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 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.