THE PORT OF LONG BEACH NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY

Transcription

1

2 THE PORT OF LONG BEACH NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY 1.0 INTRODUCTION Mitsubishi Cement Corporation (MCC) is proposing modifications to its facility located on Pier F at 1150 Pier F Avenue, within the Port of Long Beach (Port or POLB) (Figures 1 and 2). The existing MCC facility receives bulk cement (including Portland cement and cementitious materials such as blast furnace slag, pozzolans, and fly ash) at Berth F208 via vessels. MCC stores the product in a warehouse and loading silos and loads the product onto customer trucks via three truck-loading racks. A variety of trucking companies transport the product from the truck loading racks to local and regional cement plants. Berth 208 occupies the southern portion of the project site and has a total wharf length of 550 feet. The proposed Project would include installation of an emission control system (Dockside Catalytic Control System [DoCCS]) to capture and reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from ship auxiliary generators at berth, construction of additional storage capacity, upgrades to ship unloading equipment, and lease of the adjacent lot (former Pacific Banana site) for additional cement storage silos. The adjacent property previously included the abandoned Pacific Banana Building, which was recently demolished by the Port under a separate project, due to failure to meet fire and building codes. The existing facility has a South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) permit limit for ship unloading of 8.76 million metric tons per year (9.66 million short tons per year). The facility also has a SCAQMD throughput (truck loading) limitation of 3.8 million short tons per year. The proposed Project would not modify the permitted unloading and loading limits. The City of Long Beach (acting by and through its Board of Harbor Commissioners) is the lead agency for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance and the Environmental Report (EIR) for the proposed Project. No federal permits would be involved. 2.0 BACKGROUND The proposed Project would include construction of additional storage capacity (i.e., four cement silos) to minimize inefficiencies associated with irregular ship deliveries and daily fluctuations in cement demand. The existing limited storage capacity has resulted in periods when cement is unavailable because the warehouse is empty and no vessel is available to restock the warehouse. The additional storage would not change the permitted ship unloading (8.76 million metric tons/year [9.66 million short tons/year]) or truck loading rates (3.8 million short tons/year [3.4 million metric tons/year]) for the facility. MCC has applied for a modification to its existing SCAQMD permit for Bulk Cement Ship Unloading to address vessels that cannot cold-iron (i.e., use shore-side electricity instead of auxiliary engines) while unloading. Until recently, the facility operated under an SCAQMD waiver that permitted limited on-vessel generator use for certain unloading activities when a ship s electrical system would not provide sufficient power when connected to the shore-side source. Specifically, some ship s systems were unable to operate cranes from the shore-side power source to load and unload the equipment ( power squeegee ) necessary to remove the last remnants of cement from the hold. However, the waiver is no longer being extended to facility operations. To comply with the SCAQMD requirements, MCC is proposing to -1-

3 1 Regional Map -2-

4 2 Project Vicinity Map -3-

5 install a DoCCS to reduce NOx emissions from ship generators for ships that cannot cold iron. The DoCCS will capture the exhaust from the ship s auxiliary generator and process it through a selective catalytic NOx reduction system. A SCAQMD permit modification is pending and will be finalized upon completion of the CEQA review process. MCC does not own the vessels that deliver cement to the facility. The vessels are spot-chartered and, therefore, are not controlled by MCC. However, MCC has worked with various charter companies and has been successful at negotiating commitments that allow for cold ironing, but has only been able to achieve approximately 80 percent cold ironing because some vessels are incapable of cold-ironing the entire time at berth. Vessels commence unloading activities while cold-ironing but some must use on-board generators when they need to operate the shipboard cranes. The cranes are used to move the power squeegee (a motorized loader) into the holds to gather cement in piles so that the unloader can vacuum up the remaining material. During , MCC had an Order for Abatement from SCAQMD allowing vessels to be unloaded when they could not cold iron; however, in January 2011 SCAQMD denied a request to extend the Order for Abatement. Also, due to the severe recession experienced in the region and throughout the country, the demand for cement has declined. As a result, the MCC facility stopped receiving cement shipments in December 2008 and temporarily suspended delivering product to customers in October The facility modifications will enable MCC to resume receiving and shipping cement as economic conditions improve. 3.0 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The objectives of the Mitsubishi Cement Facility Modification Project are to: Modify the SCAQMD air permit for Bulk Cement Ship Unloading, which currently requires shore-to-ship power (cold-ironing) for ships at berth, to allow either cold ironing or venting to NOx emission control equipment; Install an emission control system (DoCCs) to reduce NOx emissions from ship auxiliary generator engines when vessels are not cold-ironing; Increase the storage capacity of the facility without increasing facility-wide permitted throughput; and Install a new unloader and upgrade the existing unloader to improve vessel unloading efficiency and reduce vessel time at berth. 4.0 PROJECT LOCATION The Project site is located on Pier F at 1120 and 1150 Pier F Avenue in the Southeast Harbor Planning District of the Port (Figure 3). The Project site is located within the highly industrialized inner Port complex and bordered by Pier F Avenue and Long Beach Container Terminal to the north and northwest, Chemoil Marine Terminal to the east, the Southeast Basin to the south, and Crescent Terminal (SSA) to the west. The site is entirely owned by the Port. -4-

