Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Transcription

1 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (hereinafter Corps or USACE ) and the City of Long Beach, acting by and through its Board of Harbor Commissioners for the Port of Long Beach (hereinafter Port or POLB ), have prepared this draft environmental impact statement/subsequent environmental impact report (EIS/EIR). The purpose of this EIS/EIR is to identify and evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed modified Pier S Marine Terminal and Back Channel Improvements Project (hereinafter Project or Proposed Project ). The Proposed Project (also referred to in this EIS/EIR as the Three-Berth Alternative) is part of a continued effort to optimize efficiency and expand Port facilities to accommodate increasing volumes of cargo. Accordingly, as described in Section 1.6, the Project would involve construction of a new marine terminal with rail access at Pier S and navigational improvements to the Back Channel. Project elements would include property transfer; dredging, wharf construction, and other waterside improvements; widening and deepening of the Back Channel; improvements to the container yard and associated terminal buildings and other structures; truck gates and roadwork; intermodal rail yard and dual rail lead; utility and oil facility relocation; and improvements to the Terminal Island Wye rail infrastructure. The Project would be constructed from 2011 to 2013 and would begin operation in It would likely reach full operational capacity by The Project would incorporate environmental practices and equipment pursuant to the POLB s Green Port Policy and the San Pedro Bay Ports (SPBP) Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP). The other alternatives analyzed in detail in this document are the Two-Berth Alternative (Section ), the Multi-Use Storage Facility Alternative (Section ), and the No Project Alternative (Section ). USACE is the federal lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and is responsible for preparation of the EIS portions of this document. The Port, as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), is responsible for preparation of the Subsequent EIR portions of this document, and is the Project proponent for the Proposed Project. USACE and the Port prepared this joint EIS/EIR as a single document to optimize efficiency and avoid duplication of effort. This EIS/EIR describes the affected environmental resources and evaluates the potential impacts to those resources as a result of constructing and operating the Project or the proposed alternatives to the Project. This document is intended to inform agencies and the public of significant environmental effects associated with the Project and reasonable alternatives, and to propose mitigation measures that avoid or reduce significant environmental effects NEPA This EIS/EIR has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of NEPA (42 U.S. Code [USC] 4341 et seq.) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] ), which require the evaluation of potential environmental impacts resulting from federal actions. The federal action associated with the Project is the decision by USACE whether to issue permits that would authorize the construction of wharves and related dredge and fill activities in navigable waters of the United States (U.S.) under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) and the discharge of fill into waters of the U.S. in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Because USACE determined that these federal actions may result in significant PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-1 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

2 effects on the quality of the human environment, an EIS has been prepared for this Project. Under USACE s NEPA regulations (33 CFR 325 Appendix B), the district engineer establishes the scope of analysis in the NEPA document to address the impacts of the specific activity requiring Corps permits and those portions of the entire Project over which the district engineer has sufficient control and responsibility to warrant federal review. Typical factors considered in determining sufficient control and responsibility are the following: 1. Whether or not the activity comprises merely a link in a corridor-type project. 2. Whether there are aspects of an upland facility in the immediate vicinity of the regulated activity that affect the location and configuration of the regulated activity. 3. The extent to which the entire Project would be within USACE jurisdiction. 4. The extent of federal cumulative control and responsibility. USACE permit decisions focus on direct impacts to the aquatic environment and indirect and cumulative impacts in the uplands determined to be within the scope of federal control and responsibility. The Corps determined that potentially significant direct impacts to the aquatic environment would result from its approval of a permit for discharge or fill. No upland modifications would be approved under the Corps permit because operational impacts in the uplands are outside of Corps jurisdiction CEQA This EIS/EIR also fulfills the requirements of CEQA (Public Resources Code, Section et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR], Section et seq.), and POLB Procedures for Implementation of CEQA (Resolution No. HD- 1973). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a) (CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3), the purpose of an EIR is to serve as an informational document that do the following: inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effect of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. This EIS/EIR constitutes a Subsequent EIR for the Project. As explained below, a prior EIR was prepared and certified for the Pier S Marine Terminal Project. This EIS/EIR evaluates the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the Project in accordance with the provisions set forth in the CEQA Guidelines. It addresses potentially significant environmental issues and recommends adequate and feasible mitigation measures that, where feasible, could reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts. Other state and local agencies that have jurisdiction or regulatory responsibility over components of the Project would also rely on this EIS/EIR for CEQA compliance as part of their decision-making processes (Section 1.8). 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINES NEPA Baseline Despite the similarities between CEQA and NEPA, there are some areas where the two laws and their implementing regulations differ. In the case of USACE s NEPA regulations, the analysis of a proposed project in joint NEPA/CEQA format requires the Corps to distinguish the scientific and analytical basis of its decisions from those of the CEQA lead agency. For example, whereas CEQA requires agencies to use existing conditions as the baseline for analysis, the NEPA Baseline for determining significance of impacts is defined by the No Federal Action condition, which is determined by examining the full range of construction and operational activities the applicant could implement and is likely to implement in the absence of permits from the Corps. Activities that require permits those activities within the Corp s jurisdiction under PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-2 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

3 Section 10 of the RHA and Section 404 of the CWA are not part of the NEPA Baseline. Therefore, the NEPA Baseline includes all of the construction and operational impacts likely to occur without in-water construction activities (e.g., air emissions and traffic likely to occur without issuance of permits for dredge and fill or to modify wharves). The determination is based on direct statements and empirical data from the applicant, as well as the judgment and experience of the Corps. The NEPA Baseline is not bound to a no growth scenario. Potential impacts are determined by comparing conditions with and without the federal components of the Project at given points in the future (in this case, 2013 and 2020, the opening year and the maximum activity year, respectively). The Corps evaluates the impacts of each alternative relative to the NEPA Baseline. The NEPA Baseline for this Project assumes that the site would function as a multi-use storage facility, as described in Section and identified throughout this EIS/EIR as the Multi-Use Storage Facility Alternative. This use is deemed to be the most likely future use of the site, in the absence of federal permits, because it would fulfill a portion of the need for additional cargo handling facilities, meeting the forecasted increases in cargo throughput at the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles (see Section ). The POLB made use of existing land for Port-related uses a priority, as specified in its Port Master Plan (PMP, described more fully in Section 1.3.1). The Strategic Plan (POLB 2006, updated 2009) identified two key strategies to achieve the goal of providing an efficient and modern seaport complex: (1) improve the efficiency of existing lands and facilities to support terminal operations, and (2) promote responsible Port development that accommodates changes in trade volume and vessel size. There is little vacant or underutilized land remaining in the Port, meaning that a site such as Pier S, by accommodating new cargo-handling facilities, would be an important element of those strategies. In addition, there is no identified need for non-cargo-related facilities on a scale that would utilize the Pier S site. For this EIS/EIR, the NEPA Baseline includes only construction of site improvements and subsequent operational activities that could occur without issuance of federal permits. Accordingly, under the NEPA Baseline, no wharf infrastructure would be constructed and no channel or berth deepening would occur. Therefore, this NEPA Baseline would include development of container storage facilities and creation of backland area on the undeveloped site of Pier S, as more particularly described in Section CEQA Baseline For purposes of this EIR, the CEQA Baseline is defined as the conditions that existed in January 2007, when the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project was published. The CEQA Baseline analysis considers impacts from all changes that would occur by 2013 (Project completion and opening) and in 2020 (maximum activity year) compared to conditions in January 2007 for both in-water and upland Project components. The CEQA impact analysis is based on a comparison of the changes caused by the Project and alternatives from January 2007 through the year (Although the Project would likely continue operation beyond 2020, that year is chosen for analysis because it represents the maximum impact that would be expected; impacts in subsequent years would be similar or less in magnitude because throughput, and therefore activity levels, would not increase, and control measures limiting impacts would become more effective.) Because this is a Subsequent EIR, the use of the 2007 baseline is conservative. Typically in Subsequent EIRs when project construction has begun, the comparison is not to the condition that existed as of the NOP date, but to the fully developed and operational condition analyzed in the earlier EIR. By comparing the Project and the various alternatives to the 2007 condition, this EIS/EIR presents a worst case review. The Port chose to take this approach in recognition of the age of the original EIR, as a means of PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-3 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

4 applying new control measures outlined in the San Pedro Bay Ports CAAP and Water Resources Action Plan, and to provide more conservative information to the public and to decision makers. 1.3 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED AND PROJECT OBJECTIVES NEPA requires an EIS to discuss the purpose and need for a proposed federal action. Similarly, CEQA requires an EIR to discuss the objectives of a proposed project. These respective discussions are essential to explaining the underlying reasons why the Port is proposing the Project and why the Project is being recommended. Additionally, the purpose and need and the objectives are key in defining the alternatives and determining which should be included in the document. The purpose, need, and objectives of the Project are based on the goals of the Port of Long Beach Master Plan (Section ) and on the Port s need and ability to accommodate future cargo volumes and cargo vessels (Sections and ) Background Since 1970, containerized shipping through U.S. west coast ports has increased twenty-fold, and between 1980 and 2010, container throughput at the POLB and the Port of Los Angeles (POLA) rose from slightly more than 2 million TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent units, the standard measure of containerized cargo volume) to approximately 14 million TEUs. Major west coast ports, particularly POLB, POLA, and Oakland, have continued to invest billions of dollars to optimize their facilities to accommodate increases in containerized shipping. These ports have deepened their harbors to accommodate large, deep-draft container ships; demolished existing facilities and replaced them with new container terminals; created new land to provide space for additional container terminal backlands; and purchased high-speed and more efficient cranes. The terminal operators have modernized their equipment and practices in order to move containers more efficiently between ships and trucks and trains The Port of Long Beach Master Plan The PMP, as amended, addresses the primary goal of providing adequate water and landside marine terminal facilities to accommodate a portion of increasing containerized cargo throughput volumes and the modern cargo vessels that transport these goods to and from the Port. The purpose of the PMP is to help the Port manage its resources in a manner that promotes sustainable management practices and ensures continued support of Port activities. PMP goals for primary and ancillary Port facilities within the Northwest Harbor, Northeast Harbor, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts, where the Project site is located, are as follows: Consolidate similar and compatible land and water areas; Encourage maximum utilization of facilities; Improve internal roadway and rail circulation; Provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels within the Port; Develop land for primary Port facilities and Port-related uses; and Protect, maintain, and enhance the overall quality of the coastal environment. Implementation of the Proposed Project would further the goals and objectives of the Port s PMP. In particular, the Project would help the Port provide for safe cargo handling and movement of vessels, and would maximize use of its land and water to accommodate the expected throughput of containerized cargo and increasing calls by the largest container ships in the future, as described in Sections and PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-4 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

