What alternatives were considered?

The proposed changes at Terminal 5 are intended to ensure future, long-term marine cargo capability, with emphasis on serving larger vessels and increases in yearly cargo volumes. The Final EIS (Volumes 1 and 2) evaluated the potential environmental impacts of constructing and operating two development alternatives and the No-Action alternative. Both development alternatives include these four work elements:

  • Strengthening the existing pier to support additional, larger, and heavier cranes
  • Stabilization of the under-pier slopes to allow berth deepening
  • Deepening vessel berth areas for increased draught and beam of current and anticipated future cargo vessels
  • Providing additional electricity to the site for new cranes

Subsequent to the review of comments received on the DEIS, the Port made a decision to select Alternative 2 as the Preferred Alternative. Alternative 2 represents the necessary physical improvements and the anticipated level of cargo throughput required for both the Port and a Marine Terminal Operator to make efficient and effective use of Terminal 5.

The alternatives considered were: 

The No-Action Alternative proposed that no improvements would be made to the existing 197-acre site other than minor alterations and routine maintenance and repair work (including stormwater upgrades), none of which would increase container cargo capacity beyond current capacity. 

Under the No-Action Alternative:

  • The Terminal 5 shoreline and upland area would continue as a marine cargo transportation facility.
  • Large post-Panamax vessels (vessels with TEU cargo capacities greater than approximately 8,000 TEUs) could not be accommodated.
  • Environmental conditions would not change significantly. Minor modifications, including routine maintenance and repair work, would be conducted as necessary.
  • The site would continue to meet existing regulatory requirements and best management practices (BMPs).

Alternative 2 proposes rehabilitation of the existing marine cargo facilities, including cargo wharf rehabilitation, berth deepening, water/stormwater utility retrofits, and electrical utility capacity improvements.

Under Alternative 2:

  • The cargo marshalling yard area upland of the rehabilitated cargo wharf would will be redesigned and reorganized to provide economies in cargo operations and on-site cargo flow and movement.
  • The facility’s annual container cargo shipping capability would will increase to approximately 1.3 million TEUs.

Alternative 3 proposes the same rehabilitation of the existing marine cargo facilities as Alternative 2, including cargo wharf rehabilitation, berth deepening, water/stormwater utility retrofits, and electrical utility capacity improvements.

In addition, Alternative 3 includes:

  • On-site electric utility upgrades and significant changes and improvements to the cargo marshalling yard area upland, intermodal rail yard configuration, and electrical capacity.
  • An annual container cargo shipping capability of up to approximately 1.7 million TEUs.

For more detailed information about each alternative, please see section 2.4 of the Final EIS (Volumes 1 and 2).