6 3 Existing Site Layout -5-

7 5.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Project includes the expansion of the MCC facility at Berth F208 into the adjacent property, installation of an emission control system (the DoCCS), construction of four (4) additional cement storage silos, and upgrades to ship unloading equipment. MCC is proposing to construct the additional cement storage silos and truck loading equipment in the location formerly used as the warehouse for Pacific Banana operations. Upon completion of new silos, a new ship unloader would be added, the larger existing unloader would be upgraded, and the smaller existing unloader would be decommissioned. The existing and new cement storage silos would be connected to the existing and new ship unloaders via new piping. The current 4.21 acre terminal site would be increased to 5.92 acres. Silo construction would occur in two or more phases depending on the sequence in which silos are constructed. Scenario 1 is a two-phased installation in which two silos would be built in each phase. Scenario 2 is a three-phased installation in which one silo would be built in Phase 1, one silo would be built in Phase 2, and two silos would be built in Phase 3. Table 1 provides a summary of the silo construction scenario timelines. The scenario chosen will be determined by economic conditions at the time construction commences. Scenario Scenario 1 Construct 2 Silos in Phase 1 and 2 Silos in Phase 2 Scenario 2 Construct 1 Silo in Phase 1, 1 Silo in Phase 2, and 2 Silos in Phase 3 Table 1. Silo Construction Schedule by Scenario Phase 0 Remove pavement & Prepare Site Phase 1 Construct First Silo(s) Phase 2 Construct Second Silo(s) Phase 3 Construct last Silos 6 month 12 months 12 months N/A 6 month 12 months 12 months 12 months Phase 0 of silo construction would involve removal of temporary permeable pavement at the former Pacific Banana site and preparation of the site for construction of the dock rail extension and additional cement storage silos, including wharf improvements and DoCCS installation. Subsequent phases of silo construction would require approximately 12 months each and involve a maximum of 66 workers per day. The unloaders would be installed following silo construction. Specific elements of the proposed Project are described below. Demolition Demolition of existing remaining subsurface utilities would be required to accommodate proposed site improvements. These site improvements include driving piles to support the new silo construction, addition of the DoCCS, and extension of the wharf rails for the larger unloaders. Demolition would involve removal of underground utility mains and lines (including storm drains, electrical, and natural gas) within the portions of the proposed Project area that will contain the new facilities. Demolition and construction of new utility mains and lines would be planned so that services remain uninterrupted for adjacent tenants. Non-recyclable materials generated during the demolition activities would be transported to a designated disposal site. Recyclable materials would be processed for reuse by the proposed -6-

8 Project to the extent feasible. The removal of the structures would be conducted to avoid damage to surrounding structures, pavement, utilities, equipment, and properties. Installation of a DoCCS to Control NOx Emissions from Vessels The DoCCS would have an approximately 65-foot high capture device attached to a crane arm sufficiently long to reach the height of the ships exhaust stacks. Installation of the DoCCS would occur during Phase 0 (Table 1) prior to construction of the direct loading storage silos on the former Pacific Banana site and upgrades to unloading equipment. The proposed Project would require minor trenching to install electrical lines to the DoCCS. Installation of the DoCCS would include the following components: A capture system consisting of a hood, ductwork, and variable speed fan to collect vessel emissions and direct them to the NOx control unit. A Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) system to minimize NOx emissions. The SCR system is designed to remove at least 95 percent of the NOx emitted by vessels while at berth. A process controller to maintain the correct SCR inlet temperature and flow rates. Construction of Additional Storage Capacity The proposed Project would include construction of additional storage capacity (i.e., four cement silos) to minimize inefficiencies associated with irregular ship deliveries and daily fluctuations in cement demand. The existing limited storage capacity has resulted in periods when cement is unavailable because the warehouse is empty and no vessel is available to restock the warehouse. The additional storage would not change the permitted ship unloading (8.76 million metric tons/year [9.66 million short tons/year]) or truck loading rates (3.8 million short tons/year) for the facility that are set forth in the SCAQMD Permit to Operate. The proposed Project includes construction of up to four 60-foot diameter, 10,000 metric ton direct loading cement silos. The proposed silos would be approximately 160 feet in height. The proposed silos would be supported on pre-stressed, 24-inch octagonal concrete piles driven up to 85 feet below the existing ground surface using conventional pile-driving (impact hammer) equipment. In addition, two new truck lanes would be constructed to permit loading beneath the silos (Figure 4). The proposed Project also includes the retrofit of the existing cellular bulkhead under the wharf, which would include installation of stone columns to provide structural reinforcement of the existing steel sheetpiles. The stone columns would be installed behind the existing cellular bulkhead (i.e., upland) using a vibro-probe and compressed air equipment. No structural modifications to the existing cellular bulkhead would occur. Foundation improvements (i.e., piles and stone columns) for the entire proposed project would be performed during Phase 0 prior to commencing Phase 1 of either Scenario. The proposed Project includes two construction scenarios for the proposed cement silos. Both construction scenarios include removal of pavement and preparation of the site for construction. -7-

