Preparation of a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Transit Improvements in the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2, Eastern Portion of Los Angeles County, California
| Published date | 29 May 2019 |
| Record Number | 2019-11089 |
| Section | Notices |
| Court | Federal Transit Administration |
Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 103 (Wednesday, May 29, 2019)
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 29, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24857-24860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11089]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
Preparation of a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for Proposed Transit Improvements in the Eastside Transit
Corridor Phase 2, Eastern Portion of Los Angeles County, California
AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental
Impact Statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) issue this Notice
of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project
(Project) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The purpose of this notice is to alert interested parties regarding
the intent to prepare the Supplemental Draft EIS, to provide
information on the nature of the proposed Project, potential minimal
operable segments, and possible alternatives, and to invite public
participation in the EIS process. With this notice, FTA and Metro
invite public comments on the scope of the Supplemental Draft EIS and
announce public scoping meetings that will be conducted. Consistent
with Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management and Executive Order
11990: Protection of Wetlands, this NOI also serves as a notice to the
public that one or more of the alternatives under consideration may
affect floodplains and/or wetlands.
DATES: Written comments on the scope of the Supplemental Draft EIS,
including the project's purpose and need, the alternatives to be
considered, the impacts to be evaluated, and the methodologies to be
used in the evaluations should be sent to Metro on or before July 15,
2019. An interagency scoping meeting will be held on June 10, 2019 at
3:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m. at Metro Headquarters One Gateway Plaza, Los
Angeles, CA 90012, Gateway Plaza Conference Room, 3rd floor. See
ADDRESSES below for the address to which written public comments may be
sent. Public scoping meetings to accept comments on the scope of the
Supplemental Draft EIS will be held on the following dates:
Thursday, June 13, 2019 6:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m., Whittier
Community Center, 7630 Washington Avenue, Whittier, CA 90602
Monday, June 17, 2019 6:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m., Commerce Senior
Citizens Center, 2555 Commerce Way, Commerce, CA 90040
Wednesday, June 19, 2019 6:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m., 4th Street New
Primary Center, 469 Amalia Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90022
Saturday, June 22, 2019, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m., South El Monte
Community Center, 1530 Central Avenue, South El Monte, CA 91733
Monday, June 24, 2019, 6:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m., Quiet Cannon
Banquet Center, 901 Via San Clemente, Montebello, CA 90640.
Wednesday, June 26, 2019, 6:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m., Pio Pico
Women's Club, 9214 Mines Avenue, Pico Rivera, CA 90660
The meeting facilities are accessible to persons with disabilities.
Individuals who require special assistance, such as a sign language
interpreter, to participate in the scoping meeting or scoping materials
in alternate formats may contact Ms. Lillian De Loza Gutierrez,
Community Relations Manager, Metro, at (213) 922-7479, or
[email protected] at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.
Scoping materials will be available at the scoping meetings and on the
Project website (https://www.Metro.net/projects/eastside_phase2/).
ADDRESSES: Comments will be accepted at the public scoping meetings or
they may be sent via mail to Ms. Jenny Cristales-Cevallos, Senior
Manager, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, One
Gateway Plaza, Mail Stop 99-22-6, Los Angeles, CA 90012, or via email
at [email protected]. The locations of the scoping meetings
are given above under DATES.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Mary Nguyen, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Federal Transit Administration, 888 South
Figueroa Street, Suite 440, Los Angeles, CA 90017, phone (213) 202-
3960, email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Draft EIS was circulated for public review
on August 22, 2014. Since that time, changes to the alternatives have
occurred and additional studies have been conducted. Therefore, a
[[Page 24858]]
Supplemental Draft EIS will be prepared in accordance the requirements
of NEPA and its implementing regulations and 23 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 771.130. Metro will also be preparing a Recirculated
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) document jointly with the EIS to
comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The proposed Project would extend the Metro Gold Line, a light rail
transit line (LRT), from its current terminus at Atlantic Station in
the unincorporated area of East Los Angeles to eastern Los Angeles
County. The extension would serve the cities and communities of
Commerce, Montebello, Monterey Park, Pico Rivera, Rosemead, Santa Fe
Springs, South El Monte, and Whittier, and unincorporated areas of Los
Angeles County, which include East Los Angeles and West Whittier-Los
Nietos.
