Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project

Issued by: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

Pursuant to 42 USC § 4332, 49 USC § 303, and 64 FR 28545

For more information on the Environmental Assessment, please contact:

Lyle Leitelt, AICP

Community Planner

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Railroad Policy and Development

1200 New Jersey Ave SE

Washington, DC 20590

April 2018
This page has been intentionally left blank.

This page has been intentionally left blank.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................XI

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROJECT ........................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................1

1.2 Project Area and Study Area .................................................................................................1

1.3 Project Background ............................................................................................................10

1.4 Purpose and Need..............................................................................................................10

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................. 12

2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................12

2.2 Criteria for Evaluating Alternatives......................................................................................12

2.3 Evaluated Alternatives........................................................................................................12

2.3.1 Alternative 1: No Build Alternative...............................................................................12

2.3.2 Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road (Build Alternative).........................13

2.4 Alternatives Dismissed .......................................................................................................13

2.4.1 Offset Overpass with One-Way Frontage Roads............................................................13

2.4.2 Offset Underpass with Frontage Roads ........................................................................14

2.4.3 Offset Underpass with Connector Roads......................................................................14

2.4.4 Offset Overpass with Connector Roads ........................................................................15

2.4.5 Other Alternatives Withdrawn from Consideration.......................................................15

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION............................................................ 21

3.1 Environmental Issues Excluded from Discussion...................................................................21

3.2 Existing and Future Land Use ..............................................................................................23

3.2.1 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................................23

3.2.2 Affected Environment.................................................................................................27

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences .....................................................................................35

3.2.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures.................................................35

3.3 Consistency with Regional and Local Plans and Programs .....................................................36

3.3.1 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................................36
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

ii

3.3.2 Affected Environment.................................................................................................37

3.3.3 Environmental Consequences .....................................................................................37

3.3.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures.................................................40

3.4 Community Character and Cohesion ...................................................................................40

3.4.1 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................................40

3.4.2 Affected Environment.................................................................................................41

3.4.3 Environmental Consequences .....................................................................................41

3.4.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures.................................................43

3.5 Relocations and Real Property Acquisition...........................................................................44

3.5.1 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................................44

3.5.2 Affected Environment.................................................................................................44

3.5.3 Environmental Consequences .....................................................................................44

3.5.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures.................................................48

3.6 Environmental Justice ........................................................................................................48

3.6.1 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................................48

3.6.2 Affected Environment.................................................................................................49

3.6.3 Environmental Consequences .....................................................................................51

3.6.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures.................................................59

3.7 Utilities/Emergency Services...............................................................................................59

3.7.1 Affected Environment.................................................................................................59

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences .....................................................................................65

3.7.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures.................................................65

3.8 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities..................................................69

3.8.1 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................................69

3.8.2 Affected Environment.................................................................................................69

3.8.3 Environmental Consequences .....................................................................................76

3.8.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures.................................................78

3.9 Visual/ Aesthetics ..............................................................................................................83
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

iii

3.9.1 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................................83

3.9.2 Affected Environment.................................................................................................83

3.9.3 Environmental Consequences .....................................................................................83

3.9.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures.................................................85

3.10 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................85

3.10.1 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................................85

3.10.2 Affected Environment.................................................................................................85

3.10.3 Environmental Consequences .....................................................................................94

3.10.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures.................................................95

3.11 Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff...............................................................................96

3.11.1 Regulatory Setting ......................................................................................................96

3.11.2 Affected Environment.................................................................................................98

3.11.3 Environmental Consequences .....................................................................................98

3.11.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures.................................................99

3.12 Hazardous Waste/ Materials............................................................................................. 100

3.12.1 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................................... 100

3.12.2 Affected Environment............................................................................................... 101

3.12.3 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................... 103

3.12.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures............................................... 104

3.13 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 105

3.13.1 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................................... 105

3.13.2 Affected Environment............................................................................................... 109

3.13.3 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................... 115

3.13.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures............................................... 126

3.14 Noise and Groundborne Vibrations................................................................................... 126

3.14.1 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................................... 126

3.14.2 Affected Environment............................................................................................... 135

3.14.3 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................... 137
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

iv

3.14.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures............................................... 140

3.15 Cumulative Impacts.......................................................................................................... 141

3.15.1 Regulatory Setting .................................................................................................... 141

3.15.2 Existing and Future Land Use..................................................................................... 141

3.15.3 Consistency with Regional Local Plans and Programs .................................................. 142

3.15.4 Community Character and Cohesion.......................................................................... 143

3.15.5 Relocations and Real Property Acquisition ................................................................. 144

3.15.6 Environmental Justice ............................................................................................... 144

3.15.7 Utilities/Emergency Services ..................................................................................... 145

3.15.8 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ........................................ 146

3.15.9 Visual/Aesthetics...................................................................................................... 147

3.15.10 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................... 148

3.15.11 Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff ..................................................................... 149

3.15.12 Hazardous Waste/Materials...................................................................................... 150

3.15.13 Air Quality................................................................................................................ 151

3.15.14 Noise and Vibration .................................................................................................. 151

4.0 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND COORDINATION.................................................................................. 153

4.1 Alternatives Analysis ........................................................................................................ 153

4.2 Public Review Period ........................................................................................................ 153

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS................................................................................................................ 154

6.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST ................................................................................................................ 155

6.1 Elected Officials ............................................................................................................... 155

6.2 Federal Agencies.............................................................................................................. 160

6.3 State Agencies ................................................................................................................. 161

6.4 Local Agencies ................................................................................................................. 162

6.5 Other Stakeholders .......................................................................................................... 165

7.0 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................... 166
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

v

APPENDICES

Appendix A. SHPO Correspondence, January 9, 2017

Appendix B. FRA Correspondence February 16, 2017

Appendix C. SHPO Concurrence November 22, 2017

Appendix D. Notice of Exemption

Appendix E. CPUC Nomination

Appendix F. CPUC Nomination Approval
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table S-1-1. Impact Summary ........................................................................................................... xiii

Table 3-1. Current and Future Development Projects in the Cities of Santa Fe Springs, La Mirada, and 

Norwalk ...........................................................................................................................................32

Table 3-2. Consistency with State, Regional, and Local Plans and Programs..........................................37

Table 3-3. Right of Way Impacts ........................................................................................................46

Table 3-4. Racial and Ethnic Characteristics in the Study Area and Los Angeles County .........................52

Table 3-5. Households with Income in the Past 12 Months below Poverty Level in the Study Area and Los 

Angeles County ................................................................................................................................54

Table 3-6. Significant Delay Impact Criteria ........................................................................................76

Table 3-7. Intersection Level of Service and Delay...............................................................................81

Table 3-8. Native American Consultation Summary.............................................................................90

Table 3-9. Impervious Surface Area....................................................................................................99

Table 3-10. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designations........................ 106

Table 3-11. Federal General Conformity De Minimis Levels for Los Angeles County ............................ 109

Table 3-12. SCAB Emissions Inventory and Projections...................................................................... 110

Table 3-13. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data........................................................... 112

Table 3-14. Annual Construction Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants.................................................. 116

Table 3-15. Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants .............................................................. 116

Table 3-16. Predicted Mobile-Source CO Concentrations at Primarily Affected Intersections............... 118

Table 3-17. FTA Land Use Categories and Noise Metrics.................................................................... 127

Table 3-18. FTA Construction Noise Assessment Criteria ................................................................... 131

Table 3-19. Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria for General Assessment (VdB) ............................. 131

Table 3-20. Construction Vibration Criteria for the Evaluation of Structural Damage........................... 132

Table 3-21. Activity Categories and Noise Abatement Criteria ........................................................... 134

Table 3-22. Predicted Rail Noise Levels at Nearest Residential Land Uses........................................... 139
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Regional Location Map.......................................................................................................3

Figure 1-2. Project Location Map .........................................................................................................5

Figure 1-3. Project Area.......................................................................................................................7

Figure 2-1. Alternative 2 – Plan View..................................................................................................17

Figure 2-2. Right of Way Exhibit.........................................................................................................19

Figure 3-1. Community Impacts Study Area ........................................................................................25

Figure 3-2. Zoning Map .....................................................................................................................30

Figure 3-3. Visual Simulation .............................................................................................................43

Figure 3-4. Environmental Justice Populations....................................................................................56

Figure 3-5. Utilities in the Project Area ...............................................................................................62

Figure 3-6. Emergency Services .........................................................................................................67

Figure 3-7. Los Angeles Metro 2014 Bike Map ....................................................................................71

Figure 3-8. Train Station and Bus Stop Locations.................................................................................73

Figure 3-9. Area of Potential Effects...................................................................................................87

Figure 3-10. National Mobile Source Air Toxics Emission Trends 2010-2050 or Vehicles Operating on 

Roadways Using U.S. EPA’s Moves2014a Model ............................................................................... 122

Figure 3-11. Noise Exposure Criteria for Category 1 and 2 Land Uses ................................................. 130

Figure 3-12. Allowable Increase in Cumulative Noise Exposure for Category 1 and 2 Land Uses........... 130
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

viii

ACRONYMS AND TERMS

ADL Aerially Deposited Lead 

APE Area of Potential Effect 

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

ASR Archaeological Survey Report 

BACT Best Available Control Technology

BMP Best Management Practice

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CHSRA California High-Speed Rail Authority 

CIA Community Impact Assessment

CIH certified industrial hygienist 

CO carbon monoxide 

CTC

CWA

California Transportation Commission

Clean Water Act 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 

DOGGR Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources

DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control

EA Environmental Assessment

EAP Emergency Action Plan

EO Executive Order

FCAA Federal Clean Air Act 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FIP Federal Implementation Plan 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

FTIP Federal Transportation Improvement Program

GCP Green Construction Policy

GPR ground penetrating radar 

ISA Initial Site Assessment

LACM Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County 

LACSD Los Angeles County Sanitation District
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

ix

LARWQCB Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board

LBP Lead Based Paint

LCP Lead Compliance Plan

LEDPA Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative 

LOS Level of Service

LOSSAN

Metro

Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo

Metropolitan Transportation Authority

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer

MVF Motor Vehicle Fuels 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

NAHC Native American Heritage Commission 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHL

NO2

National Historic Landmark

Nitrogen Dioxide 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPMS National Pipeline Mapping System

O3 Ozone 

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

PM10 and 

PM2.5

Particulate Matter 

PRC CA Public Resources Code

PSR Paleontological Resources Phase I Assessment 

RAP Relocation Assistance Program

RCP Regional Comprehensive Plan 

RMS Root mean square

RON

ROW

Resolution of Necessity 

Right of Way 

RTP Regional Transportation Plan

RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy 

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board 

SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

x

SI Site investigation 

SIP State Implementation Plan

SLR Sea Level Rise

SoCalGas Southern California Gas

STLC soluble threshold limit concentration

SWMP Statewide Storm Water Management Plan 

SWRCB

TCE

TSCA

State Water Resources Control Board

Temporary Construction Easement

Toxic Substance Control Act

TTLC Total Threshold Limit Concentration

U.S. United States 

U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

UPRR Union Pacific Railroad

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code 

USDOT United States Department of Transportation 

VdB Root mean square vertical vibration velocity in decibels

WP Work Plan
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) is partnering with the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA), BNSF Railway (BNSF), and the City of Santa Fe Springs (City) to construct 

an overpass at the intersection of Rosecrans Avenue, Marquardt Avenue, and the BNSF right of way (ROW) 

in the City of Santa Fe Springs (Project). The project area is bordered by Foster Road to the north, 

Interstate 5 (I-5) to the south, Carmenita Road to the west, and Valley View Avenue to the east.

The Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared in compliance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental 

Impacts (FRA Procedures), and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA implementing 

regulations. The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is to assess the potential direct, indirect, 

and cumulative impacts on the human and natural environment resulting from the Project. As the NEPA 

Lead Agency, FRA has the primary responsibility for preparing the EA.

The Project has been selected for federal funding through the 2016 Transportation Investment Generating 

Economic Recovery (TIGER) competitive grant program. The FRA is administering TIGER grant funds for 

the construction of the Project. Other funding sources for the Project include Proposition 1A, Measure R, 

State’s Section 190 program, and the BNSF Railway Railroad Share.

The purpose of the Project is to:

1) Improve safety;

2) Maintain access to the railroad for emergency responders;

3) Maintain existing railroad facilities and operations; and

4) Accommodate future High-Speed Rail (HSR) in the corridor.