9 4 Proposed Site Layout -8-

10 Scenario 1 involves a two-phased installation where two silos would be built per phase. Scenario 2 involves a three-phased installation where one silo would be built in Phase 1, one silo would be built in Phase 2, and two silos would be built in Phase 3. Concrete would be poured for each silo construction in a continuous pour 24 hours per day. Other construction activities would occur primarily from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday through Thursday. Upgrading Ship Cement Unloading Equipment The MCC facility is currently equipped with two cement unloaders (Kovako and van Aalst). The 800-metric ton per hour Kovako was originally permitted by SCAQMD in July 1997; however, since that time advancements in the design have made newer systems more efficient. The proposed Project would install a new unloader of similar design capacity. It would be used while the existing Kovako is upgraded. Once the original Kovako is upgraded, both 882 short ton/hour (800-metric ton/hour) unloaders would be able to operate simultaneously. The smaller van Aalst would be decommissioned after the upgraded Kovako becomes operational. Extension of the existing dockside rails approximately 220 feet (61 meters) to the east would be required to support the new cement unloader and allow it to reach the aft holds of vessels. The new rails would consist of rail beams on concrete grade beams that would be supported on 24-inch or larger octagonal concrete piles with concrete cross-ties. No new piles would need to be installed outside the existing cellular bulkhead (that is, into the water). Other piles would be installed upland of or within the bulkheads. The piles and cross-ties would re-enforce the existing wharf to support the extension of the dockside rails for the unloader. Extension of the existing wharf would not be required. Piles would be installed using conventional pile-driving (impact hammer) equipment. Pile and stone column installation would occur over a two and a half month period during Phase 0 of the construction period. The applicant proposes to install stone columns and/or deep soil mix (DSM) panels reinforced with vertical I-beams in the backland soils behind the existing bulkhead structure to compact onsite soils and ensure adequate structural support. Backland Support Facilities In addition, some ancillary infrastructure would be constructed to support continued operations at the MCC facility, including miscellaneous structures and other terminal improvements such as utilities, new asphalt paving, perimeter fencing, lighting, and pavement striping. Operations When completed, the proposed Project would consist of one consolidated dry-bulk (cement) facility to offload cement from marine vessels and barges at Berth F208 (Figure 4) and load trucks for the transport of bulk cement to batch plants in the Los Angeles basin. The Project site would be a secured property with no public access. No additional MCC employees above baseline levels would be required to support proposed operations. One additional longshoreman and one contractor would be required to operate the second unloader and DoCCs, respectively. The baseline year is 2006 based on the last full year of continuous operations, the most representative operational year prior to the recent economic slowdown. The DoCCS would be located on the wharf to control vessel NOx emissions at berth. DoCCS operations would require the delivery and storage of urea solution, which is injected into the SCR system upstream of the catalyst to produce ammonia. The DoCCS has a storage capacity of 500 gallons of urea. The DoCCs will provide an alternative option to reduce NOx emissions at berth when cold-ironing is not feasible; vessels would continue to cold-iron when possible. -9-

11 Following completion of silo construction, bulk cement unloaded from the new and upgraded vacuum unloaders would be directed either to the existing warehouse or to the new storage silos. The two vacuum cement unloaders would convey the bulk cement to the existing warehouse and new silos via pneumatic piping. As before, the warehouse would be connected to the three existing truck loading stations, and cement from the warehouse would be pneumatically transferred (i.e., transferred by compressed air/vacuum) to those silos. The two to four new storage silos would receive cement directly from the unloaders, bypassing the warehouse. However, the terminal also will be capable of transferring cement from the warehouse to the new cement storage silos. Trucks would be gravity loaded from the silos with nozzles that capture the displaced air and entrained dust from the truck and return it to the silos. The silos and warehouse would be equipped with emissions control devices (bag houses) to filter the exhaust and remove particulate matter. After the proposed Project is constructed, the MCC facility is expected to operate 24 hours a day, six days a week. At full build-out, the MCC facility would be able to accommodate a throughput of approximately 3.8 million short tons (3.4 million metric tons) of cement (Table 2), the maximum permitted under the SCAQMD permit. Proposed operations would result in a maximum of 87 vessel calls per year (Table 2). All vessel offloading activities associated with the Project would occur at Berth F208. Preliminary estimates indicate the total truck trips to and from the MCC facility would increase from an average of 264 to approximately 643 peak day trips as a result of increased import of cement under proposed Project operations (Table 2). Table 2. Mitsubishi Cement Facility Modification Project Statistical Summary (1) Baseline (2006) Proposed Project Project Site Acreage Total Throughput (short tons) 1,481,824 3,800,000 Annual Vessel Calls Annual Truck Trips 53, ,714 Average Peak Day Truck Trips Note: 1. All estimates are preliminary and subject to refinement. 6.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES CEQA Guidelines ( ) require that an EIR examine alternatives to a project in order to explore a range of reasonable alternatives that meet most of the basic project objectives, while reducing the severity of potentially significant environmental impacts. The Port will evaluate a variety of possible alternatives to be included in the EIR, and is interested in receiving suggestions for additional alternatives in response to this NOP. Alternatives to the proposed Project should represent a reasonable range of approaches to minimize environmental impacts while achieving most of the Project objectives. Potential alternatives to be assessed could include the following: Use of other dry-bulk (cement) terminals at the Port (CEMEX) or Port of Los Angeles (CPC Terminals); Use of other ports (e.g., Port Hueneme or Port of San Diego) to construct a new or expanded cement terminal; Relocate the MCC facility to another port; -10-