5 Cargo Growth and Terminal Capacity Forecasts The container throughput projections used throughout this document are based on the results of the 2007 San Pedro Bay Cargo Forecast (Tioga Group 2007), which provide the worse-case analysis based on the economic trends and trade growth prevailing at that time. That study, which was prepared in cooperation with the POLA, projects the volume of cargo that can be expected to move through the San Pedro Bay ports. Over the long-term ( ), the expected compound annual growth rate (CAGR) in container cargo at the San Pedro Bay ports was 6 percent. Given the 2006 throughput of 15.7 million TEU at the ports, the projected overall throughput was more than 48 million TEU in However, the expected capacity of all existing and planned container terminal facilities at the two ports, assuming all reasonably foreseeable expansions and physical and operational improvements were in place (including the Proposed Project), was only 42.6 million TEU, meaning that the ability of the two ports facilities to accommodate the projected cargo volumes would be exhausted by (The terminal capacity analyses were conducted by JWD [2007] and are summarized in Appendix A.) Those analyses demonstrated that, without significant terminal expansion, that is, if no new terminals beyond those already approved were constructed, terminal capacity would be reached by The recession that began at the end of 2007 resulted in a severe decline in cargo throughput in 2008 and 2009: POLB s 2007 throughput was 7.4 million TEU whereas the 2009 throughout was only 5 million TEU. As a result, the Port prepared a Container Forecast Update (Tioga Group 2009). The 2009 Forecast updated the long-term projections using updated economic forecasts that accounted for the impacts of the recession on trade. The resulting forecast projected a long-term ( ) CAGR for container cargo of 5.3 percent. Although that growth rate is similar to the rate from the 2007 Forecast, the fact that the 2009 Forecast started from a lower throughput volume means that its projection for 2025 is substantially lower than the 2007 Forecast. The slower growth projections and the decline of cargo throughput in 2008 and 2009 delayed the timing of the terminal capacity constraints identified by the 2007 Forecast. A recent POLB analysis suggests that the capacity of currently approved POLB terminals will be reached by 2030, rather than Nevertheless, both the 2007 and 2009 Forecasts project the need for substantial additional expanded and modernized container terminals in both ports in the long term. In the short term, additional terminal facilities, by providing shippers with more flexibility, will enhance competitiveness and help keep cargo costs down Vessel Forecasts Historically, the size and number of container ships and overall cargo volumes serving the Port have grown. It is expected that this relationship will continue well into the future. The operational efficiencies gained from large, modern container ships will continue to drive the increasing size of vessels calling at the Port, regardless of trends in cargo volumes. In February 2005, the POLB and POLA completed a Forecast of Container Vessel Specifications and Port Calls Within San Pedro Bay (Mercator Forecast Group 2005). That study forecasted the number and size of vessels expected to call at POLB and POLA if cargo growth proceeds as expected. It concluded that increasing cargo volumes, combined with the continued introduction of larger vessels, would result in a 74 percent increase in the number of ship calls at the San Pedro Bay ports from 2004 through 2020 (compared to a forecasted cargo throughout increase of 200 percent over the same period). The forecast also projected that 20 percent of the weekly container ship services calling at the POLB and POLA in 2020 would consist of vessels with a capacity of 8,000 to 12,000 TEU. In comparison, 8,000-plus TEU vessels accounted for less than 2 percent of vessel calls in 2005; some of those vessels already call at the Pier A Terminal, across the Cerritos Channel PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-5 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

6 from the Pier S site, on a infrequent basis. Accordingly, container terminals at the two ports are expecting to see a ten-fold increase in calls by these very large ships in the next 10 to 15 years. These larger container vessels need channel widths, water depths, and berth lengths that are greater than previous generations of cargo vessels. The Back Channel is a narrow (220 feet at -52 feet below mean lower low water [MLLW]) navigation channel that connects the harbor entrance to the Cerritos Channel and Inner Harbor, affording tankers, container ships, general cargo vessels, tugs, and barges access to Inner Harbor terminals and marine facilities. The increasing size of container vessels and the improved navigational standards that have evolved since the Back Channel s construction mean that the channel no longer meets recommendations of USACE, the U.S. Navy, or PIANC (an international technical association concerned with waterborne transport infrastructure) for safe navigation. Consequently, transit of the largest container ships through the Back Channel is increasingly susceptible to safety-related incidents (smaller vessels such as tankers and general cargo vessels are less affected). The presence of an abandoned cooling water intake structure at the northeast corner of Terminal Island further increases the risk of collisions and groundings. Although no such accidents have occurred, the increase of more large vessels in the area has raised concern among the entities responsible for vessel safety. For these reasons, Port pilots (Jacobsen Pilot Service) requested that the Port provide a channel width, at -52 feet MLLW, of at least 300 feet and preferably 350 feet, and remove the intake structure to ensure the continued safe passage of the largest container vessels. Another consequence of larger vessels is that the cranes that unload and load them must be bigger in order to reach across the vessel. Modern container terminals employ cranes that reach nearly 200 feet from the wharf face. A shipping channel with terminals on both sides, as the Cerritos Channel would be with the Proposed Project, must be wide enough to accommodate modern container vessels being worked by modern cranes on both sides of the channel and still have enough space between the vessels to allow safe navigation of vessels arriving and departing both terminals Rail Operations On-dock rail containers are loaded and unloaded directly on and off the trains on the terminal, which eliminates trucks on the roadway system. Off-dock rail containers are loaded and unloaded on and off the trains at an intermodal yard located farther away from terminals, requiring a truck trip from the terminal to the rail yard. Several large container terminals that generate train traffic from their intermodal rail yards are located on Terminal Island, as are a number of other cargo terminals that receive or generate small amounts of rail traffic. Rail access to Terminal Island is via the Badger Avenue Bridge, which crosses the Cerritos Channel from the north. Just south of the bridge, the tracks lead eastward into Long Beach Pier T, south onto Los Angeles Pier 400 and the Long Beach Total Terminals International container terminal on Pier T, and west into rail facilities serving Los Angeles container terminals on Pier 300 and Berths and a Long Beach liquid bulk terminal at Pier S Berth 100. The focal point of the Terminal Island rail network is the Terminal Island Wye, where the tracks from the different parts of Terminal Island converge before crossing the bridge. The Terminal Island Wye consists of an east/west section of single track (the south leg ) that connects the east and west halves of Terminal Island, a multi-track west leg, and a single-track east leg. The Terminal Island Wye is currently used for a variety of train operations, but its single-tracked legs constrain those operations. The railroads use the south leg of the Terminal Island Wye to build container trains from Total Terminals International terminal s on-dock rail yard; the trains are staged eastward on the Pier T-East lead track that runs from the south and east legs of the Terminal Island Wye parallel to PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-6 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

7 Ocean Boulevard. The Terminal Island Wye is also used to turn engines to face the desired direction because maneuvering the engines around all three legs reverses their orientation. Finally, the Pier T-East lead serves rail cargo users on Pier T East (lumber and scrap). None of these operations can occur simultaneously under the current configuration, as any one operation blocks the other two, causing excessive locomotive idling and train delays. Shippers could potentially divert cargo from on-dock to off-dock rail yards as a way to avoid those delays NEPA Project Purpose and Need USACE s overall purpose with respect to Port projects is to maximize the use of waterfront facilities and waters of the U.S. that are devoted to maritime commerce. USACE, on the basis of information furnished by the POLB, as described above, identified a need to increase container terminal capacity and improve navigational safety to accommodate a portion of the predicted future containerized cargo throughput and the modern cargo vessels that will transport those goods. The Project s purpose, therefore, is to provide waterside improvements at Pier S in support of a new maritime cargo terminal, and in-water improvements to the Back Channel and Cerritos Channel to correct navigational safety issues and accommodate modern cargo vessels. These improvements would increase and optimize the cargo handling efficiency and capacity of the Port, enabling it to accommodate a proportional share of foreseeable increases in containerized cargo CEQA Project Objectives The Port has proposed the Project to meet the identified needs, described above, to increase cargo-handling capacity and navigational safety. The basic objectives of the Project, therefore, are to do the following: Construct and operate marine terminal facilities that maximize the use of existing waterways, available shoreline, and existing land; Construct and operate berthing and infrastructure to accommodate forecasted cargo volumes; Provide efficient access to land-based rail and truck infrastructure systems that maximizes the use of rail; Provide channel improvements that would improve navigational safety in the Back Channel. 1.4 PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND Project History In March 1999, the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners (BHC) certified the Pier S Marine Terminal EIR and Application Summary Report and approved a project to develop a 150- acre marine container terminal on Pier S, along with an additional 20 acres that would be used for oil production activities and other terminal uses. That EIR (SCH # ) is available for review at the Harbor Department, located at 925 Harbor Plaza, Long Beach, CA Project components at that time included relocation of oil facilities and utilities, site remediation, realignment of approximately 1,600 feet of the existing riprap dike structure, placement of approximately 4.5 million cubic yards (cy) of fill, and construction of a 2,800- foot-long pile-supported concrete wharf and related terminal facilities. In July 2000, a navigational study identified a safety issue concerning the ability to move a ship safely in the Cerritos Channel while other ships were berthed at both Pier S and Pier A, across the channel. The study recommended that a minimum of 200 feet of total clearance be established in the channel to allow adequate clearance for the cranes on the wharf. Since the 1999 certification of the original EIR, some components of the previously approved Pier S Terminal Project have been completed. Those consist of relocation of oil facilities and utilities; PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-7 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