The Rosecrans/Marquardt Avenue and BNSF railroad tracks intersection experiences an average of 45,000 

vehicles and 112 trains traveling through the intersection within each 24-hour period, as estimated using 

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works traffic data from 2011 (Los Angeles County Department 

of Public Works, 2015). The BNSF line serves approximately 55 long distance and local freight trains, as 

well as up to 57 passenger trains for both Metrolink commuter and Amtrak within a 24-hour time period

(Los Angeles County Metropolitan Tranportation Authority, 2016). The existing BNSF railroad tracks and 

roadway are at the same grade. This causes a high volume of vehicle conflicts at the intersection. In 

addition, the railroad crossing traverses the intersection diagonally, which results in poor sight distance 

between roadway and railroad vehicles.

The combination of these factors has caused the intersection to experience a higher proportion of traffic 

incidents than average, including fatalities. The ongoing danger has prompted the California Public 

Utilities Commission (CPUC) under Section 190 to rate this intersection as the most hazardous at-grade 

railroad crossing in the state. The completion of this Project would alleviate the existing vehicle conflicts 

and safety hazards at the intersection.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

xii

Motorist, cyclist, bus, and emergency vehicle access will need to be provided at all times during 

construction of the Project. In addition, train volume in the BNSF corridor is anticipated to increase in the 

future. Additionally, a third BNSF track is planned for this corridor. The Project would facilitate continued 

access to and around the project area, including access to the railroad.

The intersection of railroad and roadway infrastructure poses competing interests, which lead to collisions 

and accidents in the project area. To accommodate existing and planned railroad facilities and operations, 

the Project would elevate Rosecrans Avenue to an overpass, which would allow critical improvements 

along the roadway and BNSF ROW to occur.

The BNSF corridor has been identified as the proposed corridor for the Los Angeles to Anaheim segment 

of the California High Speed Rail (HSR) system. FRA’s Record of Decision (ROD) for the California HighSpeed Train System Tier I EIR/EIS identified the BNSF corridor (identified as the “LOSSAN Corridor” in the 

ROD) as the preferred alignment for the high-speed rail system. The project area does not currently 

accommodate for future HSR planned in the BNSF railroad corridor. The Project would be designed to 

accommodate and not preclude future HSR infrastructure, if after completing the necessary project-level 

environmental reviews, FRA selects a build alternative using the BNSF railroad corridor. This will minimize

time and costs between both projects.

This EA includes a discussion of Alternative 1 (No Build Alternative), which serves as a baseline for 

comparing potential impacts resulting from the Project. The No Build Alternative includes only regular 

maintenance and repair activities necessary to keep the roadways and railroad tracks operational at 

existing service. Under this alternative, the current configuration of the Rosecrans/Marquardt Avenue and 

BNSF railroad tracks intersection would be maintained. This alternative would not achieve the desired 

safety or circulation improvements, and would therefore, not meet the Project purpose and need.

Under Alternative 2 (Build Alternative), Rosecrans Avenue would be re-aligned to the south, and an 

overpass would be constructed over the BNSF railroad tracks. The southern leg of Marquardt Avenue 

would be extended under the overpass and connected to Rosecrans Avenue. The northern leg of 

Marquardt Avenue would be connected to Stage Road. A frontage road would also be constructed to 

connect Anson Avenue to the northern leg of Marquardt Avenue and Stage Road. Traffic signals would be 

installed on Rosecrans Avenue: one at the intersection with Marquardt Avenue to the west, and one to 

the east of the overpass structure at the intersection with Iseli Road. Table S-1-1 below identifies impacts 

anticipated to result from the Project.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

xiii

Table S-1-1. Impact Summary

Environmental Topic Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector 

Road

Air Quality No impact with avoidance and minimization measures

Animal Species No Impact

Coastal Zone No Impact

Consistency with Regional and Local Plans 

and Programs No impact with avoidance and minimization measures

Community Character and Cohesion No impact with avoidance and minimization measures

Cultural Resources No impact with avoidance and minimization measures

Environmental Justice No Impact

Existing and Future Land Use No impact with avoidance and minimization measures

Farmlands/Timberlands No Impact

Geology/Soils/Seismicity No Impact

Population Growth No Impact

Hazardous Waste No impact with avoidance and minimization measures

Hydrology & Floodplain No Impact

Invasive Species No Impact

Existing and Future Land Use No impact with avoidance and minimization measures

Noise & Groundborne Vibrations No impact with avoidance and minimization measures

Parks & Recreational Facilities No Impact

Plant Species No Impact

Relocations and Real Property Acquisition No impact with avoidance and minimization measures

Threatened & Endangered Species No Impact
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

xiv

Environmental Topic Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector 

Road

Traffic & Transportation No impact with avoidance, minimization, and mitigation 

measures

Utilities/Emergency Services No impact with avoidance and minimization measures

Visual/Aesthetics No impact with avoidance and minimization measures

Water Quality & Storm Water No impact with avoidance and minimization measures

Wetlands & Other Waters No Impact

Wild & Scenic Rivers No Impact
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

1

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROJECT

1.1 Introduction

The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) is partnering with the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA), BNSF Railway (BNSF), and the City of Santa Fe Springs (City) to construct 

an overpass at the intersection of Rosecrans Avenue, Marquardt Avenue, and the BNSF right of way (ROW) 

in the City of Santa Fe Springs (Santa Fe Springs) (Project). The study area is bordered by Foster Road to 

the north, north of Interstate 5 (I-5) to the south, Carmenita Road to the west, and west of Valley View 

Avenue to the east (see Figure 1-1. Regional Location Map, Figure 1-2. Project Location Map, Figure 1-3. 

Project Area).

FRA and Metro have prepared this Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Environmental Assessment 

(EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), FRA Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts (FRA Procedures), and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA 

implementing regulations. The purpose of this EA is to assess the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative 

impacts on the human and natural environment resulting from the Project. As the NEPA Lead Agency, FRA 

has the primary responsibility for preparing the EA.

The Project has been selected for federal funding through the 2016 Transportation Investment Generating 

Economic Recovery (TIGER) competitive grant program. The FRA is administering TIGER grant funds for 

the construction of the Project. Other funding sources for the Project include Proposition 1A, Measure R, 

State’s Section 190 program, and the BNSF Railway Railroad Share.

1.2 Project Area and Study Area

The project area is in an industrial area of Santa Fe Springs, and includes the existing roadways; the BNSF 

railroad tracks; and industrial and commercial buildings. The existing roadways are asphalt-paved with 

curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, and provide access to industrial and commercial businesses. Existing 

roadways in the project area include:

• Rosecrans Avenue, an 84-foot-wide, 4-lane roadway (two lanes in each direction) within a 100-

foot-wide ROW that runs in an east-west direction and is classified as a major arterial roadway 

with approximately 25,000 vehicle trips per day;

• Marquardt Avenue, a 64-foot-wide, 2-lane roadway (one lane in each direction) within an 80-footwide ROW that runs in a north-south direction and is classified as a minor arterial roadway with 

approximately 5,000 vehicle trips per day;
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

2

This page has been intentionally left blank.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

3

Figure 1-1. Regional Location Map
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

4

This page has been intentionally left blank.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

5

Figure 1-2. Project Location Map
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

6

This page has been intentionally left blank.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

7

Figure 1-3. Project Area
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

8

This page has been intentionally left blank.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

9

• Stage Road, a 35 to 40-foot-wide, 2-lane roadway (one lane in each direction) within a 70-footwide ROW that runs in a northwest to southeast direction with exclusive eastbound and 

westbound turn lanes onto Marquardt Avenue from Rosecrans Avenue, approximately 80 feet 

north of and parallel to the BNSF railroad tracks, and is classified as a major arterial roadway with 

approximately 5,000 to 10,000 vehicle trips per day; and

• Anson Avenue, a 50-foot-wide, 2-lane cul-de sac (one lane in each direction) within a 64-footwide ROW that runs in a north-south direction and is approximately 700 feet east of the 

Rosecrans/Marquardt intersection and BNSF railroad tracks intersection.

Existing BSNF railroad tracks diagonally traverse the project area at grade level from northwest to 

southeast through the Rosecrans/Marquardt intersection. The project area is zoned as light industrial and 

is populated with industrial and commercial buildings (City of Santa Fe Springs, 2007b). A motorcycle parts 

store is in the northeast corner of the Rosecrans/Marquardt intersection, a warehouse in the southeast 

corner of the intersection, a metal stamping facility in the southwest corner of the intersection, and offices 

and a recycling facility in the southeast corner of the intersection.

The railroad corridor that runs through the project area serves approximately 55 long distance and local 

freight trains, as well as an average of 57 passenger trains for both Metrolink and Amtrak, making it the 

second busiest intercity passenger railroad corridor in the nation (Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc., 2016). 

Most of the long-distance freight traffic along the corridor goes in and out of the Ports of Long Beach and 

Los Angeles, and the corridor is an important route for the movement of goods from the ports to the rest 

of the country. 

The project area is within the Los Angeles – San Diego – San Luis Obispo Rail Corridor (LOSSAN Corridor), 

a 351-mile rail corridor that travels through a 6-county coastal region in Southern California. The LOSSAN 

Corridor is under jurisdiction of the LOSSAN Rail Corridor Agency, which is a joint powers authority 

originally formed in 1989 that works to increase ridership, revenue, capacity, reliability, coordination and 

safety on the coastal rail line between San Diego. 

The railroad corridor has been designated by the United States Department of Defense as part of the 

Strategic Rail Corridor Network (STRACNET). STRACNET is an interconnected and continuous rail line 

network consisting of over 36,000 miles of track serving over 120 defense installations. Railroad 

designated for STRACNET must comply with certain specifications that meet the needs of the United 

States military (Military Traffic Management Command Transporation Engineering Agency, 1998). In 

addition, the railroad corridor has been identified by the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) as 

a viable shared HSR corridor alternative for the LA-Anaheim section.

A study area is the area in which direct and/or indirect impacts associated with a project are likely to occur 

at their greatest intensity. The study area is inclusive of the project area, and exact study area boundaries 

differ between specific environmental topics. The study area for each environmental topic is described 

within its respective topic section of Chapter 3. 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

10

1.3 Project Background

In 2003, the Project was environmentally cleared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 

in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that was prepared for the Third Track and Grade Separation 

Project on the BNSF Railway East - West Main Line Railroad Track (Triple Track Project) (State Clearing 

House (SCH) #200204111), with Caltrans as the CEQA Lead Agency. The objective of the Triple Track 

Project was to increase the efficiency of the BNSF main east-west corridor to better accommodate existing 

and future freight and passenger service and to allow specific increases in the speed and volume of 

planned intercity and commuter railroad passenger service. Specific improvements included in the Triple 

Track Project are:

• Installation of a specific set of grade separations to substantially enhance safety and traffic flow 

on surface streets throughout the railroad corridor; and

• Installation of a third main track to enhance the efficiency of train movement along this corridor 

to ensure passenger service operates on a frequent and reliable schedule.

Several grade separations were environmentally cleared through the Triple Track Project EIR. Two of the 

grade separations, Passons Boulevard and Valley View Avenue, were completed in 2012 and 2014 

respectively.

Since the 2003 Triple Track Project EIR was completed, the design of the Project has changed. The Project

is statutorily exempt from CEQA, and will not require additional environmental review under CEQA (see 

Appendix D).

1.4 Purpose and Need

The purpose of the Project is to:

1) Improve safety;

2) Maintain access to the railroad for emergency responders;

3) Maintain existing railroad facilities and operations; and

4) Accommodate future High-Speed Rail in the corridor.

The Rosecrans/Marquardt Avenue and BNSF railroad tracks intersection experiences an average of 45,000 

vehicles and 112 trains traveling through the intersection within each 24-hour period, as estimated using 

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works traffic data from 2011 (Los Angeles County Department 

of Public Works, 2015). The BNSF line serves approximately 55 long distance and local freight trains, as 

well as up to 57 passenger trains for both Metrolink commuter and Amtrak within a 24-hour time period

(Los Angeles County Metropolitan Tranportation Authority, 2016). The existing BNSF railroad tracks and 

roadway are at the same grade. This causes a high volume of vehicle conflicts at the intersection. In 

addition, the railroad crossing traverses the intersection diagonally, which results in poor sight distance 

between roadway and railroad vehicles.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

11

The combination of these factors has caused the intersection to experience a higher proportion of traffic 

incidents than average, including fatalities. The ongoing danger has prompted the CPUC under Section 

190 to rate this intersection as the most hazardous at-grade railroad crossing in the state (see Appendix E 

and Appendix F). The completion of this Project would alleviate the existing vehicle conflicts and safety 

hazards at the intersection.

Motorist, cyclist, bus, and emergency vehicle access will need to be provided at all times during 

construction of the Project. In addition, train volume in the BNSF corridor is anticipated to increase in the 

future. Additionally, a third BNSF track is planned for this corridor. The Project would facilitate continued 

access to and around the project area, including access to the railroad.

