Terminal 5 Improvements

Transcription

1 The proposed changes at Terminal 5 are intended to ensure future, long-term marine cargo capability, with emphasis on serving larger vessels and increases in yearly cargo volumes. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluates the likely adverse environmental impacts of constructing and operating two development alternatives and the No-Action alternative. Both development alternatives include these four work elements: Strengthening the existing pier to support additional, larger, and heavier cranes Stabilizing the under-pier slopes to allow berth deepening Deepening vessel berth areas for increased draft and beam of current and anticipated future cargo vessels Providing additional electricity to the site for new cranes Proposed improvements at Terminal 5 include serving ships up to 18,000 TEUs in size. Power Crane Rail Dock Apron Crane Rail Install New Crane Rails and Beams Strengthen Docks and Piles Piles Pile Cap Beams Current Depth: - 50' Install New Toe Wall Stabilize slope with ground improvements Proposed Depth: Up to -56'

2 Project Goal: Serve Larger Ships Proposed improvements at Terminal 5 include serving ships up to 18,000 TEUs in size. Power upgrades and deeper berths, along with dock upgrades, would allow Terminal 5 to handle larger, more fuel-efficient ships ,000+ TEUs 10,000 TEUs 8,000 TEUs 5,000 TEU Vessels Began calling ,000 TEU Vessels Began calling 2009 Length Beam Draft 935' 131' 43' 984' 141' 48' Containers high on deck Containers below deck Containers across ,000 TEUs 10,000 TEU Vessels Began calling ' 150' 49' What s a TEU? 51' 48' 49' 41' 15,000 to 18,000 TEU vessels expected to call regularly in five to ten years 15,000 TEU Vessels 1230' 184' 51' TEU stands for twenty-foot 8 equivalent unit. A 6,000 TEU ship would have 6,000 twenty foot containers. 18,000 TEU Vessels 1312' 194' 51'

3 Terminal 5 Project Estimated Timeline Terminal Operations TERMINAL 5 PROJECT ESTIMATED TIME LINE PLANNING DESIGN & PERMITTING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT COMPLETION DEIS COMMENTS

4 Terminal 5 Project Area R O RB HA RIA TO VIC S UE EN AV OR RB HA FAI RM OU NT Elliott Bay S U T LO Public Shoreline Access Area 37TH GRAYSON Cargo Marshaling Yard W PRESCOTT Public Shoreline Access Area Intermodal Rail Yard ADMIRAL OLGA Cargo Marshaling Yard LANDER 1500 Harbor Avenue Buffer Area Terminal 5 CEM Building Marine Cargo Pier ERO Y FAU NTL 36TH 37TH Intermodal Rail Yard HANFORD CITY VIEW Cargo Transit Shed Container Freight Station 30TH 33RD 34TH Entrance Gate and Queuing Area W HINDS 35TH 30TH 31ST S AY LW RA MI AD HINDS 2000 WE ST 26TH BELVIDERE 38TH Maintenance and Repair Facility West Waterway Ter mi Administration Building SW SPOKANE STREE T WEST SEATTLE BRIDGE MANNING MA RG INA L Brid ge HighLeve l Brid ge EATT LE DE LR IDG E AVALON WES TS FAUNTLEROY 33RD ST WE INAL RG MA 34TH 35TH 36TH pas s L NA 37TH nal Ov er GI AR M CHARLESTOWN ANDOVER Duwamish Waterway Low -Le vel Spokane Street Buffer Area 38 TH ANDOVER ANDOVE R 38TH GENESEE GENESEE 21ST 22ND 23RD 24TH 25TH NEVADA 26TH ADAMS 20TH DAKOTA 30TH DAKOTA 19TH DAKOTA 28TH YANCY 32N D 39TH STEVENS

5 Environmental Review The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires state and local agencies to evaluate the likely environmental consequences of proposed development actions. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) provides an objective analysis of the likely significant environmental impacts, feasible alternatives, and measures that would avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts. Fall 2015 Issue Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Conduct SEPA Scoping SCOPING Scoping occurred between October 22, 2015 and November 23, 2015 as the first step in the EIS process. During scoping, agencies, tribes, and the general public were invited to comment on the likely range of alternatives and areas of impact to be evaluated for the Terminal 5 Improvements Project. A total of 96 comments were received during the scoping process. Spring 2016 Prepare Draft EIS Issue Draft EIS DRAFT EIS The Draft EIS was informed by the public and agency scoping comments. The Draft EIS is available for review for 30 days, beginning on Monday, May 23. The deadline for submitting written comments is 4:00 PM on Tuesday, June 21, WE ARE HERE Draft EIS Public Comment Period FINAL EIS The Port anticipates the Final EIS will be issued in late summer The Final EIS will include responses to all comments received on the Draft EIS. It may include revisions or additional information based on comments received and new information learned during the 30-day comment period. Late Summer 2016 Prepare Final EIS Issue Final EIS Port of Seattle Action