The Supplemental Draft EIS will be prepared in accordance with the
requirements of NEPA and its implementing regulations. Metro will also
use the environmental document, in conjunction with the Recirculated
Draft EIR to comply with CEQA.
Scoping
Scoping is the process of determining the scope, focus, and content
of an EIS. FTA and Metro invite all interested individuals and
organizations, public agencies, and Native American Tribes to comment
on the scope of the Supplemental Draft EIS, including the project's
purpose and need, the alternatives to be studied, the impacts to be
evaluated, and the evaluation methods to be used. Comments should focus
on: Alternatives that may be less costly or have less environmental or
community impacts while achieving similar transportation objectives and
the identification of any significant social, economic, or
environmental issues relating to the alternatives.
NEPA ``scoping'' has specific and limited objectives, one of which
is to identify the significant issues associated with alternatives that
will be examined in detail in the document, while simultaneously
limiting consideration and development of issues that are not truly
significant. It is in the NEPA scoping process that potentially
significant environmental impacts--those that give rise to the need to
prepare an environmental impact statement--should be identified;
impacts that are deemed not to be significant need not be developed
extensively in the context of the impact statement, thereby keeping the
statement focused on impacts of consequence. Transit projects may also
generate environmental benefits; these should be highlighted as well--
the impact statement process should draw attention to positive impacts,
not just negative impacts.
Purpose and Need for the Project
The Draft EIS/EIR indicated that the purpose of the Eastside
Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project is to improve transit access and
mobility by connecting communities of eastern Los Angeles County to
Metro's regional transit system. The Draft EIS/EIR indicated that
Project would serve the large number of transit-dependent and low-
income populations in the project area and increase access to major
employment centers, activity centers, and destinations in the project
area and Los Angeles County. The Draft EIS/EIR included that the
Project also aims to reduce travel times on local and regional
transportation networks and offer a convenient and reliable
transportation alternative to address increased travel demand and
projected employment and population growth in eastern Los Angeles
County. This information, in addition to the project Purpose and Need,
will be updated as part of the Supplemental Draft EIS.
Mobility problems and potential improvements for this corridor have
been well documented in many studies that are available from Metro's
Records Management Department, including numerous Metro Red Line
planning studies, Eastside Transit Corridor Studies: Re-Evaluation
Major Investment Study (2000), the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2
Final Alternatives Analysis Report (2009), the Eastside Transit
Corridor Phase 2 Alternatives Analysis Addendum (2009), Eastside
Transit Corridor Phase 2, Draft EIS/EIR (2014), Eastside Transit
Corridor Phase 2, Technical Study (2015), Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) planning studies, the Metro Rapid
Demonstration Project (2000), and in SCAG's Regional Transportation
Plan (2004).
Project Location and Environmental Setting
The Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project is located in eastern
Los Angeles County and is generally bounded by Pomona Boulevard and
State Route 60 (SR 60) Freeway to the north, Peck Road and Painter
Avenue to the east, Olympic and Washington Boulevards to the south, and
Atlantic Boulevard to the west. The project area consists of portions
of eight jurisdictions, including the cities of Commerce, Montebello,
Monterey Park, Pico Rivera, Rosemead, Santa Fe Springs, South El Monte,
Whittier and portions of unincorporated areas in Los Angeles County
which include East Los Angeles and West Whittier-Los Nietos. A diverse
mix of land uses are located within the project area, including single-
and multi-family residences, commercial and retail uses, industrial
development, parks and recreational uses including the Whittier Narrows
Recreation Center, health and medical uses, educational institutions,
flood control facilities, and vacant land.
The Project would extend the existing Metro Gold Line from 6.9 to
approximately 16 miles, depending on the alternative, from its current
terminus at Atlantic Station in the unincorporated area of East Los
Angeles to eastern Los Angeles County. It would traverse densely
populated, low-income, and heavily transit-dependent communities with
major activity centers within the Gateway Cities and San Gabriel Valley
subregions of Los Angeles County.