The intersection of railroad and roadway infrastructure poses competing interests, which lead to collisions 

and accidents in the project area. To accommodate existing and planned railroad facilities and operations, 

the Project would elevate Rosecrans Avenue to an overpass, which would allow critical improvements 

along the roadway and BNSF ROW to occur.

The project area does not currently accommodate for future HSR planned in the BNSF railroad corridor. 

At the conclusion of the California High-Speed Train System Tier 1 EIR/EIS, FRA and CHSRA identified the 

BNSF corridor as the proposed corridor for the HSR Los Angeles to Anaheim project section. FRA and 

CHSRA are currently conducting further Tier 2 environmental analysis and this Project would be designed 

to accommodate and not preclude future HSR infrastructure, minimizing time and costs between both 

projects.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

12

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Criteria for Evaluating Alternatives

This EA evaluates the proposed action and the Project alternatives that were developed to meet the 

identified purpose and need of the Project. When developing alternatives, the following criteria were 

considered:

• Traffic impacts during construction;

• Required utility relocations;

• Access to businesses during construction;

• ROW impacts;

• Impacts to railroad operations; and

• Project costs.

Several build alternatives were considered, but only one build alternative was recognized as feasible, 

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road. The Build Alternative was identified as a suitable 

alternative using the criteria above. Therefore, the alternatives considered for the Project are the 

Alternative 1 (No Build Alternative) and one Build Alternative (Alternative 2). Resource areas evaluated 

for each alternative include land use, community impacts, utilities/emergency services, traffic and 

transportation/pedestrian and bicycle facilities, visual/aesthetics, cultural resources, water quality and 

storm water runoff, hazardous waste/materials, air quality, and noise. In addition, the potential 

cumulative impact of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the project region are 

evaluated with respect to these resources.

2.3 Evaluated Alternatives

2.3.1 Alternative 1: No Build Alternative

Under Alternative 1 (No Build Alternative), the current configuration of the Rosecrans/Marquardt Avenue 

and BNSF railroad tracks intersection would be maintained, and the at-grade railroad crossing would 

remain. This alternative would not improve safety because each user (trains, vehicles, and pedestrians) 

would continue sharing the Rosecrans/Marquardt intersection crossing, which would not address the risk 

of collision. Additionally, the segment of BNSF corridor in the project area has been planned for a third 

set of BNSF tracks, which would require changes in roadway geometry in the project area. Existing 

conditions are not conducive to accommodate future HSR infrastructure. Under the No Build Alternative, 

construction activities would not be completed. However, this alternative would not help to achieve the 

desired safety or circulation improvements, and would therefore not meet the Project purpose and need.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

13

2.3.2 Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road (Build Alternative)

Under Alternative 2 (Build Alternative), Rosecrans Avenue would be realigned to the south, and an 

overpass would be constructed to raise Rosecrans Avenue over Marquardt Avenue, the BNSF ROW, and 

Stage Road (see Figure 2-1. Alternative 2 – Plan View). The southern leg of Marquardt Avenue would be 

extended under the overpass and connected to Rosecrans Avenue. The northern leg of Marquardt Avenue 

would be connected to Stage Road. A frontage road would also be constructed to connect Anson Avenue 

to the northern leg of Marquardt Avenue and Stage Road.

Traffic signals would be installed along Rosecrans Avenue: one at the intersection with Marquardt Avenue 

to the west, and one to the east of the overpass at the intersection with Iseli Road. Other improvements 

include sidewalk construction, street lighting installation, landscape installation/replacement, parking lot 

reconfiguration, and utility relocations. Alternative 2 would require full acquisition of eight properties, 

including six industrial properties and two commercial properties (Sierra Plaza and Animal Hospital), and 

various partial and temporary easements, including seven roadway easements, one footing easement, 

one utility easement, and 15 temporary construction easements (TCEs) (see Figure 2-2. Right of Way 

Exhibit). Construction would be completed over an approximately 24-month period.

Improvements considered under Alternative 2 would meet the purpose and need of the Project. 

Connectivity between Rosecrans Avenue, Marquardt Avenue, Stage Road, and Anson Avenue would be

maintained through the use of signalized intersections. Utilities in the existing roadway would remain in 

their existing alignment, minimizing the duration of construction. Proposed transportation structures 

would be located outside of the BNSF ROW, so that a third set of BNSF tracks and future HSR tracks would 

be accommodated. The majority of construction activities under this alternative would be completed 

outside of the existing Rosecrans Avenue footprint in order to meet the purpose and need element, 

“maintain access to the railroad for emergency responders”, which includes access during Project 

construction. Access disruptions to residents, businesses, and the community during construction would

be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Operation of Alternative 2 would enhance mobility and 

quality of life for the community. Therefore, the Project would help achieve the desired safety and 

circulation improvements, and would meet the Project purpose and need.

2.4 Alternatives Dismissed

The following alternatives were considered, but dismissed in January of 2016 after completion of the 

Alternatives Analysis Report that was prepared for the Project (Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc., 2016).

2.4.1 Offset Overpass with One-Way Frontage Roads

Under the Offset Overpass with One-Way Frontage Roads Alternative, Rosecrans Avenue would be 

realigned to the south of the existing roadway footprint with a grade-separated overpass. Marquardt 

Avenue, south of Rosecrans Avenue, would maintain partial connectivity to Rosecrans Avenue with the 

use of frontage roads. Marquardt Avenue (south) would continue under the realigned Rosecrans Avenue 

and would connect to an on-ramp and off-ramp to Rosecrans Avenue on either side of the underpass. Due 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

14

to the loss of northbound right turn and westbound left turn movements, Marquardt Avenue (south) 

would only be accessible to Rosecrans Avenue in the eastbound travel direction, west of the railroad 

corridor. 

This alternative would affect 23 properties through ROW acquisition including full acquisition of eight 

properties, including six industrial properties and two commercial properties (Sierra Plaza and Animal 

Hospital), and various partial and temporary easements, including seven roadway easements, one footing 

easement, one utility easement, and 15 TCEs (see Figure 2-2. Right of Way Exhibit). The ROW costs 

associated with this alternative would be substantial. Under this alternative, the Project purpose and need 

would be met; however, Alternative 2 would accomplish the same improvements with minimized ROW 

impacts. Therefore, the alternative was dismissed from consideration.

2.4.2 Offset Underpass with Frontage Roads

The Offset Underpass with Frontage Roads Alternative would depress Rosecrans Avenue underneath the 

BNSF tracks and adjacent roadways. For this alternative, the proposed horizontal realignment of 

Rosecrans Avenue would be the same as described in the Offset Overpass with One-Way Frontage Roads 

alternative (Section 2.4.1). Marquardt Avenue (south) would continue over the realigned Rosecrans 

Avenue and would connect to an on-ramp and off-ramp to Rosecrans Avenue on either side of the 

overpass. Marquardt Avenue (north) would be connected to the extension of Stage Road in this 

alternative, and would stay at-grade on its own roadway bridge across the lowered portion of Rosecrans 

Avenue. The connection to Rosecrans Avenue would be maintained through the extension of Anson 

Avenue to Stage Road.

Shoofly tracks would be required to maintain railroad operations during construction, increasing cost and 

lengthening the duration of construction (36 to 40 months). Depressing the roadway would require 

significant utility relocations, which are especially challenging for the gravity lines (e.g., sewers and storm 

drains). Another challenge for an underpass alternative is accommodating future HSR. BNSF infrastructure 

constructed under this alternative would require widening, or partial demolition and reconstruction, to 

accommodate future HSR. While an underpass would require less ROW acquisition (seven full property 

acquisitions) the lengthy construction period, long-term disruption in traffic due to a long construction 

period, substantial utility relocations, substantial railroad impacts, substantial costs, and lack of HSR 

accommodation would result in several challenges under this alternative. Therefore, the alternative was 

dismissed from consideration.

2.4.3 Offset Underpass with Connector Roads

Under this alternative, the proposed realignment of Rosecrans Avenue would be similar to the alignment 

described for the Offset Overpass with One-Way Frontage Roads alternative (Section 2.4.1). Marquardt 

Avenue (south) would stay at grade and be extended across the lowered Rosecrans Avenue on a roadway 

bridge. The roadway would continue through the existing footprint of Rosecrans Avenue and connect to 

the realigned Rosecrans Avenue at a signalized intersection, similar to Alternative 2. Marquardt Avenue 

(north) would also be connected to the extension of Stage Road in this alternative similarly to Alternative
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

15

2. The roadway would stay at grade on its own bridge across the lowered portion of Rosecrans Avenue. 

The direct connection to Rosecrans Avenue would be severed for both Marquardt Avenue (north) and 

Stage Road. Access to Rosecrans Avenue would be provided through an extension of Anson Avenue.

Complications with the Offset Underpass with Connector Roads alternative would be the same as 

identified for the Offset Underpass with Frontage Roads alternative (Section 2.4.2). Therefore, the 

alternative was dismissed from consideration.

2.4.4 Offset Overpass with Connector Roads

Under this alternative, the proposed improvements would include all features described in Alternative 2: 

Offset Overpass with Connector Road, and would include an additional Connector Road to complete 

connection from Marquardt Avenue (north) to Rosecrans Avenue. The Connector Road was removed due 

to truck turning issues. The City of Santa Fe Springs, after review with their Fire Department, supported 

eliminating this connection to mitigate truck turning issues. Additionally, traffic volumes are light, and 

eliminating this connection did not result in significant trip redistribution in the traffic analyses.

2.4.5 Other Alternatives Withdrawn from Consideration

Other alternatives withdrawn from consideration include those that depressed the BNSF tracks (trench) 

under the roadways, those that shifted the alignment of Rosecrans Avenue to the north, and those that 

raised or lowered Marquardt Avenue (Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc., 2016).

Lower BNSF Tracks into Trench or Raise Tracks

A trench is not feasible because of the proximity of the Coyote Creek Channel. The BNSF tracks would 

need to be lowered approximately 30 feet below existing grade to provide adequate vertical clearance 

underneath Rosecrans Avenue (which would remain at-grade). With the longitudinal slopes permitted by 

BNSF, it would be impossible to return the tracks to existing grade at the bridge over the Coyote Creek 

Channel. Depressing the tracks would therefore sever this flood control channel, located less than 0.25 

mile northwest of the railroad crossing. Eliminating the flood control channel is not feasible.

Other key concerns are the industrial spur tracks, lead track, and storage tracks to the southeast of the 

grade crossing. These tracks are important to BNSF’s operations, and the connection to these tracks would 

be severed by any lowering of the tracks. Similarly, raising the BNSF tracks would sever the spur, lead, and 

storage tracks from the mainline tracks. Modifications to the rail elevations (lowering or raising) are not 

feasible.

Shift Rosecrans Avenue to the North

Realigning Rosecrans to the north is not feasible because of the skewed orientation of the BNSF tracks 

with the Rosecrans/Marquardt intersection. Realigning Rosecrans to the north would reduce the distance 

between the critical point of vertical clearance over (or under) BNSF’s ROW and Coyote Creek. 

Reconstruction of the Coyote Creek Bridge would be necessary, resulting in added project costs, and 

requiring coordination with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, the United States Army Corps 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

16

of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife.

Raise or Lower Marquardt Avenue

Raising or lowering Marquardt Avenue to connect to the raised or lowered portion of Rosecrans Avenue 

was considered. Raising or lowering Marquardt Avenue is not feasible because of the substantial ROW

impacts, primarily because of the loss of access to the properties from Marquardt Avenue, extending 

approximately 1,000 feet to the north and south of Rosecrans Avenue. As a result, the vast majority of 

fronting properties within these limits would require full acquisition and relocation, adding substantial

project costs and greatly affecting the surrounding businesses.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

17

Figure 2-1. Alternative 2 – Plan View
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

18

This page has been intentionally left blank.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

19

Figure 2-2. Right of Way Exhibit
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

20

This page has been intentionally left blank.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

21

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION

3.1 EnvironmentalIssues Excluded from Discussion

As part of the environmental analysis carried out for the Project, the following environmental issues were 

excluded from analysis in this EA. The following resources were excluded because the resources were not

identified as present in or near the project area according to the Community Impact Assessment and 

Natural Environmental Resources (Minimal Impacts) conducted for the Project (GPA Consulting, 2016a; 

GPA Consulting, 2016c). As a result, there is no further discussion about these resources in this document:

• Farmlands/Timberlands;

• Coastal Zone;

• Wild and Scenic Rivers; and

• Natural Communities (vernal pools, riparian habitat, grasslands, or woodlands).

In addition to resources not present, other resources found within the study area were found not be 

impacted by the Project. Those resources include:

• Parks and Recreational Facilities: No parks are in the project footprint; however, the following

parks are in the 0.5-mile buffer: 

o John Zimmerman Park at 13031 Shoemaker Ave in Norwalk;

o Gardenhill Park at 14435 Gardenhill Drive in La Mirada;

o Neff Park at 14300 San Bruno Drive in La Mirada;

o Ramona Park at Mapledale Street and Pontlavoy Avenue in Norwalk;

o Frontier Park at Foster Road and Marquardt Avenue in La Mirada; and 

o Norwalk Golf Center at 13717 Shoemaker Avenue in Norwalk (GPA Consulting, 2016a).