6 Alternative 1 The No-Action Alternative proposes that no improvements would be made to the existing 197-acre site other than minor alterations and routine maintenance and repair work (including stormwater upgrades), none of which would increase container cargo capacity beyond current capacity. Under the No-Action Alternative: The Terminal 5 shoreline and upland area would continue as a marine cargo transportation facility. Larger vessels (with cargo capacities greater than approximately 8,000 TEUs) could not be accommodated. Environmental conditions would not change significantly. Minor modifications, including routine maintenance and repair work, would be conducted as necessary. The site would continue to meet existing regulatory requirements and best management practices (BMPs). Alternative 1 Construction Elements Alternative One: No Action Alternative Alternative 1 Operational Scenario Up to 647,000 TEUs analyzed in 1994 EIS Terminal 5, Operational Elements Existing Building Existing Lighting Top Pick Existing Ship-to-Shore Container Cranes Cargo Marshaling Yard top-pick equipment Intermodal Rail Yard top-pick equipment

7 Alternative 2 Alternative 2 proposes rehabilitation of the existing marine cargo facilities, including cargo wharf rehabilitation, berth deepening, water/stormwater utility retrofits, and electrical utility capacity improvements. Under Alternative 2: The cargo marshalling yard area upland of the rehabilitated cargo wharf would be redesigned and reorganized to provide economies in cargo operations and on-site cargo flow and movement. The facility s annual container cargo shipping capability could accommodate up to approximately 1.3 million TEUs. Alternative 2 Construction Elements Alternative Two: Operational Scenario million TEU Alternative 2 Operational Scenario Terminal 5, Operational Elements Existing Building New Lighting Existing Lighting Rubber Tired Gantry Crane Top Pick New Ship-to-Shore Container Cranes Cargo Marshaling Yard top-pick equipment Cargo Marshaling Yard rubber-tired gantry crane equipment Intermodal Rail Yard top-pick equipment New Electrical Substation

8 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 proposes the same rehabilitation of the existing marine cargo facilities as Alternative 2, including cargo wharf rehabilitation, berth deepening, water/stormwater utility retrofits, and electrical utility capacity improvements. Alternative 3 Construction Elements In addition, Alternative 3 includes: On-site electric utility upgrades and significant changes and improvements to the cargo marshalling yard area upland, intermodal rail yard configuration, and electrical capacity. An annual container cargo shipping capability of up to approximately 1.7 million TEUs. Alternative 3 Operational Scenario Alternative Three: Operational Scenario million TEU IN-GATE Terminal 5, Operational Elements Cargo Marshalling Yard Rail-mounted gantry crane equipment Existing Building New Building New Lighting Rubber Tired Gantry Crane Top Pick Intermodal Rail Yard Rail-mounted gantry crane equipment New Electrical Substation New Ship-to-Shore Container Cranes

9 Air Alternative 1: No-Action Alternative Construction Construction activities would be limited and include only minor alterations and routine maintenance and repair work and are not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to air. No mitigation proposed. A detailed analysis of the potential air quality implications of the Terminal 5 improvements was conducted by the Operational No change from existing terminal cargo use. No mitigation proposed. Alternative 2: Cargo Wharf Rehabilitation, Berth Deepening, and Increased Cargo Handling Port s team of technical analysts. The team Construction No significant air quality impacts are expected. Construction activities would comply Construction could cause short-term increases in local air quality regulations. identified likely adverse environmental concentrations of dust and diesel-related air contaminants Implementation of Best Management impacts and mitigation measures, when necessary, for each proposed alternative. and possibly odors. Green house gas (GHG) emissions are estimated to be less than 10,000 tonnes/year. The Department of Ecology Practices (BMPs) to reduce potential for air quality impacts during construction. considers GHG emissions under 25,000 tonnes/year to be These impacts and possible mitigation not significant. measures may be related to construction, future operations, or both. Operational No significant air quality impacts are expected. Model-predicted concentrations of criteria air pollutants, taking into account the use of shorepower, indicate that emissions do not exceed any National Ambient Air Quality A number of measures intended to reduce operational emissions, including GHG emissions, would be implemented. Examples might include: standards (NAAQSs), which are designed to protect human Use of shore power. A summary of this analysis can be found in Volume I, health. Use of newer, cleaner trucks. Chapter 3, Section 3.2 of the Draft EIS; the full report is available in Volume II, Appendix A. Facility operations would result in emission of GHG s, but no impact thresholds have been established. Given the worldwide nature of climate change issues, and the relatively small contribution from this facility, the project would not result in significant impacts from GHGs. Obtains >90% of facility power from non-fossil fuel sources. Manage truck traffic and spread it throughout the day and evening hours. The Project would reduce world-wide emissions of GHGs due to improved efficiencies in commodity deliveries compared with existing transport systems and due to improving emission controls in future years. Alternative 3: Wharf Rehabilitation, Berth Deepening, Increased Cargo Handling, and Additional Upland Improvement Construction The impacts would be the same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 2. Operational The air impacts are the same or lower than Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 2. Conversion of diesel engine-powered container handling equipment to electrically powered equipment.