Alternatives
The project Alternatives Analysis (AA) was initiated in 2007
wherein 47 alternatives were evaluated. In January 2009, the Metro
Board approved the AA and identified two build alternatives to be
carried forward for environmental review. The project is identified in
Metro's 2009 Long-Range Transportation Plan, as amended, and is a
transit project funded by local tax measures, Measure R (approved by
voters in November 2008) and Measure M (approved by voters in November
2016).
A Notice of Intent to prepare a Draft EIS/EIR was issued in 2010.
The Draft EIS/EIR analyzed the two build alternatives--State Route 60
(SR 60) and Washington Boulevard--in addition to the No Build and
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternatives. To address
technical issues regarding proximity to the Operating Industries, Inc.
(OII) Superfund site and in close coordination with the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the SR 60 North Side Design
Variation (SR 60 NSDV) was added as a design variation. A total of 24
agencies accepted the invitation to become a Participating Agency and
EPA, United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and Caltrans (as
assigned by the Federal Highway Administration [FHWA]) requested to be
Cooperating Agencies. Outreach efforts to agencies affiliated with the
project included agency scoping meetings, participation in the
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and 37 individual agency
coordination meetings with EPA, USACE, Caltrans, Southern California
[[Page 24859]]
Edison (SCE), and Union Pacific Railroad. As part of the outreach
program during the AA and Draft EIS/EIR phases, Metro also held over
300 meetings with a wide array of stakeholder groups.
The Draft EIS/EIR was released on August 22, 2014 for a public
comment period of 60 days. In November 2014, the Metro Board approved
carrying forward two build alternatives for further study: The SR 60
NSDV, referred to herein as the SR 60 Alternative, and the Washington
Boulevard Alternative. Based on the volume and scope of comments
received on the Draft EIS/EIR, the Board deferred the selection of a
Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and determined that additional
technical investigation, a Post Draft EIS/EIR Technical Study, would be
needed to address major areas of concern raised by Cooperating
Agencies, corridor cities and stakeholders for both build alternatives.
The Metro Board also eliminated the Garfield Avenue aerial segment of
the Washington Boulevard Alternative and directed staff to carry out
additional technical work, including identifying a new north-south
alignment to connect to the Washington Boulevard Alternative, and
explore the feasibility of operating both the SR 60 and Washington
Boulevard Alternatives.
Extensive coordination with Caltrans, EPA, USACE, CDFW and SCE
occurred on the design of the SR 60 Alternative to address these
agencies' respective comments on the Draft EIS/EIR throughout the
technical investigation process. Some of the issues discussed with
resource agencies throughout the technical study included: Addressing
concerns related to the former OII Superfund site; minimizing impacts
to adjacent developments such as the MarketPlace in Monterey Park;
minimizing potential impacts to the ability to add high-occupancy
vehicle (HOV) lanes to the SR 60 Freeway; avoiding impacts to the on
and off-ramps at Paramount Boulevard; mitigating conflicts with
transmission lines; and preserving the ability to develop a station and
park and ride structure on Santa Anita Avenue.
The route planning process for the Washington Boulevard Alternative
started with 27 potential connection options to Washington Boulevard.
These route options were evaluated based on several factors including
physical constraints, ridership, cost, travel time, access to major
activity centers, economic development opportunities, transit-oriented
communities potential, and consistency with community goals. Three
north-south connection options were shared at community meetings held
in March 2016, June 2016, and February 2017. The community provided
extensive feedback on the Washington Boulevard Alternative north-south
connection options. The feedback was instrumental in confirming Metro's
understanding of key issues for each routing concept and in focusing
the conceptual design studies. Based on the technical analysis, design
refinements and feedback received from the community and key
stakeholders, the Atlantic Boulevard below-grade option was recommended
for Board approval as part of the new Washington Boulevard Alternative
In May 2017, the Metro Board received the findings of the Post
Draft EIS/EIR Technical Study Report and decided to advance the No
Build Alternative and the following build alternatives for
environmental review:
SR 60 Alternative (previously referred to as the SR 60
NSDV Alternative);
Washington Boulevard Alternative with the Atlantic
Boulevard below-grade option (referred to as the Washington Boulevard
Alternative); and
Combined Alternative, defined as full build out of the SR
60 and Washington Boulevard Alternatives.
The Post Draft EIS/EIR Technical Study Report may be found on the
Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project webpage at: https://www.Metro.net/projects/eastside_phase2/).