While several parks are within the 0.5-mile buffer, no parks or recreational facilities are located

directly in the project area. Therefore, the Project would not result in any permanent impacts or 

acquisition of parks or recreational facilities. Additionally, none of the parks or recreational 

facilities that are outside of the project area, but within the 0.5-mile buffer, would be indirectly 

affected by construction noise, pollutant emissions, or visual/aesthetic changes because the

distance from the project area exceeds the reach of any potential direct or indirect impacts

resulting from expected construction activity. Therefore, no impacts on parks and recreational 

facilities are anticipated to result from the Project.

• Geology/Soils/Seismicity: The project area is currently occupied by existing transportation 

infrastructure that has been designed according to current standards to ensure a reasonable 

degree of structural integrity. The Project would also be constructed according to these same 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

22

standards and would be able to withstand typical bedrock accelerations and site-specific geologic 

and soil conditions. Because the Project would not worsen existing hazards or result in additional 

exposure of the public to hazards, no impacts related to geology/soils/seismicity are anticipated 

to result from the Project.

• Hydrology and Floodplain: According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Map 

Number 06037C1843F, the Project is in Zone X, which is an area outside of the base floodplain 

(100-year) elevation of a water course or lake. The project area is highly developed and contains

little pervious surface. The Project would not increase impervious surface, alter hydrology, and is 

not in a floodplain; therefore, no impacts on hydrology and floodplain are anticipated to result 

from the Project.

• Wetlands and Other Waters: The biological study area (BSA) is in an urban area of Los Angeles 

County, and is completely developed. Coyote Creek, a concrete-lined channel owned and 

operated by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, flows under Rosecrans Avenue at the 

western end of the BSA (GPA Consulting, 2016c). No other waterways exist within the BSA. 

Roadway striping would be required along Rosecrans Avenue over Coyote Creek; however, the 

limits of structural work for the Project would be approximately 15 feet to the east of Coyote 

Creek. The Project would not require work within waters of the United States (U.S.) or state; 

therefore, regulatory permits from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional 

Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 

would not be required for the Project. Because the Project would not encroach into waterways, 

no impacts on wetlands or other waters are anticipated to result from the Project.

• Threatened and Endangered Species: According to the California Natural Diversity Database 

(CNDDB) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) species list searches, specialstatus species have the potential to be in the BSA based on geographical location. However, the 

project area is entirely within an urbanized area of Los Angeles County. Because of past 

disturbance, existing development, and current operations within the railroad corridor, there is 

no suitable habitat for any federally or state-listed threatened or endangered plant or wildlife 

species within the BSA, and no suitable habitat was observed within the BSA during a project level 

survey of the project area (GPA Consulting, 2016c). Because federally or state-listed species are 

not expected to be in the BSA, no impacts on federally or state-listed species are anticipated to 

result from the Project.

• Invasive Species: Several invasive plant species are in the BSA, including Peruvian pepper (Schinus 

molle), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), and Canary Island date palm (Phoenix 

canariensis) (GPA Consulting, 2016c). Existing vegetation would be preserved to the extent 

feasible, and Best Management Practices (BMP), such as identification of existing invasive species, 

avoidance of invasive species in erosion control, staff training, equipment cleaning, and 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

23

monitoring would be implemented in accordance with Executive Order 13112. Therefore, the 

introduction or spread of invasive species is not anticipated.

3.2 Existing and Future Land Use

The following discussion incorporates the results of the Community Impact Assessment (CIA) prepared for 

the Project (GPA Consulting, 2016a).

3.2.1 Regulatory Setting

Federal Railroad Administration 

1999 Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts

64 FR §28545 (May 26, 1999) outlines the procedures for the assessment of environmental impacts of 

actions and legislation proposed by FRA. Assessment procedures require that impacts of each alternative

on local land use controls and comprehensive regional planning as well as on development within the 

affected environment, including, where applicable, other proposed Federal actions in the area. Where 

inconsistencies or conflicts exist, this section should describe the extent of reconciliation and the reason 

for proceeding notwithstanding the absence of full reconciliation. If conflicts would result from the 

project, early notification to the State or Federal land management entity, and incorporation of such 

conflicts into the environmental document, would be required.

City of Santa Fe Springs

General Plan and Land Use Map

The City of Santa Fe Springs General Plan is a comprehensive planning document that addresses many 

aspects of community life in the city (City of Santa Fe Springs, 1994). The land use element of the general 

plan provides direction for future planning, designates future land use patterns, provides an inventory of 

current land uses, and specifies the appropriate density and intensity of development. The City of Santa 

Fe Springs General Plan Land Use Map shows the land use designations in the planning area (City of Santa 

Fe Springs, 2007a).

Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map

The City of Santa Fe Springs Zoning Ordinance is included in Chapter 155 of the City of Santa Fe Springs 

Municipal Code, and is intended to implement the City of Santa Fe Springs General Plan by dividing the 

city into zoning districts (City of Santa Fe Springs, 2015). The City of Santa Fe Springs Zoning Ordinance 

establishes permissible land uses and regulations for current and future development in each zoning 

district. The City of Santa Fe Springs Zoning Map shows where the zoning districts are throughout the city

(City of Santa Fe Springs, 2007b).
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

24

This page has been intentionally left blank.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

25

Figure 3-1. Community Impacts Study Area
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

26

This page has been intentionally left blank.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

27

City of La Mirada

General Plan and Land Use Map

The City of La Mirada General Plan guides the city to the year 2020 by setting forth goals and policies 

addressing land use, economic development, housing, and related issues (City of La Mirada, 2003a). The 

land use element of the general plan guides land use planning in the city by providing a framework for 

issues examined in the general plan and identifying how land will be used for business, housing, public 

facilities, transportation, and open space. The City of La Mirada General Plan Land Use Map shows the 

land use designations in the planning area (City of La Mirada, 2003b).

Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map

The City of La Mirada Zoning Ordinance is included in Title 21 of the City of La Mirada Municipal Code, and 

is intended to implement the City of La Mirada General Plan by dividing the city into zoning districts (City 

of La Mirada, 2015). The City of La Mirada Zoning Ordinance establishes permissible land uses and 

regulations for current and future development in each zoning district. The City of La Mirada Zoning Map 

shows where the zoning districts are throughout the city (City of La Mirada, 2012).

City of Norwalk

General Plan and Land Use Map

The City of Norwalk General Plan is a policy document that represents the official statement of the city 

regarding its social, physical, and economic goals (City of Norwalk, 2016). The City of Norwalk General 

Plan determines the potential growth of the city, including residential, commercial and industrial growth, 

and establishes goals to accommodate growth. The City of Norwalk General Plan Land Use Map shows the 

land use designations in the planning area (City of Norwalk, 2015).

Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map

The City of Norwalk Zoning Ordinance is included in Title 17 of the City of Norwalk Municipal Code, and is 

intended to implement the City of Norwalk General Plan by dividing the city into zoning districts (City of 

Norwalk, 2016). The City of Norwalk Zoning Ordinance establishes permissible land uses and regulations 

for current and future development in each zoning district. The City of Norwalk Zoning Map shows where 

the zoning districts are throughout the city (City of Norwalk, 2015).

3.2.2 Affected Environment

The study area for this analysis was determined using aerial photographs to identify physical 

characteristics, such as roadways and land use patterns, which naturally delineate communities and 

neighborhoods. Land use, zoning, and community facilities maps for jurisdictions in the study area were 

also reviewed.

A site visit was conducted on February 4, 2016 to verify physical delineators, and to document community 

facilities and general neighborhood cohesion. The study area boundaries for community impacts are 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

28

generally within a 0.5-mile radius of the project area, but were adjusted to be consistent with roadways 

that serve as physical delineators, such as Imperial Highway (State Route 90) to the north, La Mirada 

Boulevard and Escalona Road to the east, Bloomfield Avenue to the west, and Alondra Boulevard to the 

south (see Figure 3-1. Community Impacts Study Area). The study area is in the cities of Santa Fe Springs, 

La Mirada, and Norwalk.

Developed Land Uses

The central portion of the study area in Santa Fe Springs is dominated by commercial and industrial 

buildings. Residential neighborhoods are the primary land uses in the eastern portion of the study area in 

La Mirada, as well as in the western portion of the study area in Norwalk.

The project area includes the existing roadways (Rosecrans Avenue, Marquardt Avenue, Stage Road, and 

Anson Avenue); the BNSF railroad tracks; and industrial and commercial buildings. The existing roadways 

are asphalt-paved with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, and provide access to industrial and commercial 

businesses. Specifics about the project area roadways and the BNSF corridor are discussed in Section 3.8.

Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations

Land uses in the project area within the City of Santa Fe Springs are dominated by commercial and 

industrial buildings. According to the City of Santa Fe Springs General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map, 

the project area is zoned as M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing) and M-2-PD (Heavy Manufacturing – Planned 

Development Overlay Zone) (City of Santa Fe Springs, 2007a; City of Santa Fe Springs, 2007b).
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

29

Figure 3-2. Zoning Map illustrates the zoned land uses in the project area, per the City of Santa Fe Springs 

Zoning Map.

Existing land uses in the eastern portion of the study area in La Mirada are primarily designated as Low 

Density Residential, with a few areas that are designated as High Density Residential, Medium Density 

Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Public/Institutional, and Parks and Open Space (City of La Mirada, 

2003b). This portion of the study area is primarily zoned as R-1 (Single-Family Residential), with some 

properties that are zoned as R-4 (High-Density Residential), R-3 (Medium Density Residential), C-4 

(General Commercial), M-2 (Industrial), IHSP (Imperial Highway Specific Plan), and PUD (Planned Unit 

Development).

Existing land uses in the western portion of the study area in Norwalk are primarily designated as Low 

Density Residential, with a few areas that are designated as High Density Residential, Neighborhood 

Commercial, Professional Offices, General Commercial, Light Industrial, Heavy Industrial, and Open 

Space/Schools/Public Facilities (City of Norwalk, 2015). This portion of the study area is primarily zoned 

as R1 (Single Family Residential), with some properties that are zoned as R3 (Multiple Family High 

Density Residential), C1 (Restricted Commercial), C3 (General Commercial), PO (Professional & Office), 

CO (Commercial & Office), M1 (Light Manufacturing), M2 (Heavy Manufacturing), and OS (Open 

Space/Schools/Public Facilities) (City of Norwalk, 2015). 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

30

Figure 3-2. Zoning Map
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

31

This page has been intentionally left blank.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

32

Growth and Development Trends

The study area is heavily developed with commercial and industrial uses in the central portion of the study 

area in Santa Fe Springs and eastern portion of Norwalk. Two residential neighborhoods are in the eastern 

and western portions of the study area in La Mirada and Norwalk, respectively. 

Approximately 84 percent of Santa Fe Springs’ nine square miles are zoned for commercial and industrial 

uses (City of Santa Fe Springs, 2015). Santa Fe Springs’ daytime population is estimated to be 95,000 

because of the employees that commute to the city (City of Santa Fe Springs, 2015). According to an online 

real estate website, currently 22 listings of industrial properties are for lease in Santa Fe Springs, ranging 

in size from 8,039 to 268,536 square feet (LoopNet, 2018). 

Santa Fe Springs’ population increased by 1,002 residents between 2000 and 2014, a growth rate of 6.1 

percent, which was higher than Los Angeles County’s 5.7 percent growth rate during that period 

(Southern California Association of Governments, 2015b). Santa Fe Springs’ population in 2010 was 

16,223, with a population density of 1,828 persons per square mile (United States Census Bureau, 2015). 

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) population projections predict that Santa Fe 

Springs’s population will be approximately 20,300 people in 2035 (Southern California Association of 

Governments, 2012).Between 2000 and 2014, La Mirada and Norwalk had population growth rates of 5.5 

percent and 2.2 percent, respectively, which were both lower than Los Angeles County’s growth rate of 

5.7 percent (Southern California Association of Governments, 2015a; Southern California Association of 

Governments, 2015c). 

Table 3-1. Current and Future Development Projects in the Cities of Santa Fe Springs, La Mirada, and 

Norwalk lists current and future development projects in Santa Fe Springs, La Mirada, and Norwalk, which 

include two residential projects, several commercial and industrial projects, a transportation project, and 

a habitat restoration project (City of Santa Fe Springs, 2017; City of La Mirada, 2016; The Governor's Office 

Of Planning and Research, 2016). Planned development is current as of 2016 for La Mirada, and 2017 for 

Santa Fe Springs and Norwalk.