10 Noise Alternative 1: No-Action Alternative A team of technical analysts hired by the Port of Seattle analyzed potential noise impacts for each proposed alternative. The team of technical analysts identified likely adverse environmental impacts and mitigation measures, when necessary, for each proposed alternative. These impacts and possible measures may be related to construction, future operations, or both. A summary of this analysis can be found in Volume I, Section 3.6 of the Draft EIS; the full Noise Technical Report is available in Volume II, Appendix B. Construction Construction activities would be limited and include only minor alterations and routine maintenance and repair work consistent with current operations at Terminal 5. Noise impacts would be short term. No mitigation proposed. Operational No change from existing operations. No mitigation proposed. Alternative 2: Cargo Wharf Rehabilitation, Berth Deepening, and Increased Cargo Handling Construction Pile driving would cause short-term noise impacts. Construction during daytime hours and subject to City of Seattle noise limits. Operational Noise model calculations predict potential nighttime noise exceedances from cargo handling equipment and truck operations for future, more intense cargo activity. Pure tone safety alarms on mobile cargo handling equipment, although not regulated, are an annoyance noise. Train horn noise required for public and private crossings and presence of human activity, although not regulated, are an annoyance noise. Establish a Facility Operations Noise Management Plan. Would include measurement, reporting, and compliance steps to meet applicable City of Seattle noise limits. Provide a set of tools to identify reasonable and feasible best practices to comply with noise limits. Annoyance Control Measures: On-vessel power generators are perceived as Use of broadband safety alarms annoyance noise. for all mobile cargo. Add safety measures to the rail corridor from the terminal to rail bridge over West Waterway to support reduced need for sound audible alarms. Provide shorepower for moored vessels to reduce noise from onvessel power generators. Alternative 3: Wharf Rehabilitation, Berth Deepening, Increased Cargo Handling, and Additional Upland Improvement Construction Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 2. Operational Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 2.

11 Transportation Alternative 1: No-Action Alternative Construction Construction activities would be limited and include only No mitigation proposed. minor alterations and routine maintenance and repair work consistent with current operations at Terminal 5. Operational No impacts to traffic would be caused by the No mitigation proposed. Detailed transportation impact analyses No-Action Alternative. were performed to evaluate the Terminal 5 Improvements Project impacts to all modes of land transportation by a team of technical analysts hired by the Port of Seattle. The team identified likely adverse environmental Alternative 2: Cargo Wharf Rehabilitation, Berth Deepening, and Increased Cargo Handling Construction Potential detours required during construction. Best Management Practices for traffic control and safety during construction and adherence to Seattle Department of Transportation permits and requirements. Coordination with other construction projects. impacts and mitigation measures, when Operational Some additional utilization of storage tracks in the West Seattle Yard (WSY) to support the increased rail volume. North leg of the intersection at SW Spokane Street/ West Marginal Way SW/Chelan Avenue SW closed necessary, for each proposed alternative. Trains could increase from 9 to 18 trains in the peak to all vehicular traffic except emergency vehicles week. and out-of-gauge cargo. These impacts and possible mitigation Increased rail volumes moving to and from Terminal 5 Comprehensive signal improvement project that measures may be related to construction, would result in additional closure times of near-terminal driveways and at-grade crossings. would reprogram signals along SW Spokane Street from Harbor Avenue SW to E Marginal Way S, and future operations, or both. The arrival-departure of full 7,200-foot trains would impact all five of the crossings west of the West include the signal at E Marginal Way S/S Hanford Street. Waterway. Gate design and operations improvement A summary of this analysis can be found in Volume I, Train switching movements would add further delay at measures. Section 3.11 of the Draft EIS; the full report is available these crossings. On-dock intermodal rail improvements to increase in Volume II, Appendix C. Traffic generated is projected to add up to about 20 use of storage tracks in the WSY. seconds of average delay per vehicle. Gate queuing would be impacted. Alternative 3: Wharf Rehabilitation, Berth Deepening, Increased Cargo Handling, and Additional Upland Improvement Construction Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 2. Operational Same as Alternative 2 except for increased capacity of the yard. Trains could increase from 9 to 24 trains in the peak week. Same as Alternative 2. Transfer some train building operations to the WSY and add equipment and technicians so brake tests can be performed on the terminal.

12 Additional Analyses In addition to air, noise and transportation, these environmental elements were analyzed by a team Aesthetics/Light and Glare Historic/ Cultural of technical analysts hired by the Port of Seattle. For each environmental element, the team evaluated the probable significant impacts associated with Earth Land Use the proposed action, operation and cumulative impacts of the alternatives. If appropriate, potential mitigation measures were identified. Environmental Health Plants and Animals (See Volume I, Chapter 3, Section 3.1 to 3.13 in the Draft EIS.) Public Services Utilities Water Relationship to Plans and Policies