12 No Project Alternative (This alternative would consider what would reasonably be expected to occur on the Project site in the absence of a discretionary land use decision by the Port). Once the comments on the NOP are received, the Port will undertake a screening process to determine which alternatives will be evaluated in detail in the EIR, and which will be eliminated from such consideration. In screening the alternatives, the Port will consider the following factors: Would the alternative achieve the Project objectives? Would the alternative avoid or reduce any significant environmental effects? Is the alternative feasible? The EIR will contain a detailed explanation of this screening process and the reasons why some alternatives are included and others eliminated. 7.0 EVALUATION OF POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS The environmental analysis of the proposed Project will address the potentially significant effects identified in the Environmental Assessment Checklist (see section 9.0). The Checklist uses the following terms: Potentially : s would be potentially significant, and feasible mitigation has not been identified. Potentially Unless Mitigation Incorporated: s would be adverse and potentially significant, but can feasibly be mitigated to less than significant. : s would be adverse, but less than significant. No : No adverse impacts, or only beneficial impacts, would occur. 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a Potentially as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/ Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance -11-

13

14 10.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except No answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A No answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone.) A No answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more Potentially entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) Negative Declaration: With Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from Potentially to a. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Earlier Analyses, as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) s Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are Less than with Mitigation Measures Incorporated, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepares or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. -13-

15 11.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or night time views in the area? Discussion: a-d) No. The proposed Project site is located on the southern face of Pier F in the highly industrialized Southeast Harbor Planning District of the Port. There are no scenic vistas within the Project vicinity. However, two sensitive public view sites that are recognized in the Port s Master Plan are located in the Project region: ground level views along the boundary of Queensway Bay; and ground level views along Harbor Scenic Drive from southbound lanes south of Anaheim Street. Project development and activities would not be visible from these sensitive public vantage points due to intervening structures and views of the proposed cement unloading facilities (e.g., storage building, unloaders, ships, lighting, fencing, and signage) from off-site public vantages would generally be obscured by adjacent facilities. The proposed Project would potentially add lighting on new silos and in yard areas that does not currently exist. Ambient nighttime lighting levels may be increased as a result of the need for nighttime illumination for truck loading. However, the port area is already well lit due to 24-hour operations at surrounding sites, and no appreciable difference is expected. Overall, the aesthetic impacts of the Project on the Port landscape are expected to have no impact. This issue will not be addressed in the EIR. -14-

16 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon Measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? -15-

17 Discussion: a-e) No. The California Department of Conservation s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program identifies categories of agricultural resources that are significant and therefore require special consideration. According to the Department of Conservation s Important Farmland Map, the proposed Project site is not in an area designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (California Department of Conservation 1999). No farmland or agricultural resources or operations exist on the proposed Project site or would be converted by Project implementation. This issue will not be addressed in the EIR. -16-

18 III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make following determinations. Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Discussion: a-d) Potentially. Project operations would result in increases in air emissions compared with baseline levels of activity from the Project site. Overall actual throughput of cement would increase. Emissions from ships and heavy duty trucks would likely increase and could interfere with the SCAQMD s 2007 Final Air Quality Management Plan. These impacts will be assessed in the EIR. Project construction would result in fugitive dust and internal combustion engine emissions. Project operations would result in increased emissions of criteria air pollutants from increased truck traffic compared with baseline levels of activity. The impacts resulting from the cumulative impact of these emissions with emissions generated by other projects in the Air Basin will be assessed in the EIR. Construction activities would potentially expose nearby occupants to air pollution conditions in the form of dust and engine exhaust emissions. Compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations, including implementation of recommended control measures, would be required during the construction phases of the proposed Project. Operational activities could expose nearby sensitive receptors to increased levels of air pollution. In addition to evaluating the level of sensitive receptor exposure to the criteria pollutants identified in the Federal Clean Air Act, the California Clean Air Act, and the National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards, an -17-