Table 3-1. Current and Future Development Projects in the Cities of Santa Fe Springs, La Mirada, and 

Norwalk

Project Name Jurisdiction Proposed Uses Status

Residential

Keana Development, LLC City of Santa Fe 

Springs

Construct 50 condominiums with 

associated driveways, parking, pool 

area with clubhouse, and landscape.

Approved

The Orchards City of La 

Mirada

Construct 41 detached, single-family, 

2-story homes on a 4-acre site. Constructed
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

33

Project Name Jurisdiction Proposed Uses Status

Commercial

Carmenita Plaza, LLC City of Santa Fe 

Springs

Demolish the existing building to

construct a new commercial building 

with a coffee shop, retail, and 

restaurant spaces.

Approved

Aldi Supermarket City of Santa Fe 

Springs

Construct a 18,557-square foot

grocery store building on 1.94 acres 

of a 3.94-acre property located at 

13210 Telegraph Road.

Approved

Salt and Pepper 

Restaurant & Sports Bar

City of Santa Fe 

Springs

Salt and Pepper is adding 3,200 

square foot to the west side of the 

existing 7,710 sq. ft. building located 

at 13325 Telegraph Road.

Approved

Azar Event Center City of Santa Fe 

Springs

Azar Event Center is an indoor 

banquet hall facility that will be 

moving into a vacant 7,202 square 

footsingle story building.

Approved

76 Gas Station City of Santa Fe 

Springs

Construct a new gas station and 

convenience market. Approved

PIH Health City of Santa Fe 

Springs

Construct a medical office at 

approximately 35,076 square feet. Approved

Starbucks Coffee City of Santa Fe 

Springs

Convert a 2,400-square foot multitenant pad building to a single-tenant 

with the addition of a 105-square foot 

drive-thru window and drive-thru 

lane.

Approved

Crossroads Center City of La 

Mirada

Construct a shopping center that 

includes a drug store, grocery store, 

and restaurants.

Constructed

Industrial

Xebec Realty Partners City of Santa Fe 

Springs

Construct a 58,396-square foot 

warehouse on a 3.01-acre site. Approved
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

34

Project Name Jurisdiction Proposed Uses Status

Cambridge Springs, LLC City of Santa Fe 

Springs

Demolish an existing 132,808 square 

foot building and construct a new 

industrial building at 185,060 square 

feet.

Approved

CRW Leasing Co. Inc. City of Santa Fe 

Springs

Construct a new 63,500-square-foot 

concrete tilt-up industrial building on 

2.92-acre site.

Approved

Goodman Birtcher City of Santa Fe 

Springs

Construct three concrete tilt-up 

buildings on a 54-acre site. Approved

Romandel, LLC City of Santa Fe 

Springs

Construct a new 21,563 square foot 

concrete tilt-up industrial building on 

a 1.33-acre site, which is located at 

9911 Romandel Avenue.

Approved

Overton Moore Properties City of Santa Fe 

Springs

Construct 41,046 square foot building 

on 2-acres of a 3.94-acre property 

located at the southeast corner of 

Painter Avenue and Telegraph Road, 

behind ALDI supermarket.

Approved

Chalmers Equity Group City of Santa Fe 

Springs

Construct a concrete tilt-up building 

at approximately 13,500 square feet 

(Building 2). The 2.30-acre site is 

located at 12070 Altamar Place & 

9070 Dice Road.

Approved

Transportation

I-5 Freeway Corridor

Cities of Buena 

Park, La 

Mirada, Santa 

Fe Springs, 

Norwalk, 

Downey, and 

Commerce

Widen I-5 freeway from six lanes to 

10 lanes to enhance capacity. Under Construction

Habitat Restoration

Median & Side Panel Turf 

Removal & Native Plant 

Replacement Project

City of Norwalk

Replace existing turf in median islands 

and side panels with native drought 

tolerant plantings.

Approved
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

35

Source: City of Santa Fe Springs, 2016; City of La Mirada, 2016; The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2016

3.2.3 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative would not result in any changes to existing or future land uses. Growth and 

development within and surrounding the study area would continue according to existing land use and 

zoning designations, and no changes in land use or zoning would be required. Therefore, no impacts are 

anticipated.

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road (Build Alternative)

To implement the Project, full acquisition of ROW from full acquisition of eight properties, including six 

industrial properties and two commercial properties (Sierra Plaza and Animal Hospital) (see Figure 2-2.

Right of Way Exhibit). As described above, land use on these properties is Industrial. Under the Build 

Alternative, these properties would be fully incorporated into the transportation facility because the 

overpass would be constructed within and over these properties. The properties would therefore no 

longer be used for industrial purposes, and the businesses on these properties would require relocation. 

On the south side of the re-aligned Rosecrans Avenue, six of the eight parcels required for full acquisition 

would have a remnant area that would be available for potential reuse. Remnant parcels would likely be 

sold by Metro to recoup as much of the ROW costs as possible. For the remnant parcels on the east side 

of the project area, access would be provided from Stage Road. The remnant parcel immediately south of 

the grade crossing would have access provided from Marquardt Avenue. The remnant parcels on the 

southwest side would likely be combined into a single parcel, with a driveway connecting to Marquardt 

Avenue. For these remnant parcels, the design team has also made provisions for a future driveway from 

the new cul-de-sac.

Rosecrans Avenue and Marquardt Avenue are existing roadways, and the grade separation would replace 

existing access points; therefore, implementation of the Build Alternative would not provide new access 

to surrounding areas that could induce additional development and growth beyond what is already 

planned by the cities in the study area. Alternative 2 would not be expected to induce substantial growth 

in the study area; rather, it would result in safety improvements that would benefit existing and planned 

developments; therefore, the Project is not anticipated to result in impacts on developed and planned 

land uses, zoning, population growth, or development in the project area.

3.2.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

Adequate vacancy of suitable industrial and commercial properties exists in Santa Fe Springs to 

accommodate relocated businesses without resulting in changes in land use outside of the project area

(see Section 3.5). Land acquired for ROW would not require rezoning. Since the Project is not anticipated 

to result in substantial impacts on existing or future land uses in the study area, no mitigation measures 

are required.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

36

3.3 Consistencywith Regional and Local Plans and Programs

The following regional and local plans and programs are applicable to the Project and project area.

3.3.1 Regulatory Setting

Southern California Association of Governments 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan

The SCAG 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) is an advisory document for the voluntary use of local 

agencies when preparing local plans and handling issues of regional significance (Southern California 

Association of Governments, 2008). The RCP addresses important regional issues, such as housing, 

traffic/transportation, water, and air quality, and presents a vision of how the region can balance resource 

conservation, economic vitality, and quality of life. 

Southern California Association of Governments 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable 

Communities Strategy and 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program

The SCAG 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) identifies 

and analyzes transportation needs for the region and creates a framework for project priorities (Southern 

California Association of Governments, 2012). The 2015 Federal Transportation Improvement Program 

(FTIP) is a capital listing of all transportation projects in the SCAG region. 

The Project is listed in the 2015 FTIP, Amendment #15-04 as Project ID# LA0G1047, “Rosecrans/Marquardt 

Grade Separation: This Project includes construction of BNSF third track and grade separation at the 

intersection of Rosecrans/Marquardt in the City of Santa Fe Springs. This will result in enhancing the safety 

and traffic flow on surface streets throughout the rail corridor as well as enhancing the efficiency of train 

movement and possibly attract more ridership” (Southern California Association of Governments, 

2015d).

Caltrans Service Development Plan – Pacific Surfliner South Corridor

The Pacific Surfliner South Corridor Service Development Plan (2013) describes the corridor, identifies 

proposed service expansion and operational improvements, presents the rationale for such expanded and 

improved services, and identifies candidate rail infrastructure investments needed to support growth and 

deliver improved operations. The service expansion, operational, and infrastructural improvements are 

consistent with the statewide vision and objectives established in the 2013 California State Rail Plan. The 

larger Triple Track Project has been incorporated into strategies outlined in the Service Development Plan. 

LOSSAN Corridorwide Strategic Implementation Plan

The Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency initiated the LOSSAN 

Corridorwide Strategic Implementation Plan to establish a corridorwide vision for passenger rail services. 

This vision was adopted by the LOSSAN Board of Directors in 2009, and the Final Report was completed 

in 2010. The plan calls for a review of the future of the entire rail corridor with an emphasis on Intercity 

Rail service. The larger Triple Track Project was included as part of the LOSSAN Corridorwide Strategic 

Implementation Plan to reach the goals established through the plan.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

37

City of Santa Fe Springs General Plan

The City of Santa Fe Springs General Plan is a comprehensive planning document that addresses many 

aspects of community life in the city (City of Santa Fe Springs, 1994). The general plan includes the seven 

state-required elements of land use, circulation, housing, open space, conservation, safety, and noise.

City of La Mirada General Plan

The City of La Mirada General Plan guides the city to the year 2020 by setting forth goals and policies 

addressing land use, economic development, housing, and related issues (City of La Mirada, 2003a). The 

general plan includes the seven state-required elements, including land use, circulation, housing, open 

space, conservation, and safety and community services (which includes noise), as well as an economic 

element. 

City of Norwalk General Plan

The City of Norwalk General Plan is a policy document that represents the official statement of the city 

regarding its social, physical, and economic goals (City of Norwalk, 2016). The City of Norwalk General 

Plan determines the potential growth of the city, including residential, commercial and industrial growth, 

and establishes goals to accommodate growth. The general plan includes the seven state-require 

elements, which include land use, circulation, housing, open space, conservation, safety, and noise, as 

well as community design, educational and cultural resources, and utility infrastructure.

3.3.2 Affected Environment

The study area boundaries for community impacts are generally within a 0.5-mile radius of the project 

area, but were adjusted to be consistent with roadways that serve as physical delineators, such as Imperial 

Highway (State Route 90) to the north, La Mirada Boulevard and Escalona Road to the east, Bloomfield 

Avenue to the west, and Alondra Boulevard to the south (see Figure 3-1. Community Impacts Study Area).

The study area is heavily developed with commercial and industrial uses in the central portion of the study 

area in Santa Fe Springs, and residential neighborhoods in the northern, eastern, and western portions of 

the study area in La Mirada and Norwalk. Please refer to Section 1.2 and Section 3.2 for more information.

3.3.3 Environmental Consequences

Table 3-2. Consistency with State, Regional, and Local Plans and Programs shows the consistency of the 

No Build Alternative and Build Alternative with applicable regional and local land use and transportation 

plans adopted for the area.

Table 3-2. Consistency with State, Regional, and Local Plans and Programs

Policy/Goal Alternative 1: No Build Alternative Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with 

Connector Road (Build Alternative)

LOSSAN Strategic Implementation Plan
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

38

Policy/Goal Alternative 1: No Build Alternative Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with 

Connector Road (Build Alternative)

Completion of the BNSF 

Third Main Track

Inconsistent. The LOSSAN Strategic 

Implementation Plan is partially 

founded on completion of the BNSF 

Third Main Track, as part of the triple 

track program, which includes 

implementation of the project. Failure 

to complete the triple track would result 

in conflict with the plan.

Consistent. The Build Alternative would 

result in implementation of the triple 

track program through facilitation of the 

BNSF third main track construction. 

Therefore, the Build Alternative would 

be consistent with this goal.

Pacific Surfliner North Service Development Plan 

Implementation of 

Previous Corridor 

Planning Studies

Inconsistent. The Pacific Surfliner North 

Service Development Plan is intended to 

facilitate projects that were identified 

thought previous corridor planning 

studies conducted, which include the 

Project. Failure to complete the 

implement the Project would result in 

conflict with the plan.

Consistent. The Build Alternative would 

result in implementation of the triple

track program through facilitation of the 

BNSF third main track construction. 

Therefore, the Build Alternative would 

be consistent with this goal.

Southern California Association of Governments 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan

Transportation Goal: A 

more efficient 

transportation system 

that reduces and better 

manages vehicle activity.

Consistent. The No Build Alternative 

would not result any changes to existing 

conditions, and would therefore not 

conflict with this goal. However, this 

alternative would not achieve the 

transportation improvements projected 

to result under the build alternative.

Consistent. The Build Alternative would 

result in a more efficient transportation 

system by eliminating conflicts between 

vehicles and trains at the 

Rosecrans/Marquardt Avenue and BNSF 

railroad tracks intersection. Therefore, 

the Build Alternative would be 

consistent with this goal.

Security and Emergency 

Preparedness Goal: 

Ensure transportation 

safety, security, and 

reliability for all people 

and goods in the region.

Consistent. The No Build Alternative 

would not result any changes to existing 

conditions, and would therefore not 

conflict with this goal. However, this 

alternative would not achieve the 

transportation improvements projected 

to result under the build alternative.