8 site remediation, which included investigation and remediation of approximately 25 acres of sump material; and site preparation, which included raising the existing ground surface up to approximately 15 feet MLLW by placing approximately 4,500,000 cy of material on-site, and constructing storm water pump stations, storm drain lines, utilities, and retaining walls. The dike realignment, wharf construction, and terminal facilities components of the original project were never constructed. The previous EIR considered developing a smaller marine cargo terminal at Pier S and did not analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with improving the Back Channel to accommodate additional and larger marine vessels. Channel improvements would provide additional draft and side-channel clearance along the Back Channel from the Main Channel to the Cerritos Channel, and would be necessary to safely accommodate the number and size of ships anticipated to use Pier S. This EIS/EIR provides a full analysis of the potentially significant environmental impacts that could result from development of a marine cargo terminal at Pier S, the navigational improvements to the Back Channel, and other Project components, including improvements to railroad tracks at the Terminal Island Wye Historic Use of Project Site The POLB was created in 1909 and has since been expanded and modernized. One such harbor improvement was construction, by means of fill, of new land within San Pedro Bay. Much of Terminal Island, including Pier S, is constructed of fill material placed during the first half of the 20th century to facilitate the development of oil fields, marine terminals, and utility and industrial plants. The Pier S site is part of a 720-acre parcel sold by Union Pacific Resources Corporation (UPRC) to the Port in The site was formerly used as an active oil and gas production field from the 1930s until From 1951 to 1969, a portion of the site was leased by UPRC to TCL Corporation for the disposal of oil and gas drilling waste in shallow impounds, or sumps. Testing conducted in the 1980s indicated that TCL disposed of materials other than those permitted under the lease agreement. In a continuing effort to remediate contaminated soils and allow for expanding Port uses, the Port and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) entered into a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VCA) in September 1997 to investigate and remediate site contamination at Pier S. Activities specified in the VCA included the preparation of a remedial investigation (RI) report, a healthbased risk assessment, a feasibility study (FS), a remedial action plan (RAP), a remedial design and implementation plan, and a remedial work plan. Several phases of subsurface investigations conducted from 1991 through 1997 characterized subsurface contamination. There were 32 sumps at Pier S, and the total volume of sump materials on-site was estimated to be approximately 230,000 cy. Chemical analyses of soil and shallow groundwater identified organic and inorganic contaminants, including total petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and metals. Remediation of contaminated soils and groundwater on the Pier S site was completed in 2000, and the site has since been lightly used as a storage area for vehicles, dredged material, construction materials, and occasional cargo. The Back Channel separates Terminal Island from the mainland to the east, and has served as the main navigational access to the Long Beach Inner Harbor since the establishment of the POLB. Other uses of the Back Channel have included cooling water supply and discharge for a steam electric-power-generating station and berthing facilities for a variety of marine cargo terminals. Until the early 1960s, a ferry service across the Back Channel connected Terminal Island with downtown Long Beach, but, in 1964, the Gerald Desmond Bridge was completed and the ferry service was discontinued. PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-8 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

9 1.5 PROJECT SETTING AND LOCATION Regional Context The POLB is one of the world s busiest seaports and is a leading gateway for trade between the U.S. and Asia. In 2005, the Port handled more than 6.7 million TEU. It is the second busiest port in the U.S., accounting for 40 percent of the containers moving through all California ports, 29 percent moving through all U.S. west coast ports, and 16 percent moving through all U.S. ports. The POLB comprises 3,200 acres of land, 10 piers, 80 berths, and 71 large gantry cranes. In total, the POLB has some 17 miles of berthing frontage for commercial vessels; all berths lie within 4.5 nautical miles (nm) of the open sea. Containers are the primary cargo moving through the Port, with major container terminals at Piers A, C, E, F, G, J, and T. POLB uses also include petroleum/petrochemical and nonpetroleum liquid bulk cargo at Piers B and T; dry-bulk cargo (such as petroleum coke, salt, and cement) at Piers F and G; neo-bulk cargo (such as autos, steel, and lumber) at Piers B and T; light manufacturing and industry; recreational destinations; and commercial operations, including sport fishing concessions, hotels, retail shops, and a public boat launch. The Project site (Figure 1-1) is located in San Pedro Bay in southern Los Angeles County, adjacent to the POLA. The general area of the two ports is characterized by marine terminals and associated uses, heavy and light industry (including several refineries), commercial uses, transportation facilities (including a major rail yard), and residential areas. Residential areas in the immediate vicinity include the neighborhoods of west Long Beach, approximately 1.5 miles north of the Project site, and downtown Long Beach, approximately 1.2 miles east of the Project site. The Project site is served by Interstate 710 (I-710) and several major east/west highways (e.g., Ocean Boulevard, Anaheim Street, and Pacific Coast Highway [PCH]), and by Union Pacific (UP) and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroads Project Site and Vicinity The Project site (Figure 1-2) is located in the Northwest Harbor, Northeast, and Middle Harbor Planning Districts. The Project site is bounded on the north by the Cerritos Channel and Piers A and B (Stevedoring Services of America [SSA] and Toyota Motor Sales); on the east by Piers C and D (California United Terminals and Cemex); on the south by the Southern California Edison Long Beach Generating Station, Ocean Boulevard, and Pier T (BP Pipelines North America [crude oil], Pacific Coast Recycling [scrap metal], Total Terminals International [containerized cargo], and Weyerhaeuser Company [lumber]); and on the west by State Route 47 (SR-47), the Vopak Terminal, and the Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (SERRF). The Gerald Desmond Bridge, part of West Ocean Boulevard, spans the Back Channel and provides a link between San Pedro and downtown Long Beach. Marine access to Pier S is provided from the Outer Harbor via the Middle Harbor through the Back Channel and into the Inner Harbor Turning Basin. 1.6 ALTERNATIVES AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Background to the Alternatives NEPA (40 CFR [a]) and CEQA Guidelines ( ) require that an EIS and an EIR examine a range of reasonable alternatives to a project that meet most of the basic project objectives, while reducing the severity of potentially significant environmental impacts. This EIS/EIR compares the merits of the alternatives and identifies an environmentally superior alternative. Seven alternatives were considered during preparation of this EIS/EIR, including alternative terminal configurations and locations. However, only three alternatives meet most of the Proposed Project s objectives and were selected to be carried forward for detailed analysis (Section 1.6.3). Alternatives considered but not carried forward are addressed in Section PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-9 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

10 Figure 1-1 Project Location 8.5 x 11 PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-10 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

11 Figure 1-2 Project Vicinity 8.5 x 11 PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-11 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

12 1.6.2 Alternatives Considered but Not Carried Forward for Analysis The screening process used in the EIS/EIR to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives was based on the Project s purpose and need/objectives (Section 1.3). Screening criteria were also used to determine feasibility in accordance with the Port s legal mandates under the state Tidelands Trust and the Long Beach City Charter. The Port is one of only five locations in the state identified in the California Coastal Act (CCA) for the purposes of international maritime commerce. These mandates identify the Port and its facilities as an essential element of the national maritime industry. Port activities should be water dependent and give highest priority to navigation, shipping, and necessary support facilities to accommodate the demands of foreign and domestic waterborne commerce. Based on existing capacity limitations on industrial Port uses, the majority of industrial facilities adjacent to deep water are required to accommodate forecasted increases in containerized cargo. This section discusses the four alternatives considered but eliminated from further discussion, including the rationale for decisions to eliminate alternatives from detailed analysis. Those alternatives are as follows: Sites outside of the POLB, Alternative sites within the POLB, Rail Yard Alternative, and Auto Terminal Alternative Sites Outside of the Port of Long Beach Locations outside of the Long Beach Harbor District are not feasible alternatives to the Proposed Project, primarily because any site outside of the Harbor District is beyond the jurisdiction of the BHC and, thus, not subject to BHC approval. Sites in other ports, such as POLA, Hueneme, and San Diego, were considered, but rejected, as described below. Port of Los Angeles The POLA is located immediately adjacent to the POLB, but is controlled by a separate and distinct governmental agency (the City of Los Angeles). Theoretically, containerized cargo for the region could be handled by the POLA instead of by the POLB. However, relying on a POLA location would not meet the objective of making POLB operations more efficient and effective for dealing with future growth in waterborne trade, nor would it meet the objective of improving navigational safety in the POLB. In addition, as described in Section , both ports have forecasted growth that would exceed capacity within the planning horizon. Accordingly, both ports anticipate needing container terminal development beyond currently planned capacity optimization and maximization to accommodate future cargo forecasts. Furthermore, given the proximity of the two ports, diverting cargo to the POLA would not eliminate the environmental impacts of that cargo on area communities and natural resources. Port Hueneme Port Hueneme, located approximately 35 miles north of Long Beach, cannot handle deep-draft vessels, since the harbor is only 35 feet deep, considerably shallower than the minimum 45 feet required for typical container vessels. Any significant increase in container handling capabilities would require a substantial redevelopment effort at Port Hueneme. However, Port Hueneme s expansion capability is severely restricted by a public-accessible shoreline, residential areas, and military installations. Also, the transportation infrastructure that serves Port Hueneme has limited capacity and no container handling capability. Therefore, Port Hueneme does not have the potential to accommodate either a dedicated container terminal or a significant increase in container throughput at existing terminals. If a way were found to bring containers to Port Hueneme, the traffic and emissions associated with moving the cargo by ship, rail, and truck would be displaced approximately 35 miles northwest from the San PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-12 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