19 evaluation of the exposure and impacts of toxic diesel combustion emissions will be added as a subject of special concern. These impacts will be discussed in the EIR. e) Less than. Objectionable odors associated with the use of diesel powered heavy equipment and paving and asphalting activities could occur on a short-term basis in areas near the proposed Project construction. Odors produced from the operation of the proposed facilities would be activity-dependent and are likely to be comparable to the odors produced from the existing operations. The impacts associated with these odors are expected to be less than significant. Information on these odors will be discussed in the EIR. -18-

20 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clear Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approval local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion: a) Less than. The Project site is developed and there is no vegetation. The California brown pelican and the California least tern, both of which are on federal and state endangered species lists, are found in the harbor area, as are peregrine falcons which are identified on the state endangered species list. The Project area is not considered an important area for least tern or brown pelican foraging and does not provide any other important habitat values for the least tern and only limited perching/resting sites for the brown pelican. Foraging in -19-

21 the Project area could continue with no adverse effects to either species compared to baseline conditions. The peregrine falcon feeds on other birds and would not be affected by Project activities because no prey would be lost. No known peregrine falcon nesting areas would be affected. Nevertheless, this issue will be addressed in the EIR. b-c) No. The Project site is developed and there are no riparian habitats, federally protected wetlands (as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act), or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service present on-site. No project activities, including construction, would occur in-water. Therefore, no impacts to these resources would occur and these issues will not be addressed in the EIR. d) Potentially. Under normal operations, the proposed Project is not expected to interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. However, greater cargo throughput during Project operations would result in an increase in vessels berthing at the facility, and could increase the potential for spills, accidents, or leaks of hazardous materials that could affect biological organisms and nursery areas of the harbor. This issue will be addressed in the EIR. Marine vessel discharge of ballast water has the potential to transport invasive species to harbor waters. However, the State of California implemented a Ballast Water Management Plan in January 2000 to minimize the risk from invasive species. The plan mandates ballast water exchange in mid-ocean waters (200 nautical miles from land) or retention of all ballast water while berthed at the Port, to minimize potential impacts. While the potential transport of invasive species to harbor waters via marine vessel discharge of ballast water would be minimized through compliance with regulations delineated in the State of California Ballast Water Management Plan, this issue remains potentially significant and will be addressed in the EIR. e-f) No. The proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The Project site is not located in an adopted Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) area or Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) area. The only approved NCCP near the Port is the Palos Verdes Peninsula Sub-Regional Plan, which was designed to protect coastal sage scrub and does not include Port lands. The County of Los Angeles has also established 61 Ecological Areas (SEAs) (County of Los Angeles 1992). There are no established or proposed SEAs within the Port. Therefore, these issues will not be addressed in the EIR. -20-

22 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion: a-d) No. The Project site has been in continuous use as marine terminal facilities since the 1950s and 1960s. No buildings of historical significance occur at the Project site. The Project site was created in the 1950s by fill placement and has been extensively redeveloped over the years. Accordingly, no human remains would be expected within the Project area and any paleontological deposits in site soils would have been imported with the original fill and thus would not be intact. Therefore, these issues will not be addressed in the EIR. -21-

23 Mitsubishi Cement Terminal NOP/IS VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Discussion: a.i-iii) Less than. There are no known active or potentially active faults crossing the Project area that might result in ground rupture and associated damage to structures, limiting their use due to safety considerations or physical condition. However, the Port is located in the southwestern portion of the Los Angeles Basin, which is an area of known seismic activity. The proposed Project site is located near 17 potentially active faults within a 60-mile radius. The Palos Verdes Hills, Newport-Inglewood, Whittier, and San Andreas faults have the greatest potential to affect the Project area. -22-