Consistent. The Build Alternative would 

help to ensure transportation safety, 

security, and reliability by eliminating 

conflicts between vehicles and trains at 

the Rosecrans/Marquardt Avenue and 

BNSF railroad tracks intersection. 

Therefore, the Build Alternative would 

be consistent with this goal.

Southern California Association of Governments 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable 

Communities Strategy
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

39

Policy/Goal Alternative 1: No Build Alternative Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with 

Connector Road (Build Alternative)

Goal: Maximize mobility 

and accessibility for all 

people and goods in the 

region.

Consistent. The No Build Alternative 

would not result any changes to existing 

conditions, and would therefore not 

conflict with this goal. However, this 

alternative would not achieve the 

transportation improvements projected 

to result under the build alternative.

Consistent. The Build Alternative would 

maximize mobility and accessibility in 

the region by eliminating conflicts 

between vehicles and trains at the 

Rosecrans/Marquardt Avenue and BNSF 

railroad tracks intersection. Therefore, 

the Build Alternative would be 

consistent with this goal.

City of Santa Fe General Plan

Goal 10.1: Continue to 

protect the Santa Fe 

Springs community from 

the loss of life and 

property from crime or 

traffic hazards.

Consistent. The No Build Alternative 

would not result any changes to existing 

conditions, and would therefore not 

conflict with this policy. However, this 

alternative would not achieve the 

transportation improvements projected 

to result under the build alternative.

Consistent. The Build Alternative would 

eliminate conflicts between vehicles 

and trains at the Rosecrans/Marquardt 

Avenue and BNSF railroad tracks

intersection. Therefore, the Build 

Alternative would be consistent with 

this goal.

Policy 1.10: Continue 

plans to provide grade 

separation between 

railroads and major 

thoroughfares, wherever 

feasible.

Consistent. The No Build Alternative 

would not result any changes to existing 

conditions, and would therefore not 

conflict with this policy. However, this 

alternative would not achieve the 

transportation improvements projected 

to result under the build alternative.

Consistent. The Build Alternative would 

include the construction of an overpass

to raise Rosecrans Avenue above the 

BNSF railroad tracks. Therefore, the 

Build Alternative would be consistent 

with this policy.

City of La Mirada General Plan

Goal 4.0: Maintain a safe 

and efficient railroad 

system.

Policy 4.2: Support efforts 

by the city of Santa Fe 

Springs to install an 

overpass at Rosecrans 

Avenue to reduce 

congestion in La Mirada.

Consistent. The No Build Alternative 

would not result any changes to existing 

conditions, and would therefore not 

conflict with this goal and policy. 

However, this alternative would not 

achieve the transportation 

improvements projected to result under 

the build alternative.

Consistent. The Build Alternative would 

include the construction of an overpass

to raise Rosecrans Avenue above the 

BNSF railroad tracks. Therefore, the 

Build Alternative would be consistent 

with this goal and policy.

City of Norwalk General Plan
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

40

Policy/Goal Alternative 1: No Build Alternative Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with 

Connector Road (Build Alternative)

The general plan 

establishes goals to 

accommodate growth.

Consistent. The No Build Alternative 

would not result any changes to existing 

conditions, and would therefore not 

conflict with the general plan’s goals to 

accommodate growth.

Consistent. The Build Alternative would 

not result in any impacts on growth in 

the study area, and is therefore 

consistent with the general plan’s goals 

to accommodate growth.

Source: Southern California Association of Governments, 2008; 2012; City of Santa Fe Springs, 1994; City of La Mirada, 2003a; City 

of Norwalk, 2016

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative would not result in any changes to existing conditions, and, as shown in Table 

3-2. Consistency with State, Regional, and Local Plans and Programs. The No Build Alternative would not 

improve the safety of railroad crossings or address future traffic and circulation issues forecasted for the 

project area, and therefore, would conflict with the LOSSAN Strategic Implementation Plan and Pacific 

Surfliner North Service Development Plan. 

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road (Build Alternative)

As shown in Table 3-2. Consistency with State, Regional, and Local Plans and Programs, the Build 

Alternative would be consistent with the goals and policies that call for improved traffic and circulation

and be consistent with future land use and development. Therefore, the Build Alternative would be 

compatible with applicable plans, and no impact from conflicts with applicable plans and programs is

anticipated.

3.3.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

The Project is not anticipated to result in impacts related to consistency with plans and programs;

therefore, no avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required.

3.4 Community Character and Cohesion

The following discussion incorporates the results of the CIA prepared for the Project (GPA Consulting, 

2016a).

3.4.1 Regulatory Setting

National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA, as amended, established that the federal government use all practicable means to ensure that all 

Americans have safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings (42 

United States Code [USC] 4331[b][2]). 64 FR §28545 (May 26, 1999) outlines the procedures for the 

assessment under NEPA of environmental impacts on the socioeconomic environment, including the 

number and kinds of available jobs, the potential for community disruption and demographic shifts, the 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

41

need for and availability of relocation housing, impacts on commerce, including existing business districts, 

metropolitan areas, and the immediate area of the alternative, and impacts on local government services 

and revenues.

3.4.2 Affected Environment

The study area boundaries for community impacts are generally within a 0.5-mile radius of the project 

area, but were adjusted to be consistent with roadways that serve as physical delineators, such as Imperial 

Highway (State Route 90) to the north, La Mirada Boulevard and Escalona Road to the east, Bloomfield 

Avenue to the west, and Alondra Boulevard to the south (see Figure 3-1. Community Impacts Study Area).

Community cohesion is the degree to which residents have a “sense of belonging” and a level of 

commitment to their neighborhood, or a strong attachment to neighbors, groups, and institutions, usually 

because of continued association over time. The residential area in the study area is fragmented and 

bounded by surrounding industrial land uses. In the study area, a clear distinction between industrial and 

residential land use, as shown on local zoning maps, begins just above Rosecrans Avenue and along

Marquardt Avenue and Valley View Avenue. Because residential areas are cohesive in their structure, 

separated from industrial uses in distinct neighborhoods, it is assumed that community members have a 

strong sense of belonging and a high level of commitment to their neighborhood. In addition, structures 

in the project area were constructed between 1948 and 1997, with a median construction date of 1973, 

indicating that the majority of structures in the project area were constructed more than 40 years ago

(Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc., 2016). Therefore, community cohesion in the project area is assumed to 

be high because there has been continued association over time.

Approximately 84 percent of Santa Fe Springs’ nine square miles are zoned for commercial and industrial 

uses (City of Santa Fe Springs, 2015). Santa Fe Springs’ daytime population is estimated to be 95,000 

because of the employees that commute to the city (City of Santa Fe Springs, 2015). Santa Fe Springs’ 

population increased by 1,002 residents between 2000 and 2014 (Southern California Association of 

Governments, 2015b). Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) population projections 

predict that Santa Fe Springs’s population will be approximately 20,300 people in 2035 (Southern 

California Association of Governments, 2012). Santa Fe Springs’ had a population density of 1,828 persons 

per square mile in 2010 (United States Census Bureau, 2015). Between 2000 and 2014, La Mirada and 

Norwalk had population growth rates of 5.5 percent and 2.2 percent, respectively, which were both lower 

than Los Angeles County’s growth rate of 5.7 percent (Southern California Association of Governments, 

2015a; Southern California Association of Governments, 2015c). 

3.4.3 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, there would be no changes to community character or cohesion within or 

surrounding the project area. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

42

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road (Build Alternative)

Since the Project would include improvements to existing roadways and to the circulation system, the 

Project would not be expected to divide existing neighborhoods or affect community cohesion. Therefore, 

no adverse impacts on community cohesion are anticipated. 

The Build Alternative would require the construction of additional transportation infrastructure in the 

project area. The overpass would be a new vertical element that would be visible to nearby viewers. The 

nearest sensitive viewers are residences approximately 400 feet north of the project area. Several 

industrial warehouse buildings are located between the project area and the residences. One industrial

building, the Vance and Hines building, is located in the northeast corner of the Rosecrans Avenue and 

Marquardt Avenue intersection and is approximately 20 feet high. This building would be the tallest 

feature between the residential area to the northeast and the proposed overpass to the southwest. The 

elevation of the proposed overpass would be approximately 35 feet tall. Therefore, the overpass would 

not be visible from the residences because the overpass would only be 1.75 time taller than the Vance 

and Hines building, and views of the overpass from the community would be blocked by buildings adjacent 

to the community, north of the Vance and Hines building (see Figure 3-3. Visual Simulation).

In addition, the new overpass would likely blend in with the industrial landscape surrounding the project 

area because the overpass would most likely be constructed of similar colors and materials as adjacent 

buildings (e.g., gray concrete and asphalt). Because the new overpass would not be highly visible from 

residences, and would blend in with the surrounding industrial landscape. Additionally, implementation 

of the Project would improve safety and access for community residents, local businesses and facilities, 

and public services. Improvements to the circulation system would be compatible with adjacent and 

surrounding transportation and industrial land uses. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to result in 

impacts on community character.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

43

Figure 3-3. Visual Simulation

Source: Biggs Cardosa Associates, 2016

The Project would be constructed over existing transportation facilities. An overpass would be added to 

the existing project area, which would improve safety and circulation in the intersection. Through 

increased safety and construction of pedestrian facilities, the Project would improve pedestrian access

and mobility in the project area. Pedestrian access in the project area is important for pedestrians 

commuting from the residential neighborhood to the northeast of the project area to the industrial and 

commercial businesses surrounding the project area. Therefore, the Project would not result in adverse 

impacts on community cohesion, but has the potential to improve community cohesion.

Construction activities could result in temporary impacts on community character and cohesion, including 

noise from construction equipment and vehicles, traffic from construction vehicles on roadways, air 

quality emissions of dust from earth moving activities and exhaust from construction vehicles/equipment, 

and visual impacts from construction equipment and debris that could affect communities in the study 

area. These impacts could temporarily affect mobility and quality of life in the community; however, with 

adherence to local policies and the implementation of standard construction Best Management Practices 

(BMPs), including measures to limit construction hours and implement traffic management plans, which 

would reduce and minimize these temporary impacts to the greatest extent feasible.

3.4.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

The Project would not result in adverse impacts on community character or cohesion; therefore, no 

avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures are required.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

44

3.5 Relocations and Real Property Acquisition

3.5.1 Regulatory Setting

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970

The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended in 

1987, is often referred to simply as the Uniform Act. The Uniform Act provides uniform and equitable 

treatment of persons displaced from their homes, businesses, non-profit associations, or farms by federal 

and federally-assisted programs, and establishes uniform and equitable land acquisition policies.

Metro will be responsible for property acquisition and negotiations. If the property owner and Metro are 

unable to agree on the purchase of a property, the condemnation process would become the next step. 

The property owner would be notified that Metro intends to seek a Resolution of Necessity (RON) from 

the California Transportation Commission (CTC), which would authorize Metro to file a lawsuit to acquire 

the property rights through legal negotiation in the court.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, which states that “No person in the Unites States shall, 

on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, 

or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance

(United States Congress, 1964).” All relocation services and benefits are administered without regard to 

race, color, national origin, or sex in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (Title 42 USC Section 

2000d, et seq.) (United States Congress, 1964). 

3.5.2 Affected Environment 

The project area was also considered the study area for relocations and real property acquisitions. The 

project area includes warehouses and commercial buildings within and adjacent to the proposed 

transportation improvements; the existing roadways (Rosecrans Avenue, Marquardt Avenue, Stage Road, 

and Anson Avenue); and the BNSF railroad tracks. The existing roadways are asphalt-paved with curbs, 

gutters, and sidewalks, and provide access to industrial and commercial businesses.

3.5.3 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative would not require the acquisition of any properties; therefore, no impacts are 

anticipated. 

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road (Build Alternative)

As shown in Figure 2-2. Right of Way Exhibit and the Build Alternative would require full acquisition of 

eight properties, including six industrial properties and two commercial properties, as well partial and 

temporary easements, including seven roadway easements, one footing easement, one utility easement, 

and 15 TCEs (see Table 3-3. Right of Way Impacts). The roadway easement and TCEs would be required in 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

45

only portions of adjacent industrial properties that are occupied by parking areas. All parking 

configurations after Project implementation would meet parking requirements of the City. Removal of 

industrial facilities in the project area would reduce parking space count requirements. Any additional 

parking necessary to accommodate existing uses in the area would be retained or replaced according to 

City requirements. Access to these adjacent businesses would be maintained during construction. 

Therefore, potential impacts on these properties are not anticipated to be adverse.