13 Pedro Bay communities, but would still affect the greater Los Angeles area and portions of the South Coast Air Basin, since emissions would be carried into those areas by the prevailing regional air flow (see Section 3.2 for more detail). Port of San Diego The Port of San Diego, located approximately 90 miles south of Long Beach, does not have the capability to accommodate a modern container terminal due to its shallow harbor, lack of modern container-handling facilities, and lack of on-dock rail facilities. It does not have the terminal space, water depth, or eastbound rail capacity to support containerized cargo throughput demand beyond what it is currently accommodating. If capacity for containers could be generated, cargo destined for the Long Beach/Los Angeles area from San Diego would exacerbate local traffic and air quality in the San Diego area and add to congestion of the transportation system between the two regions. Relatively little of that cargo would travel on highway segments close to the San Pedro Bay ports, however, and fewer vessels would call at Long Beach. Accordingly, traffic impacts in the Long Beach area would be alleviated by this option and air emissions would be displaced away from the Long Beach area. New Port Facilities Finally, new port facilities outside of the existing harbor districts cannot be developed because the CCA limits port expansion to existing port areas, preserving the rest of the coastline for other uses. Accordingly, this alternative was rejected on the basis of infeasibility Alternative Sites within the Port of Long Beach One alternative site for a new marine container terminal within the Long Beach Harbor District was considered but rejected as infeasible. Pier A West, which consists of approximately 120 acres of oil field operations, is located north of Cerritos Channel and west of the Terminal Island Freeway. Although the land is owned by the City of Long Beach, it is located within the Port of Los Angeles. Pier A West does not have water access and, therefore, would not constitute a stand-alone container terminal. The only feasible way to use Pier A West for container operations would be to combine it with the existing Pier A Terminal on the other side of a major rail corridor and highway. The Pier A Terminal has existing berths that could provide water access for Pier A West. Additionally, based on an analysis, the Pier A Terminal s berths could supply more backland. However, given the logistical constraints of operating a container yard separated from its berths by a railroad mainline and a road, and the difficulty of constructing the yard and its connections in a hazardous waste remediation site, the Pier A West site was determined to be infeasible Rail Yard Alternative In the Rail Yard Alternative, the Port would construct a near-dock rail yard, where containers would be drayed by truck from terminals throughout the two ports on the Pier S site. A near-dock yard would allow increased use of intermodal rail transport directly from the Port area, thereby meeting the Project objective of providing efficient access to land-based rail and truck infrastructure systems that maximizes the use of rail. It would function in a similar manner to the existing UP Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) that is located several miles north of the ports by providing rail transport for terminals that either have no ondock rail facilities or cannot accommodate some intermodal containers at their on-dock facilities. Its location on Terminal Island would put it very close to some of the largest container terminals in the two ports, thereby eliminating that portion of the drayage route that lies outside the Port area. Accordingly, it could have a beneficial effect on local road congestion and would probably reduce air emissions. From a land use standpoint, constructing a neardock yard within the Pier S site is theoretically possible. However, the Port evaluated the feasibility of a stand-alone near-dock rail yard on PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-13 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

14 the Pier S site and concluded that it would not be a viable project. Throughput capacity modeling showed that the maximum practical capacity of each of the various possible rail yard configurations on Pier S would not be enough to meet the needs of future near-dock cargo volumes, so that additional near-dock facilities elsewhere would still be needed. Efficient near-/off-dock rail yards need to have long loading tracks, minimize the time and locomotive movements needed to break down and make up trains, and have extensive storage and roadway areas to maximize the efficiency of container handling and truck movements. The Pier S site is too short in its longest dimension to accommodate the 4,000-foot-long, doubleended tracks necessary to accommodate modern intermodal trains efficiently. Singleended tracks could accommodate the low number of trains that a single small terminal would generate, but not the volumes necessary to serve the near-dock needs of multiple terminals. In addition, a near-dock facility on Terminal Island would dramatically increase rail congestion on Terminal Island to the point of being unworkable at some point in the future. The San Pedro Bay Ports Rail Study Update (Parsons 2006) showed that train traffic from existing and planned on-dock facilities on Terminal Island will overwhelm the mainline connection across the rail bridge by 2015, even after planned improvements to the mainline; there will be no additional capacity for a new near-dock facility. While the 2015 date is likely no longer the case given the recent reductions in cargo volumes, the 2009 Forecast indicates that the basic concept is still true: at some point in the foreseeable future, the Terminal Island rail network s capacity will be completely used by on-dock and carload train traffic from currently planned terminals Auto Terminal Alternative The Auto Terminal Alternative would construct a new automobile import/export terminal on Pier S that would supplement the existing terminal on Pier B. An auto terminal would have fewer operational impacts related to trains (much of the cargo is transported by trucks), ships (auto carriers are much smaller than container ships, and thus generate fewer emissions), and trucks (although the cargo would be transported largely by truck, the fact that each truck transports several automobiles means that the volume of truck traffic per vessel call is much lower than for container ships). This alternative would also have substantially fewer construction-related impacts, since less dredging would be required; a shorter wharf would be built; and the backlands infrastructure would require less material to construct, given that the heavy loadbearing features of a container terminal would not be required. This alternative was considered in the 1999 EIR (POLB 1999) as Alternative 3. In its resolution certifying the EIR and approving the thenproposed project (Resolution HD-1962), the BHC rejected this alternative on the basis that there was already sufficient auto terminal capacity to meet existing and forecasted throughput, meaning there was no market demand for another auto terminal. That conclusion is still true. The 2007 San Pedro Bay Cargo Forecast projected an average annual growth rate of 3.6 percent for assembled motor vehicles through 2030 (by contrast, the 2009 Forecast projected a growth rate of 5.3 percent for containers). That level of throughout is, and is expected to continue to be, served by the Pier B Terminal and a terminal in the POLA. Through relatively simple operational changes, the Pier B Terminal could realize substantial excess capacity that could meet throughput demands until at least Given that automobile terminal operations have been relocating to smaller ports (auto carrier vessels require substantially less channel depth than container ships) and that those ports have the capability to expand their automobile terminals, it is unlikely that the San Pedro Bay ports will need additional capacity in the foreseeable future. In fact, for almost two decades, automobile operations have been relocating to the Ports of San Diego and Hueneme from San Pedro Bay because those PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-14 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

15 ports can offer large terminal spaces at lower lease rates. As a result, terminals in the Ports of Hueneme and San Diego actually serve the bulk of the Southern California market for imported vehicles. Development of a new auto terminal at the Project site was eliminated as an alternative for the following reasons: There is no market demand for such a terminal and Existing container terminal facilities in San Pedro Bay are forecast to reach capacity well before the auto terminals do Alternatives Evaluated in this EIS/EIR The alternatives evaluated in this EIS/EIR and discussed in this section are the Three-Berth Alternative, Two-Berth Alternative, Multi-Use Storage Alternative, and No Project Alternative (Table 1-1). All except the No Project Alternative would meet at least some of the objectives of the Project, although the Multi-Use Storage Alternative would not meet the objectives of improving navigational safety and accommodating modern container ships Three-Berth Alternative The Three-Berth Alternative (Figure 1-3) would involve construction of a new container terminal at Pier S, with rail access and Back Channel improvements. This alternative would include the following components: transferring property (described below); dredging the Cerritos Channel and Back Channel; constructing wharves, terminal buildings, truck gates, utilities, an intermodal rail yard, and supporting rail tracks; installing container cranes and other cargo-handling equipment; relocating an oil facility; and improving the Terminal Island Wye railroad tracks. At maximum capacity, the terminal would handle approximately 1.8 million TEU of cargo (approximately 1 million containers) per year, transported by 312 vessel calls, 1,179 off-dock train trips, and 1.3 million truck trips. Additional detail is provided below. Construction would start in 2011 and end in Project Elements and Construction Property Acquisition Construction of the Pier S Terminal would require the transfer of two parcels owned by the City of Long Beach Department of Public Works to the Harbor Department. The first parcel is an approximately 33,000-square-foot area that is part of the SERRF. The parcel is bounded by New Dock Street on the north, SR-47 on the east, the rail line on the south, and Pier S Avenue to the west (see Figure 1-2), and is currently devoid of major improvements. The second parcel includes an approximately 5,000- square-foot railroad easement between SR-47 and Pier S Avenue. The acquisition of these properties would be required to make possible the construction and operation of the proposed dual rail lead tracks described below. Property acquisition would not involve private property or require the use of eminent domain. Dredging, Dike Realignment, and Wharf Construction Approximately 3,200 feet of concrete pilesupported wharf would be constructed as part of the Project. As part of construction, the existing shoreline would be excavated to realign the existing dike and widen the Cerritos Channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and future Pier S pierhead lines. Wharf construction would involve the following: Excavating approximately 1,500,000 cy of material from upland areas, dredging 631,000 cy of materials from the Cerritos Channel (total excavation/dredge area of approximately 39 acres) (Figures 1-4, 1-4A and 1-4B), and dredging 250,000 cy of materials from the Back Channel (Figures 1-5, 1-5A and 1-5B) to be disposed of as described below; PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-15 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