24 The risk of seismic hazards such as fault rupture cannot be avoided; however, implementation of standard engineering design measures is required by the State of California Uniform Building Code to minimize potential earthquake shaking impacts. The general intent of building and construction design codes is to minimize structural damage resulting from a seismic event. The exposure of people to fault rupture is a potential risk with or without any project undertaken in the harbor. The Project area may be subject to by seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, since it is constructed on a hydraulically placed fill. Within the Port, the existing hydraulically placed fills consist predominately of loose to medium-dense, water saturated sand and silts that are subject to seismically induced ground failure. Standard engineering and design measures would be incorporated into the Project design features. These issues will be discussed in the EIR. a.iv) No. The Project site is located on relatively flat landfill and is surrounded by similar topography. Accordingly, there is no potential for the proposed Project to induce or be affected by landslides. This issue will not be addressed in the EIR. b) Less than. The proposed Project would involve ground disturbance associated with grading, excavations, and general construction. Such ground disturbance could potentially result in erosion-induced siltation of harbor waters. Erosion can be reduced through incorporation of Best Management Practices issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), as required by either the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit or a sitespecific SWPPP for the Project. Potential erosion and erosion control will be discussed in the EIR. c-d) Less than. The Project site is constructed on landfill, which may become unstable. Earthquake-related hazards, such as liquefaction, lateral spreading, and collapse could occur in the harbor area where hydraulic and alluvial fill is common. The City of Long Beach Planning & Building Department, Building Code Requirements regulates construction in the Port. These codes are intended to limit the probability of occurrence and the severity of consequences from geological hazards, such as earthquakes. Necessary permits, plan checks, and inspections are also specified. The Building Code Requirements also incorporate structural seismic requirements of the California Uniform Building Code. The Project engineers would review the Project plans for compliance with the appropriate standards in the building codes. The potential for liquefaction, lateral spreading, and collapse will be discussed in the EIR. Subsidence in the Port of Long Beach area was first observed in the 1920s and increased between the 1930s and 1950s as a result of the removal of oil from the Wilmington Oil Field. Secondary injection of water into the oil-depleted zones in 1958 reduced the rate of subsidence and allowed partial rebound of the subsided areas. As long as the balance between extraction and fluid injection is maintained, future subsidence is not expected to be a major concern. The potential for unstable earth conditions, disruption, displacement and/or compaction of soil will be discussed in the EIR. Expansive soils are defined as those that exhibit shrink-swell behavior, which is the cyclic change in volume that occurs in fine-grained clay sediments caused by wetting and drying. Over an extended period of time, expansive soils can cause structural damage, usually as the result of inadequate soil and foundation engineering or the placement of structures directly on expansive soils. However, standard soils testing and associated geotechnical engineering would reduce adverse effects associated with such soils. The potential for expansive soils will be discussed in the EIR. e) No. The City of Long Beach Water Department provides wastewater service to all areas in its jurisdiction, including the Project site. Project implementation would not require septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. This issue will not be addressed in the EIR. -23-

25 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or Indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Discussion: a-b) Potentially. Project construction and operations would result in increases in emissions of greenhouse gases compared with baseline levels of activity from the Project site. Overall actual throughput of cement would increase. Emissions from ships and heavy duty trucks would likely increase. This impact will be assessed in the EIR. Project emissions of greenhouse gases are likely to represent a very small fraction of overall regional or national greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, an analysis of the consistency of the project with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gases will be assessed in the EIR. -24-

26 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evaluation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? -25-

27 Discussion: a-b) Potentially. Construction activities would be short-term and one-time in nature and would involve limited transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Examples of hazardous materials handing include fueling and servicing construction equipment on-site and the transport of fuels, lubricating fluids, and solvents. These types of materials are not acutely hazardous and all storage, handling, and disposal of these materials are regulated by the California Department of Toxic Substances (DTSC), USEPA, Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), Los Angeles County Fire Department, and Los Angeles County Health Department. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials would minimize the potential for significant safety impacts during construction. The proposed Project is not expected to result in the use, storage, and/or distribution of significant quantities of hazardous materials or toxic substances during operations. However, the proposed Project would result in increased throughput of cement at the terminal beyond current facility baseline operating conditions. This would increase the potential for spills, accidents, and/or leaks of hazardous materials. The spill of bulk cement into harbor waters could create a significant hazard to the environment. These potentially significant impacts will be evaluated in the EIR. c) No. There are no schools located within one-quarter mile of the Project site. This issue will not be evaluated in the EIR. d) Potentially. The Project area could potentially be located on documented or undocumented hazardous materials/waste sites. The Department of Hazardous Substance Control (DTSC) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List) will be reviewed to determine whether the Project site is included. Exposure of contaminated soil and/or groundwater during construction could result in a safety hazard to on-site workers. These safety concerns can be reduced through incorporation of a site-specific health and safety plan and a contingency plan for potentially encountering contamination in the subsurface. The proposed increase in throughput could also increase the risk of spills, accident, or leaks. These issues will be discussed in the EIR. e-f) No. The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan area, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Project activities would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project site vicinity. The closest airport, Long Beach Airport, is located approximately 8 miles northeast of the Project site. These issues will not be evaluated in the EIR. g) Less than. The Project site would receive and distribute bulk cement in compliance with existing emergency response and evacuation plans. The proposed Project would incorporate preventative planning to assure that the possible interference with emergency response and evacuation plans does not occur during construction activities and subsequent operations. Although proposed Project actions are not expected to interfere with emergency response and evacuation plans, project compliance with such plans will be discussed in the EIR. h) No. There are no wildlands adjacent to or in the general Project vicinity. The proposed Project site would remain earthen or paved, the same as under existing conditions, and no increased wildland fire hazard is expected. Therefore this impact will not be discussed in the EIR. -26-