The Project would require the including full acquisition of eight properties, including six industrial 

properties and two commercial properties, which would require relocation of the businesses operating 

on the properties. All parcels that would be acquired for the Project are zoned for industrial use, and are 

currently occupied, with the exception of APN 8069-003-009, which is currently vacant, and developed with 

permanent industrial or commercial buildings and asphalt-paved parking areas. As stated previously, the 

majority of Santa Fe Springs’ land area (approximately 84 percent) is zoned for commercial and industrial 

uses (City of Santa Fe Springs, 2015). According to an online real estate website, currently 38 of industrial 

properties are for lease in Santa Fe Springs, ranging in size from 970 to 355,590 square feet; 13 listings of 

office and medical spaces for lease, ranging in size from 153 to 10,322 square feet; and five listings of 

retail spaces for lease, ranging in size from 810 to 21, 862 square feet (LoopNet, 2018). Because the 

majority of Santa Fe Springs is zoned for commercial and industrial uses, several listings of similar 

industrial and commercial properties are available for lease. Adequate vacancy of suitable industrial and 

commercial properties exists in Santa Fe Springs to accommodate relocated businesses.
 Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

46

Table 3-3. Right of Way Impacts

Assessor’s 

Parcel Number Address City Year Built

Lot Size 

(Square Feet) Land Owner Business Name

Right of Way Impacts (Square Feet)

Full 

Acquisition

Roadway 

Easement

Footing 

Easement

Utility 

Easement

Temporary 

Construction 

Easement

8059-029-028 13633 Rosecrans 

Avenue

Santa Fe 

Springs 1989 45,376 SFSS LLC Santa Fe Self Storage 394

8059-029-010 13649 Rosecrans 

Avenue

Santa Fe 

Springs 1960 77,918 Ban Sang W & Bang Family Trust

Floor Discount Warehouse/Ready Mix 

Concrete 8,310

8059-029-009 13659 Rosecrans 

Avenue

Santa Fe 

Springs 1973 40,906 Rosecrans Associates LP Broussard Enterprise, Inc. 3,628

8059-029-031 13729 Rosecrans 

Avenue

Santa Fe 

Springs 1959 54,032 H&E Equipment Services H&E Equipment Services 4,647 5,177

8059-029-030 13729 Rosecrans 

Avenue

Santa Fe 

Springs 1956 27,627 H&E Equipment Services H&E Equipment Services 566 4,930

8059-029-029 13733 Rosecrans 

Avenue

Santa Fe 

Springs 1970 12,595 Disabled American Veterans Disabled American Veterans 1,357 1,574

8069-003-039 13650 Rosecrans 

Avenue

Santa Fe 

Springs 1973 39,458 Patridge Max and Betty TRS Et Al. Industrial Sprockets & Gears, Inc. 716 5,278

8069-003-040 13700 Rosecrans 

Avenue

Santa Fe 

Springs 1978 36,990 Chung Song T and Chang Y TRS Chun Family Trust L.A. Supply Company 36,990

8069-003-009 13720 Rosecrans 

Avenue

Santa Fe 

Springs 1971 44,995 DP Milroy LLC Vacant 44,995

8069-003-008 13730 Rosecrans 

Avenue

Santa Fe 

Springs 1978 44,999 GDS Partners LLC Unknown 44,999

8069-003-007 13750 Rosecrans 

Avenue

Santa Fe 

Springs 1978 47,139 GDS Partners LLC Gordon Industries Inc. (Metal Stamping) 47,139

8069-007-043 14330 Marquardt 

Avenue

Santa Fe 

Springs 1976 49,041 Dedeoglu Artin and Gulhatun TRS

Ari's Wholesale (Importer & Distributor of 

Fine Foods) 49,041
 Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

47

Assessor’s 

Parcel Number Address City Year Built

Lot Size 

(Square Feet) Land Owner Business Name

Right of Way Impacts (Square Feet)

Full 

Acquisition

Roadway 

Easement

Footing 

Easement

Utility 

Easement

Temporary 

Construction 

Easement

8059-029-007 14037 Marquardt 

Avenue

Santa Fe 

Springs 1959 101,833 Pan Pacific Fiber, Inc. Pan Pacific Fiber, Inc. 867

8059-028-029 13861 Rosecrans 

Avenue

Santa Fe 

Springs 1976 71,371 Vance, Marvin T Trust Vance & Hines 464 8,591

8059-028-028 13861 Rosecrans 

Avenue

Santa Fe 

Springs 1976 76,044 Vance, Marvin T Trust Vance & Hines 3,682

8059-028-020 13937 Rosecrans 

Avenue

Santa Fe 

Springs 1974 82,616 Diversified Silicone Products Diversified Silicone Products 10,282

8059-028-053 14001 Rosecrans 

Avenue La Mirada 1997 618,120 BB and K LA Mirada Industrial Unknown 846

8069-005-001 13840-13848 

Rosecrans Avenue

Santa Fe 

Springs 1948 14,789 Sierra Basilio A and Lisa A Sierra Plaza: Little Ears Therapy Center, Disaster Kits, Boxing-MMA Muay Thai 14,789

8069-005-002 13900 Rosecrans 

Avenue

Santa Fe 

Springs 1961 59,619 Nogle H D and Sons Inc. National Van Lines, Superior Industrial Products Company, Inc. 59,619

8069-005-008 13914 Rosecrans 

Avenue

Santa Fe 

Springs 1958 13,061 Tripp Rolan and Susan TRS VCA La Mirada Animal Hospital 13,061

8069-005-010 13949 Stage Road Santa Fe 

Springs 1959 80,110 RRM Properties Concrete Plant 7,076 914

8069-005-011 16934 Rosecrans 

Avenue

Santa Fe 

Springs 1958 43,550 RRM Properties Concrete Plant 6,100 160 4,054

8069-006-018 13950 Rosecrans 

Avenue

Santa Fe 

Springs 1977 95,663 Wilson, Glen A Co Et Al, Wilson Brian Multiple Tenants 553 1,935

Source: Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc., 2017; Los Angeles County Assessor, 2016

Notes: TCE = Temporary Construction Easement
 Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

48

3.5.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

Metro would be responsible for coordinating property acquisitions and easements necessary for the 

Project. To minimize relocation impacts resulting from the Project, the following minimization measure 

would be implemented.

R-1. Property would be acquired through compliance with the Uniform Act. If the property owner and 

Metro are unable to agree on the purchase of a property, the condemnation process would 

become the next step. The property owner would be notified that Metro intends to seek a RON 

from the CTC, which would authorize Metro to file a lawsuit. Ultimately, if no agreement is 

reached, the court determines proper "just" compensation. Several property owners in the 

project area have shown intent to proceed with the condemnation process. Under the 

condemnation process, property owners would be justly compensated through opinion of the 

court. 

Additionally, as stated previously, adequate vacancy of suitable industrial and commercial properties 

exists in Santa Fe Springs to accommodate relocated businesses as a result of the Project. Therefore, 

impacts would be minimized to not adverse. No additional avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation 

measures are required.

3.6 EnvironmentalJustice

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) defines Environmental Justice as "the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, sex, national origin, or 

income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies” (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2015).

Fair treatment means that no group of people, including any racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group, 

should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from 

industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal 

programs and policies.

Meaningful involvement means that: (1) potentially affected community residents have an appropriate 

opportunity to participate in decisions about a proposed activity that will affect their environment and/or 

health; (2) the public's contribution can influence the regulatory agency's decision; (3) the concerns of all 

participants involved will be considered in the decision-making process; and (4) the decision makers seek 

out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected.

3.6.1 Regulatory Setting

National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA of 1969, as amended, established that the federal government must use all practicable means to 

ensure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings 

(Title 42 USC Section 4331(b)2)) (United States Congress, 1969). CEQ regulations, which establish the steps 
 Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

49

necessary to comply with NEPA, require evaluation of the potential environmental consequences of all 

proposed federal activities and programs.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, which states that “No person in the Unites States shall, 

on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, 

or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance

(United States Congress, 1964).”

Executive Order 12898

EO 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations,” signed by President Clinton on February 11, 1994 (President William J. Clinton, 1994) directs 

federal agencies to identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law.

Council on Environmental Quality Environmental Justice Guidance

A Presidential Memorandum accompanied EO 12898, stating that "each Federal agency shall analyze the 

environmental effects, including human health, economic and social effects, of Federal actions, including 

effects on minority communities and low-income communities, when such analysis is required by [NEPA].” 

The CEQ responded to this order by issuing guidance for agencies on how to address environmental justice 

under NEPA. The CEQ Environmental Justice Guidance includes general principles for addressing 

environmental justice during the NEPA process, such as considering relevant public health data; 

recognizing interrelated cultural, social, occupational, historical, or economic factors; and developing 

effective public participation strategies.

United States Department of Transportation Order 5610.2(a)

United States Department of Transportation Order (USDOT) Order 5610.2(a), Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (77 Federal Register, Number 

91, May 10, 2012) sets forth the USDOT policy to consider environmental justice principles in all USDOT 

programs, policies, and activities. It describes how the objectives of environmental justice will be 

integrated into planning and programming, rulemaking, and policy formulation. The order sets forth steps 

to prevent disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority or low-income populations through 

environmental justice analyses conducted as part of federal transportation planning and NEPA provisions. 

The order also describes the specific measures to be taken to address instances of disproportionately high 

and adverse effects and sets forth relevant definitions for conducting environmental justice analyses.

3.6.2 Affected Environment

The study area boundaries for community impacts are generally within a 0.5-mile radius of the project 

area, but were adjusted to be consistent with roadways that serve as physical delineators, such as Imperial 
 Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

50

Highway (State Route 90) to the north, La Mirada Boulevard and Escalona Road to the east, Bloomfield 

Avenue to the west, and Alondra Boulevard to the south (see Figure 3-1. Community Impacts Study Area).

Terminology

For this assessment, minority populations include persons who are American Indian and Alaska Native, 

Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. Lowincome populations include households that have been below the poverty threshold over a 12-month 

period. Because data for low-income populations were retrieved from the 2008-2012 American 

Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates, the poverty thresholds used for this analysis are those defined 

by the United States Census Bureau for the year 2012. In 2012, the United States Census Bureau poverty 

threshold was $23,492 for a family of four (United States Census Bureau, 2012).

For this analysis, a “meaningfully greater” minority or low-income population is defined as a minority or 

low-income population in the study area with a higher percentage than the minority or low-income 

population in Los Angeles County.

Minority Populations

Table 3-4. Racial and Ethnic Characteristics in the Study Area and Los Angeles County includes percentages 

of minority populations for census tracts in the study area and Los Angeles County. The bolded and shaded 

numbers in Table 3-4. Racial and Ethnic Characteristics in the Study Area and Los Angeles County indicate 

the minority populations in the study area that have a meaningfully greater percentage than Los Angeles 

County. These block groups are also illustrated in Figure 3-4. Environmental Justice Populations.

As shown in Table 3-4. Racial and Ethnic Characteristics in the Study Area and Los Angeles County, the 

largest population in the study area is Hispanic or Latino, which makes up 57.4 percent of the total 

population in the study area. This Hispanic or Latino population in the study area is meaningfully greater 

than the Hispanic or Latino population in Los Angeles County, which is 47.7 percent of Los Angeles 

County’s population.

As shown in Table 3-4. Racial and Ethnic Characteristics in the Study Area and Los Angeles County, block 

groups were identified in the study area with meaningfully greater percentages of Black or African 

American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, Some 

Other Race, and Hispanic or Latino populations compared to Los Angeles County.

Income and Poverty Levels

Table 3-5. Households with Income in the Past 12 Months below Poverty Level in the Study Area and Los 

Angeles County includes the percentages of households with income below poverty level for census tracts 

in the study area and Los Angeles County. The bolded and shaded numbers in Table 3-5. Households with 

Income in the Past 12 Months below Poverty Level in the Study Area and Los Angeles County indicate the 

low-income populations in the study area that have meaningfully greater percentages than Los Angeles 

County. As shown in Table 3-5. Households with Income in the Past 12 Months below Poverty Level in the 
 Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

51

Study Area and Los Angeles County, the low-income population in the study area (i.e., households with 

income below poverty level in the past 12 months) is 18.0 percent of the total households in the study 

area. This percentage is meaningfully greater than Los Angeles County, which has a low-income 

population of 15.6 percent. In addition, several block groups were identified in the study area that have 

low-income populations with meaningfully greater percentages than Los Angeles County. These block 

groups are also illustrated in Figure 3-4. Environmental Justice Populations.