Each build alternative proposes to develop an LRT facility with
four to 10 stations, depending on the alternative, and identify
transit-oriented community land use concepts and first/last mile
pedestrian/bicycle connectivity opportunities associated with the
proposed stations. The Project will also consider the development of
minimal operable segments and ancillary facilities. A minimal operable
segment is construction of a segment of the LRT route under a build
alternative, which would be able to operate both as a stand-alone
system and also include a maintenance and storage facility. Stakeholder
coordination, design refinement, and impact assessment of the Project
are ongoing. As a result, there will continue to be Project design
iteration. As such, it is anticipated that the Supplemental Draft EIS
document may include, but is not limited to, variations to station
number and locations; options for vertical alignments; options for
parking facilities; specific alignment refinements; ancillary
improvements; and leveraged improvements in collaboration with Metro's
local partners and betterments to address these issues. Therefore,
interested parties are advised to stay informed and engaged with the
numerous Project engagement and communication channels via the project
website below.
No-Build Alternative: The No-Build Alternative would maintain
existing transit service through the year 2042. No new transportation
infrastructure would be built within the project area aside from
projects currently under construction or funded for construction and
operation by 2042 by Measure R or the recently approved Measure M sales
tax. This alternative will include the highway and transit projects in
the current Metro Long Range Transportation Plan and the 2035 SCAG
Regional Transportation Plan. Potential modifications to the Metro bus
network resulting from the Metro NextGen Bus Study and other transit
planning efforts would be included.
SR 60 Alternative (previously known as the SR 60 NSDV Alternative):
This build alternative, as evaluated in the Draft EIS/EIR, would extend
the existing Metro Gold Line from the Atlantic Station to the city of
South El Monte. Primarily, it is an aerial alignment that includes four
aerial stations as described in the 2014 Draft EIS/EIR. Refinements to
station locations or new stations may be considered. The SR 60
Alternative alignment would be located primarily along the southern
side of SR 60 Freeway right-of-way (ROW), with the exception of a
segment that passes near the OII Superfund Site in Monterey Park. To
avoid potential impacts to the OII Site, the SR 60 Alternative
alignment would transition to the north side of the SR 60 Freeway,
approximately west of Greenwood Avenue, continue east within the
Caltrans ROW, and then return to the south side of SR 60 Freeway, near
Paramount Boulevard, where it would continue for the remainder of the
alignment until its terminus in the City of South El Monte.
Washington Boulevard Alternative: This build alternative would
extend the Metro Gold Line from the existing Atlantic Station in East
Los Angeles to the City of Whittier. This Alternative includes six
stations. Refinements to station locations or new stations may be
considered. The configuration of the Alternative would vary, as it is
proposed to transition from underground to aerial to at-grade along
various portions of the alignment.
From the existing Atlantic Station, the alignment would transition
from at-grade west of Woods Avenue to below-grade. A design option may
include changing the existing Atlantic Station to a below-grade
station. The alignment
[[Page 24860]]
would continue below-grade roughly following Atlantic Boulevard to
Washington Boulevard. The alignment would remain at-grade along
Washington Boulevard until just west of Lambert Road. Design options
for potential aerial configurations along Washington Boulevard are also
under consideration.
Combined Alternative: The Combined Alternative involves
construction and operation of both the SR 60 and Washington Boulevard
Alternatives and would require infrastructure and operational elements
that would otherwise not be required if only one of the alternatives
was operated as a ``stand alone'' line.
Stations, parking, minimal operating segments, ancillary facilities
such as a maintenance and storage facility/job training center,
traction power substations, and grade separation structures, tail
tracks and storage tracks, track sidings and crossovers, track
signalization, communication facilities, along the Project alignment
would be part of each LRT alternative.