28 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned used for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? -27-

29 Discussion: a) Potentially. During construction and operation of the proposed Project, stormwater runoff and other discharges would be managed in accordance with applicable RWQCB regulations. Runoff of sediment, construction materials, and potential spills of fuels and/or lubricants during construction activities would potentially impact water quality. Potential impacts can be reduced with implementation of a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP), a Spill Prevention Control and Containment Plan (SPCCP) and a Source Control Program. This topic will be discussed in the EIR. b) No. Groundwater within the vicinity of the Project site has significant saltwater intrusion and is therefore unsuitable for use as drinking water. The proposed Project would not directly change the quantity of groundwater or have any impact upon aquifers, as groundwater beneath the Project area would not be utilized as part of the Project. This issue will not be addressed in the EIR. c-d) Less than. Construction of the project improvements would result in minimal alteration of existing drainage patterns on the site and would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Drainage patters would be controlled through on-site conveyance and collection facilities consistent with established drainage plans for the area. This topic will be discussed in the EIR. The small increase in impervious surface area would not be expected to significantly increase surface runoff or alter existing drainage patters. Locations where new structures are proposed are currently paved. Less than significant impacts are expected to occur. In addition, the change in surface area associated with removal of permeable pavement at the former Pacific Banana site would be negligible. However, this issue will be discussed in the EIR. e) No. Construction of the project improvements would result in minimal alteration of existing drainage patterns on the site and no increase in runoff that could exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. This topic will not be addressed in the EIR. f) Potentially. Transport, off-loading, storage, and distribution of cement could increase the chance of spills or leaks that could release hazardous materials into the marine environment and impact overall water quality. Potential impacts on harbor waters will be evaluated in the EIR. g-i) No. No housing is proposed as part of the Project. The Project site is within the 100-year floodplain of the Los Angeles River and Inner Harbor Area, as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). However, proposed structures included in the Project would be constructed to not impede or redirect flood flows. There are no levees or dams in the vicinity that would be subject to failure and expose people or structures associated with the Project to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding. Therefore, these issues will not be evaluated in the EIR. j) Less than. The Project site is flat and distant from any hillsides or canyons. Mudflows would not be caused by the Project. A tsunami is a large sea wave produced by submarine earth movement or volcanic eruption. A seiche is a seismically induced oscillation or wave in a confined body of water, such as a lake, reservoir, or harbor. The Project site is -28-

30 located in an area potentially subject to partial flooding due to a tsunami or a seiche in the Southeast Harbor area. A Tsunami Hazard Assessment for the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles was conducted in 2007 to identify the potential local sources of tsunamis and their potential impact to the Ports (Moffatt & Nichols 2007). This assessment determined that a large locally generated tsunami would likely not occur more than once every 10,000 years and that limited inundation would occur during a worst-case tsunami event. This issue will be discussed in the EIR. -29-

31 X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Discussion: a-c) No. The Project site is located entirely within the Port boundaries and is surrounded by industrial uses. The site, which is zoned for heavy industrial use, does not divide any established communities. The proposed Project would not conflict with applicable land use plans, or conflict with applicable habitat conservation plans. Therefore, these issues will not be addressed in the EIR. -30-

32 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion: a-b) No. The Project site is located south of the Wilmington Oil Field, one of several primary sources of crude oil (petroleum) in the Los Angeles Basin. The Project is immediately adjacent, but unrelated, to an oil production site. The Project would not interfere with development of remaining oil or natural gas reserves underlying the site. Therefore, these topics will not be included in the EIR. -31-

33 XII. NOISE. Would the project result in: Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or application standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibrations or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion: a-b) Potentially. The Project site is located in an industrialized area within the Port. Although sensitive noise receptors (residences, schools, parks, community facilities) are located outside the noise exposure area, construction activities (excavation, cement pouring, piledriving) would potentially expose people to substantial noise levels on a periodic basis. Project operational activities could also result in increased noise levels above existing conditions due to the more continuous operations than under baseline conditions. Potential noise impacts will be evaluated in the EIR. Construction activities could generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels on a periodic basis due to pile driving. This issue will be discussed in the EIR. c) Less than. The Project site is an existing facility located in an industrialized area within the POLB. Sensitive noise receptors (residences, schools, parks, and community facilities) are outside the Port s noise exposure area (at least one mile from any sensitive noise receptor). On-site noise due to the operation of the proposed facility (i.e., truck trip and ship unloading operations) could result in increased noise above ambient conditions. -32-

34 However, the noise increase is not expected to result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of applicable standards or create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. These issues will be evaluated in the EIR. d) Potentially. Construction and operation of the new facilities would potentially generate temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels. This issue will be evaluated in the EIR. e-f) No. The Project is not located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, these issues will not be discussed in the EIR. -33-