16 Table 1-1. Pier S Project Alternatives Operations Summary Three-Berth Alternative Two-Berth Alternative Multi-Use Storage Alternative No Project Alternative Gross Site Acreage 160 acres 150 acres 150 acres 150 acres Wharf Length 3,200 feet 2,800 feet N/A N/A Dredged Material from Cerritos Channel and Back Channel 881,000 cy (631,000 cy for Cerritos Channel and 250,000 for the Back Channel) 881,000 cy (631,000 cy for Cerritos Channel and 250,000 for the Back Channel) Dredge Depth -54 to -62 feet MLLW -54 to -62 feet MLLW N/A N/A Dredge Footprint 51.0 acres 44.3 acres N/A N/A Imported Rock for Construction, including Back Channel 551,000 tons 476,000 tons N/A N/A Wharf Excavation (Upland) 1,500,000 cy 1,310,000 cy N/A N/A New Water Surface Area 10.3 acres 9.4 acres N/A N/A Container Cranes on Wharf 12 8 none none Building Construction 13 buildings 13 buildings 5 buildings none Truck Gates 1 primary, 1 secondary 1 primary, 1 secondary 1 primary none Rail Yard 10 tracks, 1,480 feet each 10 tracks 1,480 feet each N/A N/A Rail Yard Acreage 17 (16.8) acres 17 (16.8) acres N/A N/A Construction Period 2011 to to to 2013 N/A Full Capacity (year) N/A Throughput (2013) 1.05 million TEU 1.05 million TEU 0.56 million TEU N/A Throughput (full capacity year) 1.8 million TEU 1.33 million TEU 1.27 million TEU N/A Daily Truck Trips (2013) 3,692 3,692 2,219 N/A Daily Truck Trips (2020) 7,168 4,861 4,731 N/A Daily On-Dock Train Trips (2020) * none N/A Daily Off-Dock Trail Trips (2020) N/A Annual Vessel Calls N/A N/A * The higher daily on-dock train trips for the Two-Berth Alternative indicates the difference in footprint between the two alternatives. As the Three-Berth Alternative occupies a larger development footprint, it accommodates few daily train trips compared to the Two-Berth Alternative. Source: Port of Long Beach, July 2006, updated March 2011 N/A N/A PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-16 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

17 Figure 1-3 Three-Berth Alternative 11 x 17 PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-17 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

18 This page intentionally left blank. PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-18 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

19 Figure 1-4 Dredge Footprint 8.5 x 11 PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-19 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

20 Figure 1-4A Proposed Dredging Cross Section A Three-Berth Alternative 8.5 x 11 PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-20 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

21 Figure 1-4B Proposed Dredging Cross Section B Three-Berth Alternative 8.5 x 11 PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-21 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

22 This page intentionally left blank. PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-22 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

23 PORT OF LONG BEACH Figure 1-5 Back Channel Dredge Areas 11 x 17 PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-23 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

24 This page intentionally left blank. PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-24 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

25 Figure 1-5A Proposed Dredging Cross Sections A, B, C Back Channel 8.5 x 11 PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-25 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

26 Figure 1-5B Proposed Dredging Cross Section D Back Channel 8.5 x 11 PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-26 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

27 Reconstructing the shoreline with approximately 551,000 tons of imported quarry run and rock; Dredging approximately 631,000 cy of materials from the Cerritos Channel to key in the toe of the rock dike and allow ships to safely berth; minimum and maximum dredge depths extending 80 feet north of the future Pier S pierhead line would be -60 feet MLLW and -62 feet MLLW, respectively, which includes a 2-foot over-dredge allowance; and Driving approximately 2,000 concrete piles (up to 110 feet in length) and constructing a steel-reinforced concrete wharf on top of the piles; the wharf would include 100-footgauge crane rails and electrical and telephone/fiber infrastructure to support container cranes and supply power to ships (i.e., cold-ironing) at berth; and Installing a 3,500-foot-long groundwater barrier to replace the clay core in the dike that will be removed during dredging. The groundwater barrier would be constructed using deep-soil-mixing (DSM) technologies, which use a mixing rig to inject a cementbentonite grout into the subsurface soils and mix the grout with the soils to produce a relatively uniform soil-cement-bentonite wall. The wall would be approximately 3 feet thick and 60 to 65 feet deep. Work would take approximately 270 days and would be both waterside and land-based. The dredging and dike realignment work would involve a barge-mounted, electric-powered dredge; two disposal scows; a flat rock delivery barge and a dozer; two tugboats; several small workboats; and landside equipment for some of the dike work. Wharf construction would require a barge-mounted pile-driver crane; a tugboat and workboat; a truck-mounted crane; small earthmoving equipment; a variety of trucks delivering concrete, steel, asphalt, and other structural elements; generators and concrete saws; and support vehicles. The cranes would be delivered from the water by three or four oceangoing vessels assisted by tugboats. Dredged material and excavated upland material would be deposited at an approved Middle Harbor Landfill (i.e., Piers D, E, and F). A small amount of chemically suitable dredged material could be disposed of at the Western Anchorage Disposal Site and the approved LA-2 ocean disposal site, if required by timing or capacity constraints at the Middle Harbor sites. Disposal at the Western Anchorage and LA-2 sites would only be undertaken with the approval of USACE and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) following chemical, and possibly bioassay, testing of the material. Back Channel Navigational Safety Improvements The Back Channel is a narrow navigation channel that provides a critical connection to the Cerritos Channel for container vessels and tankers serving facilities on the Cerritos Channel. The Back Channel is only 220 feet wide at a nominal depth of -52 feet, based on a datum of MLLW at 0 feet. Since the original construction of the Back Channel, cargo vessels have become significantly larger and the standards for channel design have been developed to provide an improved margin of safety for navigation. USACE, the U.S. Navy and PIANC provide a range in recommendations for channel width and depth based on vessel beam (width) and draft (depth). The current channel size does not meet these recommendations for container vessels using the channel. However, the Jacobsen Pilot Service is responsible for piloting theses vessels along the Back Channel, and because of its pilots knowledge and experience with the channel and the local environmental conditions, the company has determined that, with significant effort, its pilots can safely navigate the largest container vessels in San Pedro along the Back Channel. Because of the difficulty of maneuvering these vessels down the Back Channel, however, there is a risk of vessel collision or grounding along the channel side slopes. The pilots have, therefore, requested that the POLB widen the channel as much as PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-27 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

28 practicable, with a goal of providing a channel width (at a full depth of -52 feet plus 2 feet of over depth, for a total depth of -54 feet) equal to the beam of the largest vessel plus 150 feet to 200 feet. For the largest container vessels with a beam of approximately 150 feet, this targets the channel width at a minimum of 270 feet, but with a preferred width as close to 350 feet. In addition, the pilots have identified the nowabandoned cooling water intake structure for the Long Beach Generating Station (LBGS) as a potentially significant hazard to be removed to provide a safer transition from the channel to the turning basin located at the junction of the Back Channel and the Cerritos Channel. The Back Channel is bordered by facilities such as active cargo terminals, the LBGS, the Gerald Desmond Bridge, and a significant number of oil pipelines that all present a limitation to practically widening the channel. It is cost prohibitive to relocate these facilities. The proposed widening, therefore, focuses on steepening the channel side slopes to provide a wider channel at the desired depth. The Project focuses on stabilizing the embankment slopes to provide both static stability and address seismic performance. As noted above, the abandoned cooling water intake structure at the LBGS is a potential hazard and so is being partially removed prior to the channel widening. The channel widening project will then focus on dredging in the vicinity of the intake structure, with potentially additional removal and dike stabilization to protect the LBGS from inundation. The LBGS currently sits at an elevation below sea level because of historic subsidence of the area, and so the channel embankment functions as a dike to prevent sea water intrusion at the LBGS site. The elements of the Back Channel dredging and widening would involve the following: Dredging the channel to a width of 323 feet and a depth of -52 feet (MLLW) plus up to 2 feet of over-depth dredging. Dredging approximately 250,000 cy of material. Dredging the turning basin at piers C, D, and S to a depth -52 feet (MLLW) and a diameter of 1,200 feet. Constructing embankment stabilization at both sides of the channel and at the turning basin, if necessary, to facilitate steepening of the channel side slopes. The stabilization is anticipated to consist of cement deep-soil mixing (CDSM) of the embankment soils. CDSM consists of in-situ mixing of soil and cement slurry to strengthen and improve the geotechnical properties of the embankment soils. Disposing of the dredged material at the Pier E slip fill site. Placing approximately 80,000 tons of riprap on the dredged slopes for erosion protection. Demolishing portions of the intake structure and potential modifications to the outfall structure at the adjacent power plant. Removing abandoned utilities and relocating utilities above an elevation of -56 feet, which may be affected by the dredging. Dredged material (and any small amounts of upland material excavated in the course of rock placement, utility and outfall removal, and CDSM work) would be disposed of at the same sites that would be used for the Cerritos Channel dredged material. The dredge depths in the Cerritos Channel, Back Channel, and Inner Harbor Turning Basin would be a minimum of -52 feet MLLW and a maximum of -54 feet MLLW. The maximum dredge depth includes a 2-foot allowance over the target depth of -52 feet MLLW to allow for the imprecision inherent in large-volume dredging. Back Channel dredging would be limited to specific side slope locations along the western tip of Pier C; the western edge of Pier D; the eastern edge of Pier S, including areas adjacent to the LBGS; and the eastern edge of Pier T. Dredging and side-slope strengthening PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-28 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

