[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