35 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion: a-c) No. The proposed Project involves construction and operation of an industrial facility with no housing component. The construction workforce is not expected to be large enough to generate substantial additional population or demand for housing nor displace housing or people. The operational workforce will not change in size from baseline conditions. This issue will not be addressed in the EIR. -34-

36 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performances objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? Discussion: a.i-ii) Less than. Increased vehicular movements would occur and could inhibit emergency access. However, the design of the Project would take into account emergency access to minimize impacts on emergency services in the Project vicinity. This issue will be addressed in the EIR. a.iii-v) No. There are no schools, parks, or other public facilities in the vicinity. The surrounding land uses are all heavily industrial and not available to the public. These issues will not be addressed in the EIR. -35-

37 XV. RECREATION Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion: a-b) No. The proposed Project involves construction and operation of an industrial facility that neither adds nor eliminates recreational facilities or opportunities. The workforce is not expected to be large enough to generate substantial additional demand for recreational facilities and does not include recreational facilities. This issue will not be addressed in the EIR. -36-

38 XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and nonmotorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Discussion: a-b) Potential. The proposed Project involves an increase in throughput for a modified cement unloading terminal and truck loading facility. There is the potential for the additional truck traffic to conflict with established measures of effectiveness for the transportation system in the Port. The additional truck traffic could affect intersection levels of service as well as freeway congestion. There is the potential for the additional truck traffic due to the project to conflict with the applicable congestion management plan for the region. The additional truck traffic could affect intersection levels of service as well as freeway congestion. These issues will be addressed in the EIR. -37-

39 Rail traffic is not proposed as part of the Project and will not be addressed in the EIR. c-d) No. The Project is not expected to have any effect on airports or air traffic patterns. The Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, these issues will not be discussed in the EIR. The proposed Project would not construct or operate facilities that would substantially increase hazards due to a design feature. Accordingly, this topic will not be included in the EIR. e) Less than. Increased vehicular movements would occur and could inhibit emergency access. However, the design of the Project would take into account emergency access to minimize impacts on emergency services in the Project vicinity. This issue will be discussed in the EIR. f) No. The Project is not expected to conflict with alternative transportation policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities. Therefore, these issues will not be discussed in the EIR. -38-

40 XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project s projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion: a-g) Less than. As discussed in IX.a, stormwater runoff and other discharges during construction and operation would be managed in accordance with the RWQCB regulations and the City of Long Beach NPDES permit. Wastewater generated by the Project during construction would be conveyed to the City of Long Beach Water Department to be treated. The volumes involved would be minimal in comparison to system capacity. Effects on the treatment facility are expected to be less than significant; however, this issue will be addressed in the EIR. -39-

41 The Project site is currently developed. The small increase in impervious surface area as a result of the proposed Project would not be expected to significantly increase the amount of stormwater runoff. Construction of the Project could include small changes in to the stormwater drainage system. The effects of these changes on the environment are expected to be less than significant, given the minor changes involved. However, this issue will be addressed in the EIR. The Project would not be expected to increase water demand substantially, would have a minimal effect on water supplies, and would not require new entitlements or resources. Less than significant impacts to water supplies are expected; however, this issue will be addressed in the EIR. Operation of the Project would not be expected to substantially increase the amount of wastewater generated at the site over current water usage. Therefore, the current provider (City of Long Beach Water Department) would have adequate capacity to treat the wastewater volumes from the proposed Project. Less than significant impacts are expected to the treatment facility; however, this issue will be addressed in the EIR. Port occupants typically contract with private waste haulers for solid waste disposal. Nonhazardous solid waste is currently disposed of at the Southeast Resource Recovery Facility (SERRF). The SERRF has a permitted daily capacity of 2,240 tons per day. This facility incinerates waste and as such, capacity is not an issue. Hazardous materials, such as contaminated soils and petroleum byproducts generated at the Project site, would be hauled to a Class I landfill that accepts hazardous waste for disposal. The closest Class I landfill is the Kettleman Hills facility in Kings County, which has capacity limitations, but is the only such facility currently operating in southern California. The proposed Project is subject to and would be in compliance with federal, state, local regulations and codes pertaining to solid waste disposal. The Project would also be compliant with AB 939, the California Solid Waste Management Act, which requires each city in the state to divert at least 50 percent of their solid waste from landfill disposal through source reduction, recycling, and composting. Because the Project would implement and be consistent with the procedures and policies detailed in these regulations and codes, less than significant impacts to solid waste disposal are expected. However, this issue will be addressed in the EIR. -40-

42 XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Dose the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion: a-c) Potentially. Activities involved in the construction and operation of the proposed Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment with regard to several resource areas. These potential impacts will be evaluated in the EIR and where feasible, measures will be identified to mitigate these impacts. The EIR will also evaluate potential cumulative impacts and any potential substantial adverse effects on human beings. -41-

43 This page intentionally left blank. -42-

44