29 would take place under the new bridge that would replace the Gerald Desmond Bridge. The Port has already relocated utilities that cross the Back Channel in the vicinity of the channel improvements by burying them below any depth at which there could be possible conflicts with construction or operation of the improvements. In doing so, previously active water and gas lines were abandoned in place; those would be removed during construction. It is possible that other, previously unknown, lines, both active and abandoned, could be encountered during construction and would need to be properly removed. Construction of the channel improvements would be largely water-based, involving a bargemounted, electric-powered dredge, probably of the clamshell type; two disposal scows and a flat rock delivery barge; a barge-mounted crane for the intake structure demolition, utility relocations, and CDSM work; two tugboats; and several small workboats. Shore-based equipment and vehicles (an electric-powered concrete crusher, a generator, a bulldozer, an excavator, a backhoe, loaders, concrete trucks, and delivery/haul trucks) would be used for rock placement, demolishing the old structure, constructing the new outfall, providing power, removing and crushing concrete, delivering cement, and staging supplies. Container Yard Infrastructure The majority of the backlands of the Pier S site would be developed as the container yard portion of the new container terminal. The container yard would consist of a paved area of thick asphaltic concrete, designed to support the heavy loading of stacked containers. It would accommodate container storage and handling, and support both wheeled and grounded operations. The pavement thickness would vary within the terminal based on the anticipated loading. To construct the yard, the site would be graded, base material (crushed rock, concrete, and recycled paving material) would be placed, and the final pavement would be constructed. Additionally, up to 15,000 linear feet (LF) of steel rails set in reinforced concrete runways would be constructed to support the rail-mounted, electric-powered gantry cranes that would manage container stacks in the container yard. Facilities would be constructed to allow the wheeled or grounded storage of refrigerated containers. Both above-ground and underground utilities and distribution systems would be constructed within the terminal. These systems would be designed to POLB container terminal standards, and would consist of the following: Water (fire suppression and potable) Sanitary sewer Storm drain Electrical (above- and below-ground distribution, as well as substations) Telecommunications and security Natural gas The fire suppression distribution system would include piping and fire hydrants. Approximately 20,600 LF of new water lines in different sizes and materials would be constructed, along with fire hydrants sited in accordance with Long Beach Fire Department (LBFD) requirements. The system would be designed to maximize the efficiency of the system and minimize the number of meters. The potable water distribution system would include piping, valves, meters, and other appurtenances. It is anticipated that the two systems would be interconnected. There are two lines available for connection to service Pier S: one 16-inch-diameter main line near the Tank Farm Access Road and an 18-inchdiameter line connected to a 24-inch-diameter main south of Ocean Boulevard. A new storm drain system would be designed to drain surface runoff through pipelines that lead directly to the ocean via outlets located beneath the new wharf and via discharge pipelines from pump stations, which would include outlets in the Cerritos Channel and grading using both onsite and imported soil. The storm drain system would be designed in accordance with the POLB standards that currently require gravity storm drain systems to be designed for 10-year and PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-29 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

30 50-year storms for pump station systems. The POLB standard trench drain would be constructed to collect the runoff at the topographic low points in the pavement surface. Reinforced concrete pipes would be installed as a lateral system from the trench drains to the outfalls. Storm water treatment units would be constructed at strategic locations in the storm water collection system. These systems would be sized to treat the first 0.75 inch of rainfall and would remove sand, oil, and debris from the storm water before being discharged into the Cerritos Channel. Electrical systems would be designed and constructed to meet power requirements for gantry cranes, refrigerated container outlets, buildings, area lighting, perimeter security systems, and shore-power for ships at berth. The electrical system would include conduit, power poles, light poles (up to 120 feet tall), transformers, substations, and switch gear. Approximately 58,000 LF of electrical utility lines would be installed on and adjacent to the Pier S Terminal. Southern California Edison would provide service to the terminal from one or two on-site 66/12-kilovolt (kv) or 66/25-kV substation(s) to support shore-side facilities for supplying shore-to-ship power during periods when vessels are at berth. The lighting would incorporate modern features to minimize glare, light spillover, and electrical consumption. Existing gas lines serving the Project site are fed by the Long Beach Energy Department. An estimated 2,800 LF of new lines would be installed on the Pier S site to provide gas service to new terminal buildings. The container yard would also include a mobile customs inspections dock, generator, and radiation portal monitor (RPM) operated by the Department of Homeland Security. Roadway/pedestrian signage and striping would be designed and installed in accordance with POLB standards for container terminals. Landscaping would be provided in accordance with requirements of the Port Master Landscaping Plan. The perimeter of the container yard would be secured with chain-link fencing in accordance with POLB standards and Department of Homeland Security requirements. Container yard construction would take approximately 280 days. Equipment would include a dozer; compactor; excavators; backhoes; loaders; asphalt spreaders and a roller; trucks delivering concrete, steel, asphalt, and other supplies; generators; support vehicles; and a variety of miscellaneous equipment. Terminal Buildings The Project would include buildings and other facilities needed to support container terminal operations. The larger buildings (administration, maintenance and repair, marine operations/crane maintenance, yard labor check-in, and rail operations buildings) would be supported by 100-foot-tall piles. Additional buildings not supported by pilings would include roadability, reefer wash, trucker service, and security booths. All buildings would be designed and constructed to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards to promote sustainable construction and operations. Truck gates (main gate and secondary gate), including guard booths, sign bridges, communications pedestals, scales, and infrastructure for optical character recognition (OCR) equipment and RPMs, would be constructed at the southwest (main gate) and southeast (secondary gate) corners of the terminal. The primary gate complex would have up to 22 lanes (12 entries and 10 exits) to accommodate queuing entirely within the terminal s ease area; the secondary gate complex would have up to five lanes. Construction would take approximately 15 months and would involve loaders; dump trucks; backhoes; forklifts; manlifts; an auger; a crane; a grader; an asphalt spreader; a roller; an excavator; trucks delivering concrete, steel, asphalt, and other structural elements; a generator; and a variety of miscellaneous support equipment and vehicles. PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-30 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

31 Intermodal Rail Yard and Terminal Island Wye The proposed Pier S Marine Terminal would include an intermodal rail yard facility designed for operation using top-picks, reach stackers, and rail-mounted, electric-powered gantry cranes (RMGs). The facility would have the capability to exchange information electronically with terminal administration through OCR portal(s). The rail yard would consist of 10 single-ended loading tracks, varying from approximately 1,400 to 1,700 feet of working length, and would be able to accommodate two unit trains, each composed of the equivalent of twenty-four, 309-foot-long, double-stack, articulating, deep-well rail cars (Figure 1-6). The rail yard would be served via a new lead track running parallel to the Pier T East lead track along the terminal s southwest corner (see below). The loading tracks would be connected directly to this lead track, which would also accommodate train movements from elsewhere on Terminal Island. Construction of the rail yard and new lead track would require realignment of approximately 2,800 feet of the existing Pier T East lead track, which would be accomplished as part of the Terminal Island Wye improvements (see below). RPM facilities and a small air compressor building would also be constructed. The Project would add a second track on the southern leg of the Terminal Island Wye and along a portion of the Pier T East lead track, and would realign that portion of the lead track to accommodate the new Pier S rail yard (Figure 1-3). As mentioned above, the north track of the lead would serve as a lead track for the rail yard and allow two train movements to use the Terminal Island Wye at once, which is not possible under current conditions. Construction would involve the demolition of the existing Pier T East lead track, site preparation, and installation of approximately 15,000 feet of trackage (ballast, ties, rail) in the rail yard, plus switches and signals, and approximately 5,600 feet of trackage (ballast, ties, rail) plus switches and signals for the Terminal Island Wye and Pier T East lead track. Construction would take approximately 12 months and would be accomplished by a combination of standard earth-moving equipment (backhoes, loaders, graders, and scrapers) to prepare the roadbed, specialized tracklaying equipment (ballast spreader, rail layer, spike driver), and paving equipment (asphalt spreader, roller, concrete trucks, and concrete saws) to install utilities and pave the rail yard. This heavy equipment would be supported by a variety of equipment such as generators, light-duty trucks, and delivery trucks. Utility and Oil Field Facility Relocation The majority of the consolidation and relocation of existing third-party utilities and oil field infrastructure has been accomplished under the previous Pier S EIR and Harbor Development Permit (HDP) 96098; however, it is possible that a limited amount of this type of work would be required during construction of this Project. It is anticipated that this work would be limited to oil well re-abandonment, as needed in compliance with State Department of Conservation Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources requirements. Limited oil field pipeline relocation to remove conflicts at the edges of the terminal, and the relocation of third-party electrical, water, gas, and/or other types of facilities located near the edges of the terminal, may be required. Operations When completed, the Three-Berth Alternative would consist of one consolidated container terminal that would load and unload marine cargo containers to and from vessels, trucks, and railcars. Terminal Security Containers would be screened and protected by a number of safety and security features, such as the following: Radiation Portal Monitors (RPM) The Project site would incorporate RPM PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-31 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

32 equipment at the exit gate area and along the transport route to the intermodal yard for the initial automated inspection of the contents of containers prior to exiting the marine terminal. Customs and Border Protection X-ray Inspection Area An area is located within the terminal for the inspection of container contents by U.S. Customs and Border Protection using a mobile X-ray vehicle. Project Site Fencing Existing fencing would be modified to provide the level of security for the marine terminal required by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Terminal Operations At full operation (anticipated in approximately year 2020), the proposed container terminal would accommodate approximately 1.8 million TEU (approximately 1 million containers) per year. The terminal would operate under a new lease between the terminal operator and the Port that would include environmental controls imposed pursuant to the Port s Green Port Policy (Section 1.7.1) and the CAAP (Section 1.7.2). This EIS/EIR assumes that the Proposed Project includes participation in all applicable CAAP measures and compliance with applicable U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California RWQCB, California Air Resources Board (ARB), and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations. Terminal operations would include stevedoring (loading/unloading ships), container storage, intermodal rail yard operations, and trucking to off-site locations such as warehouses and other rail yards. Containers off-loaded from ships or received through the gates on trucks and trains would be handled in the terminal using one of three systems: (1) a grounded or stacked system (containers stacked in high-density arrays), (2) a chassis or wheeled system (containers stored on individual wheeled chassis and not stacked), or (3) a combination grounded/chassis system (most likely). Twelve electric-powered, rail-mounted gantry cranes on the wharf would load and unload cargo containers between vessels and the terminal. Approximately 70 yard tractors (hostlers, both diesel and liquefied natural gas (LNG)-powered) would transport the cargo containers to and from the container storage areas within the terminal (the container yard) and to and from rail cars at the intermodal rail yard. The stacked portion of the operation would be handled by 12 rail-mounted gantry cranes (RMGs) in the container yard, which would rearrange containers in the stacks and lift containers onto and off of chassis. The wheeled portion of the operation and the loading and unloading of rail cars would be accomplished by approximately 30 mobile, diesel-powered wheeled cranes known as toppicks and sidepicks. A variety of light-duty vehicles for transporting workers would support the container handling operations. Offloaded (import) containers would either be stored temporarily in the container yard or immediately shipped out of the terminal via truck or rail. Containers for export would arrive at the terminal by truck or rail, and either be transported directly to the wharf for loading or stored in the terminal for later loading onto a ship. Vessel Operations Project operations would result in approximately 312 vessel calls per year (six per week) at full operation in A maximum of three vessels could be berthed at one time, and this analysis assumes this situation as the normal case, even though such a condition would generally not occur (two vessels would be the normal case). For analysis purposes, a subset of the fleet of vessels projected by Mercator Forecast to call at both San Pedro Bay ports was allocated to the Project terminal based on expected throughput and the capacity of the container yard. One-third of that subset of vessels would be between 6,000 and 7,000 TEU capacity, one-third would have less than 4,000 TEU capacity, and the rest would have intermediate sizes. Vessels in the largest size categories (7,000 to 12,000 TEU capacity) in the Mercator (2005) forecast are not PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-32 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