Probable Effects
The purpose of this EIS/EIR process is to study, in a public
setting, the effects of the proposed project and its alternatives on
the physical, human, and natural environment. The FTA and Metro will
evaluate all significant environmental, social, and economic impacts of
the construction and operation of the proposed project. The probable
impacts will be determined as a part of project scoping. Unless further
screening illuminates areas of possible impact, resource areas will be
limited to those uncovered during scoping. Measures to avoid, minimize,
and mitigate adverse impacts will also be identified and evaluated. Key
environmental factors to be addressed include:
Air Quality;
Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases;
Community & Neighborhood Impacts;
Construction Impacts;
Cumulative Impacts;
Economic & Fiscal Impacts;
Ecosystems/Biological Resources;
Energy;
Environmental Justice;
Geotechnical/Subsurface/Seismic/Hazardous Materials;
Growth Inducing Impacts;
Historic, Archeological, Tribal Cultural Resources, and
Paleontological Impacts;
Land Use & Planning;
Noise & Vibration;
Parklands and Community Facilities;
Real Estate & Acquisitions;
Safety & Security;
Transportation;
Water Resources & Hydrology; and
Visual & Aesthetics.
FTA Procedures
The regulations implementing NEPA require that FTA and Metro do the
following: (1) Extend an invitation to other Federal and non-Federal
agencies and Native American tribes that may have an interest in the
proposed project to become ``participating agencies;'' (2) provide an
opportunity for involvement by participating agencies and the public to
help define the purpose and need for a proposed project, as well as the
range of alternatives for consideration in the EIS; and (3) establish a
plan for coordinating public and agency participation in, and comment
on, the environmental review process. In 2010, three agencies were
asked and have accepted to be cooperating agencies: EPA, USACE, and
Caltrans, as assigned by FHWA. A total of 24 agencies accepted the
invitation to become a participating agency. An update to participating
and cooperating agencies, with scoping materials appended, was sent to
Federal and non-Federal agencies and Native American tribes that may
have an interest in the proposed project. Any Federal or non-Federal
agency or Native American tribe interested in the proposed project that
did not receive an invitation to become a participating agency should
notify at the earliest opportunity the Project Manager, Ms. Jenny
Cristales-Cevallos, Senior Manager, Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority, One Gateway Plaza, Mail Stop 99-22-6, Los
Angeles, CA 90012 by mail, or via email at
[email protected].
A comprehensive public involvement program and a Coordination Plan
for public and interagency involvement will be developed for the
project and posted on the Eastside Transit Corridor Phase 2 Project web
page: https://www.Metro.net/projects/eastside_phase2/). The public
involvement program includes a full range of activities including the
project web page, development and distribution of project newsletters,
and outreach to local officials, community and civic groups, and the
public. Specific activities or events for involvement will be detailed
in the public involvement program.
The Supplemental EIS will be prepared in accordance with NEPA and
its implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental
Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and with the FTA/FHWA/Federal Railroad
Administration regulations ``Environmental Impact and Related
Procedures'' (23 CFR part 771). FTA will comply with all Federal
environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders applicable to the
proposed project during the environmental review process to the maximum
extent practicable. These requirements include, but are not limited to,
cooperation and consultation with the Secretary of the Interior and
Administrator of EPA and compliance with NEPA provisions of Federal
transit laws (49 U.S.C. 5323(c)); the project-level air quality
conformity regulations of EPA (40 CFR part 93); the Section 404(b)(1)
guidelines of EPA (40 CFR part 230); the regulations implementing
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR part
800); the regulations implementing Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act (50 CFR part 402); Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation
Act (23 CFR 774 and 49 U.S.C. 303); and Executive Orders 12898 on
environmental justice, 11988 on floodplain management, and 11990 on
wetlands. FTA is considering combining the Final EIS and the Record of
Decision pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 139(n)(2).
The Paperwork Reduction Act seeks, in part, to minimize the cost to
the taxpayer of the creation, collection, maintenance, use,
dissemination, and disposition of information. Consistent with this
goal and with principles of economy and efficiency in government, it is
FTA policy to limit insofar as possible distribution of complete
printed sets of environmental documents. Accordingly, unless a specific
request for a complete printed set of the environmental document is
received before the document is printed, FTA and its project sponsors
will distribute only electronic copies of the environmental document.
At a minimum, a complete printed set of the environmental document will
be available for review at the project sponsor's offices; an electronic
copy of the complete environmental document and scoping materials will
be available on the project website at https://www.Metro.net/projects/eastside_phase2/.
Edward Carranza, Jr.,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IX, Federal Transit
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2019-11089 Filed 5-28-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
