additional workforce is not expected to be large enough to generate substantial additional demand for recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts on recreational boating or other recreational opportunities would occur, and this resource will not be evaluated further in MCC CEMENT FACILITY DRAFT EIR

6 This page intentionally left blank. MCC CEMENT FACILITY DRAFT EIR