33 Figure 1-6 Terminal Layout and Intermodal Yard 11 x 17 PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-33 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

34 This page intentionally left blank. PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-34 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

35 projected to call at the Pier S Terminal. Although it is possible for larger ships to call at the terminal, it is unlikely because the limited throughput capacity of the container yard could not handle the amount of cargo that would be loaded to and discharged from larger vessels. Accordingly, the limitations of the container yard would limit the number of vessels that could be served by the terminal during a week. Vessels arriving at the Pier S Terminal would transit the approaches to the harbor at 12 knots, in compliance with the Vessel Speed Reduction Program (see Section ). They would slow again in the Precautionary Zone, where they would pick up the Port pilot, go through the Queen s Gate entrance into the harbor, proceed slowly up the Back Channel, use tugboat assistance to turn into the Cerritos Channel, and proceed down the Cerritos Channel to their berths. A departing vessel would perform the opposite maneuver, except that it would back away from the berth down the Cerritos Channel and pause in the turning basin, where one or two tugboats and the ship s thrusters would reverse its facing; it would then proceed down the Back Channel and out to sea. All vessels would be required to use a Port pilot and to have tug assist within the harbor. Vessels would typically stay at the terminal for an average of 40 hours, although the largest ships could stay as long as 3 days. Container vessels at berth usually operate auxiliary dieselpowered generators to provide electrical power for ship services (crew accommodations, pumps and motors, and navigational and communications equipment) and on-board refrigerated containers; these activities are known as hotelling. However, the Project would include lease stipulations that would require 100 percent of the ocean-going vessels (OGV) to use shore-to-ship power cold-ironing for hotelling activities while at the terminal. Lease stipulations would include consideration of alternative technologies that achieve 90 percent of the emission reductions of coldironing if cold-ironing is not feasible. Truck Operations The Proposed Project would result in an average of approximately 3,700 truck trips per day to and from the Project site in the first year of operation, and 7,200 truck trips per day at full operation in Approximately 85 percent of the containers (about 1.54 million TEU) would be moved to and from the terminal via truck. Those containers would be transported to and from warehouses; intermodal rail yards outside the terminal; distribution centers; and container freight stations in the Los Angeles Basin, Southern California, and nearby states. All trucks servicing the proposed terminal would comply with the provisions of the Clean Truck Program (see Section 1.7.3), which requires that they meet EPA 2007 (the most recently promulgated) emissions standards. Trucks would use Ocean Boulevard (from I-710) or the Terminal Island Freeway to access the terminal. Trucks picking up import cargo would arrive at the terminal main gate complex via New Dock Street and at the secondary gate via Pier T Avenue. Both truck gates would be automated and not staffed. Trucks would conduct the gate transaction (security and paperwork checks) and proceed to either the container storage yard or the wharf to pick up their containers, then conduct the reverse gate transaction and transport the container to its destination, which could be a warehouse, a near-dock or off-dock rail yard (e.g., the ICTF or the east Los Angeles intermodal yards), a distribution center, or a more distant destination. A truck servicing the grounded operation would pick up an empty chassis then move to the wharf or a container stack where a crane would load the container onto the chassis. A truck servicing the wheeled portion of the operation would hitch onto a chassis already loaded with a container. Export cargo would follow essentially the same path in reverse, with trucks hauling containers (loaded or empty) arriving at the terminal from rail yards, warehouses, or more distant destinations. The truck gate complexes would have the capability to exchange information electronically PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-35 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

36 between truck drivers and terminal gate clerks through two-way communication speakers, closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras, printers, magnetic card readers, bar code readers, seal readers, OCR and Automatic Equipment Identification devices, and/or weigh scales. Terminal operations would include use of an automated appointment system that would enable truck drivers to schedule their trips to avoid peak-hour traffic and congestion. Rail Operations When the Project terminal is fully optimized at maximum throughput capacity in 2020, the ondock rail yard would handle approximately 15 percent of the terminal s container throughput (261,000 TEU per year) via approximately 1.5 on-dock and 3.2 off-dock train trips per day. A typical intermodal train carries approximately 280 containers, is approximately 8,000 feet long, and is pulled by three or four 72-foot-long diesel/electric locomotives of 3,500 to 5,000 horsepower each. Rail operations would involve a variety of activities and operational procedures. Arriving trains would proceed southward through the Terminal Island Wye onto the Navy Mole, then back into the Pier S Terminal s rail yard in a series of movements that would break the train into sections that would fit onto the loading tracks. This operation would be necessary because a full intermodal train is more than 7,000 feet long, whereas the loading tracks would be less than 1,700 feet long each. Breaking the train and spotting the sections onto loading tracks could take 2 hours or more and would involve a certain amount of locomotive idling. The locomotives would uncouple from the final section and either proceed to a servicing facility or a different assignment, or wait at the rail yard for assignment to an outbound train. On-dock rail containers would be loaded and unloaded directly on and off the trains on the terminal, which would eliminate trucks on the roadway system. Off-dock rail containers would be loaded and unloaded on and off the trains at an intermodal yard located farther away from terminals, requiring a truck trip from the terminal to the rail yard. A constrained Port rail network was assumed. No future off-port improvements to the rail infrastructure are assumed to occur and, therefore, were not included in the analysis contained in Section 3.6 of this document. Once spotted on the loading tracks, the rail cars would be unloaded, then outbound (eastbound goods) containers would be loaded onto the rail cars by four electric-powered RMGs. Locomotives would couple to the first section of cars, pull out of the terminal and back onto the Pier T East lead, and continue to build the train, section by section, on the Pier T East lead track. Once the fully assembled train receives clearance, it would head north across the bridge onto the Alameda Corridor. A portion of the terminal s throughout would be transported by rail from near-dock rail yards (the ICTF and, if built, the proposed Southern California International Gateway (SCIG) facility) and off-dock rail yards (the BNSF and UP intermodal facilities east of downtown Los Angeles). This analysis assumes that those containers would be transported between the Pier S Terminal and the rail yards by trucks that conform to the San Pedro Bay Port s Clean Trucks Program (Section 1.7.3). That cargo would result in the equivalent of approximately 3.2 train trips per day from those facilities at maximum capacity. The potential impacts of all trains departing from the Project site and from the near- and off-dock rail yards were analyzed within the Port and throughout Southern California Two-Berth Alternative Project Elements and Construction The Two-Berth Alternative is significantly similar to the Three-Berth Alternative, but would have a shorter wharf (Figure 1-7) with only two ship berths. As shown in Table 1-1, the Two-Berth Alternative would develop a slightly smaller terminal (approximately 150 acres) than the Three-Berth Alternative, because the shorter PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-36 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

37 Figure 1-7 Two-Berth Alternative 11 x 17 PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-37 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

38 This page intentionally left blank. PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-38 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

39 wharf would not support as large a container yard. In addition, instead of electric-powered RMGs in the container yard, the Two-Berth Alternative would have 12 diesel-powered rubber-tired gantry (RTG) cranes that would operate along concrete runways. Construction of this alternative would be similar to the Three-Berth Alternative (Section ). The dike work would be the same for both to facilitate Cerritos Channel widening. Therefore, dredge/excavation quantities would also be the same for both alternatives. Construction would take approximately 22 months, the same as for the Three-Berth Alternative. Up to 2,800 feet of concrete-pile-supported wharf and 3,500 feet of groundwater barrier would be constructed as part of the Two-Berth Alternative. Eight 100-footgauge electric-powered gantry cranes, with supporting electrical and telephone/fiber infrastructure, would be installed on the wharf. As with the Three-Berth Alternative, construction of the wharf would include excavation of approximately 1,300,000 cy from the existing shoreline to realign the Cerritos Channel Dike, thereby widening the channel to 808 feet between the Pier A and Pier S pierhead lines. Widening of the Cerritos Channel would result in the creation of approximately 9.4 acres of new water surface area. In addition to wharf excavation, approximately 788,000 cy of material would be dredged from 44.3 acres of the Cerritos and Back Channels, and the Back Channel improvements, including reconstruction of the outfall structure, would be constructed. Operations This alternative would consist of one consolidated container terminal that would facilitate loading and unloading of containerized cargo to and from vessels, trucks, and rail cars. This alternative would include the same safety and security features as the Three-Berth Alternative, including RPMs, X-ray inspection areas, and security fencing. Terminal Operations Container terminal operations in 2020 for the Two-Berth Alternative would be identical to those of the Three-Berth Alternative except that there would be fewer vessel calls and truck and off-dock train trips, the grounded portion of the container yard operation would be handled by RTGs instead of RMGs, and the wheeled portion would be handled by approximately 50 hostlers and 30 sidepicks and toppicks. Under the Two-Berth Alternative, the container terminal would handle approximately 1.33 million TEU (approximately 720,000 containers) per year when operating at maximum capacity in The lower throughput would be the result of the combination of less berthing space and a container yard that is 10 acres smaller than the Three-Berth Alternative. The terminal would operate under a lease between the terminal operator and the Port that would include environmental controls imposed pursuant to the Port s Green Port Policy (Section 1.7.1) and the CAAP (Section 1.7.2). Similar to the Three-Berth Alternative, this EIS/EIR assumes that the Two-Berth Alternative would include participation in the POLB/POLA Vessel Speed Reduction Program (CAAP measure OGV1) and compliance with applicable EPA, RWQCB, ARB, and SCAQMD regulations. Vessel Operations The Two-Berth Alternative container terminal would receive a maximum of 260 vessel calls per year (five per week). Vessels would follow the same operating procedures as for the Three- Berth Alternative. Truck Operations The Two-Berth Alternative would result in an average of approximately 3,700 truck trips per day in the opening year, and approximately 4,900 truck trips per day at full operation in All other aspects of truck operations would be the same as for the Three-Berth Alternative. PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-39 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

40 Rail Operations The Two-Berth Alternative would occupy a smaller development footprint; therefore, it would accommodate greater daily on-dock train trips compared to the Three-Berth Alternative. Rail operations would be the same as those of the Three-Berth Alternative except that, in 2020, there would be 1.6 on-dock train trips per day at the terminal s rail yard, and train traffic at offdock rail yards would be 1.8 trains per day, which is a reduction compared to the Three- Berth Alternative due to the reduced TEU (i.e, 1.33 versus 1.8 million TEU). The potential impacts of all trains departing from the Project site and from the near- and off-dock rail yards were analyzed within the Port and throughout Southern California Multi-Use Storage (No Federal Action) Alternative Project Elements and Construction The Multi-Use Storage Alternative (Figure 1-8) would not involve wharf construction, dredging, dike excavation and realignment, or any other construction activities in the Cerritos Channel or Back Channel; therefore, USACE permits would not be required for this alternative. Under this alternative, no rail yard or secondary gate complex would be built. The 150-acre terminal would require the same utilities as the previous alternative, and five administration, maintenance, and gate buildings would be constructed. This alternative would include the same safety and security features as the Proposed Project, including RPMs, X-ray inspection areas, and security fencing. This alternative is equivalent to the No Federal Action Alternative because it includes only those construction and operational activities that would not require issuance of federal permits and it is what is reasonably likely to be constructed and operated in the future if no federal permits are issued. Construction of this alternative would take approximately 15 months and would involve only land-based equipment. Site preparation would involve earthmoving equipment (backhoes, loaders, dump trucks, scrapers, an excavator, and a grader). Paving and utility construction would involve backhoes, loaders, concrete trucks, delivery trucks, asphalt spreaders, an auger, a roller, concrete cutting and laying equipment, and supporting equipment. Building construction would require essentially the same equipment as the two other build alternatives. Operations The Multi-Use Storage Alternative would serve two purposes: (1) provide additional backland for San Pedro Bay container terminals and (2) provide a storage site for empty containers. Although the two functions are similar, the distinction reflects the difference in the direction of the flow and the duration of time that the containers would be expected to remain on a terminal. The additional container yard area would provide additional throughput capacity for terminals in both POLB and POLA that are backland-limited and projected to reach capacity by 2025 (i.e., it would accommodate demand from other terminals). The additional space would reduce the expected dwell time of all inbound local containers for those terminals and free up space in those terminals container yards. The empty container storage function would serve POLB/POLA terminals that are projected to be berth constrained by 2025, replacing more distant off-site empty storage areas and increasing terminal efficiency. The throughput associated with this alternative is estimated to be 1.27 million TEU (approximately 705,000 containers). Operations would consist primarily of storing chassis-mounted containers on-site for varying periods (i.e., a wheeled operation). Container handling operations would not employ gantry cranes; instead, any containers needing to be loaded or unloaded from trucks would be handled by three diesel-powered mobile cranes supported by a small fleet of light-duty trucks. PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-40 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

41 Figure 1-8 Multi-Use Storage Alternative 11 x 17 PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-41 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

42 This page intentionally left blank. PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-42 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

43 The facility would handle an average of approximately 2,300 truck trips per day during the opening year and approximately 4,700 trucks per day at full operation in The regional distribution of Project-generated truck traffic is assumed to be similar to the other two alternatives, since containers would be drayed to and from the same regional destinations (i.e., warehouses, freight handlers, container storage yards, and rail yards); those destinations were selected based on origin/destination surveys conducted by the Port in Roadways within the Harbor District would experience additional truck trips compared to the other alternatives because of the traffic between marine terminals and the Pier S facility. The Ground Transportation Section 3.6 (Table 3.6-9) discloses that this alternative would result in 576 trains per year in 2013 and 1,243 trains per year in 2020 (all off-dock). Off-dock rail containers are loaded and unloaded on and off the trains at an intermodal yard located farther away from terminals, requiring a truck trip from the terminal to the rail yard No Project Alternative Under the No Project Alternative, the wharf construction and channel improvements would not occur, and Pier S would not be developed as a marine terminal or storage facility (Figure 1-9). The site would continue to be operated as a partially paved lot. On-site activities would be limited to the on-going activities related to maintenance of the remediation project and construction staging, and occasional general cargo storage and non-cargo-related activities such as filming and special events. 1.7 ENVIRONMENTAL PLANS AND POLICIES The Port implemented a variety of plans and policies to reduce the environmental effects associated with Port operations Green Port Policy The Green Port Policy, which was approved by the BHC in January 2005, serves as a guide for decision-making and a framework for reducing environmental impacts associated with Port operations. The policy contains specific environmental principles that govern all Port activities and establishes a series of goals for each element of the policy. The Green Port Policy includes specific metrics to measure progress toward meeting the policy s goals, and identifies new environmental programs that are designed to achieve progress toward the goals. Additionally, the policy identifies specific incentives to promote program participation among tenants. The principles of the Green Port Policy consist of the following: (1) protect the community from harmful environmental impacts of Port operations, (2) distinguish the Port as a leader in environmental stewardship and compliance, (3) promote sustainability, (4) employ best available technology to avoid or reduce environmental impacts, and (5) engage and educate the community. The Green Port Policy includes six basic program elements, each with an overall goal: Wildlife Protect, maintain, and restore aquatic ecosystems and marine habitats. Air Reduce harmful air emissions from Port activities. Water Improve the quality of Long Beach Harbor waters. Soils/Sediments Remove, treat, or render suitable for beneficial reuse contaminated soils and sediments in the Harbor District. Community Engagement Interact with and educate the community about Port operations and environmental programs. Sustainability Implement sustainable practices in design, construction, operations, and administrative practices throughout the Port. The Port uses a variety of mechanisms, including lease provisions, tariff language, incentives, and permit conditions arising from PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-43 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

44 the NEPA/CEQA process to implement the Green Port Program s principles and policies. For example, new leases incorporate environmental measures that exceed federal and state law requirements. As a landlord, leases are one of the primary mechanisms for the Port to implement its environmental initiatives. The Port will continue to incorporate environmental provisions into all new and renegotiated leases, including leases for Pier S facilities under all four alternatives Clean Air Action Plan The Port, in conjunction with POLA, and with guidance from SCAQMD, ARB, and EPA, adopted the SPBP CAAP on November 20, 2006, and adopted the first update on November 22, The CAAP is a comprehensive strategy that is designed to develop mitigation measures and incentive programs necessary to reduce air pollution and health risks associated with Port activities. The CAAP focuses on reducing emissions with two main goals: (1) reduce Port-related air emissions in the interest of public health and (2) accommodate growth in trade. The CAAP is based on the following principles: The Ports will work cooperatively to implement these changes. The CAAP will be continually updated and improved. The Ports will be open to new technologies and other advancements to accelerate meeting the CAAP s goals. The Ports will achieve an appropriate fair share of necessary pollutant emission reductions that are cost effective and feasible. The CAAP includes control measures for all Port emission sources, including ocean-going cargo vessels, trains, trucks, terminal equipment, and harbor craft. The CAAP proposes to implement near-term measures largely through new lease agreements, the NEPA/CEQA process, and tariffs. This EIS/EIR analysis assumes that the Proposed Project would comply with the CAAP. Project mitigation measures applied to reduce air emissions and impacts are consistent with, and in some cases exceed, the emissionreduction strategies stipulated in the CAAP. Project mitigation measures would also extend beyond the 5-year CAAP time frame to the end of the lease period in Proposed Environmental Controls The following environmental controls would be included in all three build alternatives (i.e., Three-Berth Alternative, the Two-Berth Alternative, and the Multi-Use Storage Alternative). As part of the Port s commitment to promote the Green Port Policy and implement the CAAP, the following environmental controls include all applicable control measures included in those plans and policies, as well as other control measures proposed by regulatory agencies such as EPA, ARB, SCAQMD, and the Los Angeles RWQCB Emissions Reduction Measures Vessel Speed Reduction Program (CAAP Measure OGV1) Vessels calling at the new terminal would be required to slow to 12 knots within 40 nm of Point Fermin. Shore-to-Ship Power ( Cold Ironing ) (CAAP Measure OGV2) A new 66/12-kV substation and new transmission infrastructure would be constructed by Southern California Edison in cooperation with the Port to support shore-side facilities for supplying shore-to-ship power during periods when vessels are at berth. The Project would include lease stipulations that would require 100 percent of the OGVs serviced by the terminal to use shore-to-ship power while at proposed berths. Lease stipulations would include consideration of alternative technologies that achieve 90 percent of the emission reductions of cold ironing. PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-44 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011

45 Figure 1-9 No Project Alternative 11 x 17 PIER S MARINE TERMINAL & BACK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 1-45 DRAFT EIS/EIR SEPTEMBER 2011