3.6.3 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative 

Under the No Build Alternative, there would be no direct or indirect impacts on minority or low-income 

populations. Therefore, no disproportionately high or adverse impacts on minority or low-income 

populations are anticipated.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

52

Table 3-4. Racial and Ethnic Characteristics in the Study Area and Los Angeles County

Geographic Area

Total Population

(All Races and 

Ethnicities)

White Black or African 

American

American Indian and 

Alaska Native Asian

Native Hawaiian 

and Other Pacific 

Islander

Some Other Race Hispanic or Latino

Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %

Census Tracts in Study Area

Census Tract 104810, Block 

Group 3 2,572 -- 102 4.0 0 0 0 0 68 2.6 0 0 0 0 2,402 93.4

Census Tract 109400, Block 

Group 3 1,503 -- 284 18.9 0 0 0 0 7 0.5 0 0 0 0 1,199 79.8

Census Tract 109601, Block 

Group 3 1,190 -- 85 7.1 197 16.6 23 1.9 181 15.2 0 0 0 0 632 53.1

Census Tract 111302, Block 

Group 1 1,360 -- 816 60.0 11 0.8 0 0 313 23.0 16 1.2 0 0 204 15.0

Census Tract 119700, Block 

Group 1 1,552 -- 696 44.8 25 1.6 0 0 92 5.9 0 0 34 2.2 678 43.7

Census Tract 119800, Block 

Group 1 751 -- 37 4.9 0 0 0 0 92 12.3 0 0 0 0 622 82.8

Census Tract 119800, Block 

Group 2 1,209 -- 44 3.6 45 3.7 17 1.4 316 26.1 0 0 0 0 775 64.1

Census Tract 121600, Block 

Group 1 1,990 -- 917 46.1 70 3.5 0 0 347 17.4 0 0 0 0 656 33.0

Census Tract 121600, Block 

Group 2 1,161 -- 269 23.2 28 2.4 0 0 374 32.2 0 0 0 0 463 39.9

Census Tract 121802, Block 

Group 3 916 -- 261 28.5 180 19.7 0 0 61 6.7 0 0 0 0 400 43.7

Census Tract 194401, Block 

Group 1 1,369 -- 884 64.6 49 3.6 0 0 56 4.1 0 0 0 0 321 23.4

Census Tract 194402, Block 

Group 1 1,028 -- 670 65.2 0 0 0 0 48 4.7 0 0 0 0 256 24.9
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

53

Geographic Area

Total Population

(All Races and 

Ethnicities)

White Black or African 

American

American Indian and 

Alaska Native Asian

Native Hawaiian 

and Other Pacific 

Islander

Some Other Race Hispanic or Latino

Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %

Census Tract 194402, Block 

Group 2 1,100 -- 772 70.2 129 11.7 0 0 13 1.2 0 0 10 0.9 123 11.2

Census Tract 222700, Block 

Group 1 3,707 -- 1,725 46.5 167 4.5 7 0.2 1,223 33.0 0 0 17 0.5 401 10.8

Census Tract 291210, Block 

Group 3 1,469 -- 27 1.8 104 7.1 0 0 203 13.8 0 0 0 0 1,135 77.3

Census Tract 293302, Block 

Group 2 626 -- 115 18.4 8 1.3 0 0 14 2.2 2 0.3 0 0 485 77.5

Census Tract 504102, Block 

Group 1 0 -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Census Tract 530003, Block 

Group 1 1,165 -- 266 22.8 0 0 0 0 232 19.9 0 0 1 0.1 666 57.2

Census Tract, 530004, Block 

Group 1 679 -- 41 6.0 10 1.5 14 2.1 110 16.2 0 0 0 0 504 74.2

Census Tract 530004, Block 

Group 2 3,039 -- 472 15.5 0 0 113 3.7 198 6.5 0 0 0 0 2,256 74.2

Census Tract 533702, Block 

Group 1 2,484 -- 10 0.4 36 1.4

0 0 0 0 23 0.9 0 0 2,415 97.2

Census Tract 533702, Block 

Group 2 918 -- 11 1.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 907 98.8

Census Tract 533703, Block 

Group 2 2,389 -- 24 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,365 99.0

Census Tract 600303, Block 

Group 2 1,227 -- 69 5.6 689 56.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 1.7 469 38.2

Total Study Area 35,404 -- 8,597 24.3 2,118 5.1 174 0.5 3,947 11.2 41 0.1 62 0.2 20,334 57.4

Los Angeles County 9,840,024 -- 2,731,605 27.8 809,858 8.2 17,371 0.2 1,343,920 13.7 23,520 0.2 24,612 0.3 4,694,846 47.7

Source: United States Census Bureau, 2012

Notes: % = Percent; Bolded and shaded numbers are percentages for minority populations in the study area that are higher than percentages for those populations in Santa Fe Springs.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

54

Table 3-5. Households with Income in the Past 12 Months below Poverty Level in the Study Area and 

Los Angeles County

Geographic Area Total Number 

of Households

Households with Income in 

Past 12 Months Below 

Poverty Level

Number %

Census Tracts in Study Area

Census Tract 104810, Block Group 3 535 47 8.9

Census Tract 109400, Block Group 3 442 44 10.0

Census Tract 109601, Block Group 3 301 10 3.3

Census Tract 111302, Block Group 1 435 17 3.9

Census Tract 119700, Block Group 1 512 99 19.3

Census Tract 119800, Block Group 1 171 21 12.3

Census Tract 119800, Block Group 2 344 0 0

Census Tract 121600, Block Group 1 511 81 15.9

Census Tract 121600, Block Group 2 298 0 0

Census Tract 121802, Block Group 3 127 25 19.7

Census Tract 194401, Block Group 1 764 77 10.1

Census Tract 194402, Block Group 1 577 133 23.1

Census Tract 194402, Block Group 2 794 125 15.7

Census Tract 222700, Block Group 1 136 93 68.4

Census Tract 291210, Block Group 3 426 187 43.9

Census Tract 293302, Block Group 2 177 31 17.4

Census Tract 504102, Block Group 1 0 0 0
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

55

Geographic Area Total Number 

of Households

Households with Income in 

Past 12 Months Below 

Poverty Level

Number %

Census Tract 530003, Block Group 1 400 45 11.3

Census Tract, 530004, Block Group 1 207 11 5.3

Census Tract 530004, Block Group 2 936 128 13.7

Census Tract 533702, Block Group 1 588 167 18.4

Census Tract 533702, Block Group 2 248 51 20.6

Census Tract 533703, Block Group 2 576 160 27.8

Census Tract 600303, Block Group 2 378 224 59.3

Total Study Area 9,883 1,776 18.0

Los Angeles County 3,218,511 503,166 15.6

Source: United States Census Bureau, 2012

Notes: % = Percent; Bolded and shaded numbers are percentages for low-income populations in the study area that 

are meaningfully greater than the percentage for the low-income population in Los Angeles County.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

56

Figure 3-4. Environmental Justice Populations
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

57

This page has been intentionally left blank.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

58

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road (Build Alternative)

If a minority or low-income population in the study area is meaningfully greater than those populations 

in Los Angeles County, the Project would have the potential to result in disproportionate impacts on the 

populations in the study area, and the Project would therefore be subject to the provisions of EO 12898.

As outlined above, the study area contains minority and low-income populations with meaningfully 

greater percentages than those populations in Los Angeles County. Therefore, any impacts resulting from 

operation and construction of the Project could disproportionately affect minority and low-income 

populations in the study area compared to Los Angeles County.

The Project is intended to improve the safety of rail-roadway crossings and to address future traffic and 

circulation issues forecasted for the project area. All members of the public, including those within the 

study area and throughout Los Angeles County, would be able to benefit from the improvements 

proposed under the Project, and minority or low-income populations would not be denied benefits or 

receive fewer benefits than the general population.

The Project would require the relocation of eight properties, including six industrial businesses and two 

commercial businesses. The businesses would be relocated in compliance with the Uniform Relocation 

Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. The businesses that would be relocated as 

a result of the Project are identified in Table 3-3. Right of Way Impacts. Relocation of these businesses 

would not be anticipated to result in indirect impacts to the community that would result in an adverse 

impact on environmental justice populations. 

The Project would result in the relocation of several businesses in the community, including L.A Supply 

Company, Gordon Industries Inc., Ari’s Wholesale Foods, Little Ears Therapy Center, Disaster Kits, BoxingMMA Muay Thai, National Van Lines, Superior Industrial Products Company, Inc., and VCA La Mirada 

Animal Hospital. Large industrial and wholesale businesses, such as, L.A. Supply Company, Gordon 

Industries Inc., Ari’s Wholesale Foods, Disaster Kits, National Van Lines, and Superior Industrial Products 

Company, Inc. service the larger Los Angeles area, and would not result in a direct impact on services to 

local environmental justice populations. Adequate relocation properties would be available near the 

project area, as indicated in Section 3.5, and industrial businesses would be anticipated to continue 

operation in their new facilities. Therefore, employment of local environmental justice populations would 

not be impacted by the Project.

Since the project area is in an area with minority populations, it is likely that the smaller local commercial 

businesses largely service local environmental justice populations. Boxing-MMA Muay Thai provides 

Boxing, Muay Thai, MMA, Cardio Kickboxing classes to the community. Several other similar services exist 

in Santa Fe Springs, and the loss of service would not result in a significant impact to the community. As 

discussed in Section 3.5, several suitable commercial properties exist in Santa Fe Springs to relocate the 

displaced business, and it is anticipated that the business would continue operation nearby.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

59

Little Ears Therapy Center serves Los Angeles and Orange Counties offering one on one therapy to children 

who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as children with speech and language delays. The Little Ears 

Therapy Center is a specialized service that is unique to the study area. However, several suitable office 

or retail properties exist in Santa Fe Springs to relocate the displaced business, and it is anticipated that 

the business would continue operation nearby as well. 

VCA La Mirada Animal Hospital provides veterinary services to domestic animals. Several veterinary clinics 

and hospitals service the community and relocation would not impact the environmental justice 

population. Several suitable office or retail properties exist in Santa Fe Springs to relocate the displaced 

business, and it is anticipated that the business would also continue operation nearby.

Since the businesses would be expected to continue operation near their existing locations, employment 

of local environmental justice populations would not be impacted by the Project. Therefore, the business 

relocations are not anticipated to result in disproportionately high or adverse impacts on minority or lowincome populations.

Rosecrans Avenue would remain open during construction, which would ensure that vehicle, pedestrian, 

and bicycle access in the project area would not be substantially affected. Construction activities could 

result in temporary noise impacts from construction equipment and vehicles, traffic from construction 

vehicles on roadways, air quality emissions of dust from earth moving activities and exhaust from 

construction vehicles/equipment, and visual impacts from construction equipment and debris that could 

equally affect all populations in the study area.

With adherence to local policies and the implementation of construction BMPs, including measures to 

limit construction hours and implement traffic management plans, these temporary impacts would not 

be expected to substantially impact the community. Therefore, temporary construction impacts from the 

Project are not anticipated to be disproportionately high or adverse on the minority or low-income 

populations in the study area. 

3.6.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

The Project is not anticipated to result in disproportionately high or adverse environmental justice 

impacts; therefore, no avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures are required.

3.7 Utilities/Emergency Services

The following discussion incorporates the results of the CIA prepared for the Project (GPA Consulting, 

2016a).

3.7.1 Affected Environment

The study area boundaries for community impacts are generally within a 0.5-mile radius of the project 

area, but were adjusted to be consistent with roadways that serve as physical delineators, such as Imperial 

Highway (State Route 90) to the north, La Mirada Boulevard and Escalona Road to the east, Bloomfield 

Avenue to the west, and Alondra Boulevard to the south (see Figure 3-1. Community Impacts Study Area).
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

60

Utilities

Several utilities are in the project area (see Figure 3-5. Utilities in the Project Area); these utilities are 

discussed in the following sections.

Water and Wastewater

The Santa Fe Springs Water Utility Authority provides water services to the project area (Santa Fe Springs 

Water Utility Authority, 2014). Water is provided from groundwater, which is pumped from a well in the 

Central groundwater basin, as well as from groundwater from the City of Whittier’s wells in the Whittier 

Narrows area, and the Central Basin Water Quality Protection Program facility in the Central Basin. The 

City also receives surface water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which comes 

from both the Colorado River and the State Water Project in Northern California.

Several City water lines are in the project area. A 16-inch water line is on Rosecrans Avenue that turns 

south along Marquardt Avenue. Another 12-inch water line runs along Marquardt Avenue and crosses the 

intersection with the BNSF railroad tracks. Another 8-inch water line connects a 12-inch water line on 

Marquardt Avenue to an 8-inch water line on Rosecrans Avenue.

Wastewater services in the project area are provided by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County 

(LACSD). Several LACSD water reclamation plants are in proximity to the project area, including the 

Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant, which treats 15 million gallons of wastewater per day, and 

the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plant, which treats 100 million gallons of wastewater per day

(Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, 2016). 

Two main LACSD sewer systems run through the project area. One sewer system is a 33-inch trunk sewer 

that runs parallel to the railroad corridor in the project area, and then turns west on Rosecrans Avenue. 

Another sewer system includes an 18-inch sewer on Stage Road that connects to a 24-inch trunk sewer 

on Rosecrans Avenue. There is also a City 12-inch sewer on Marquardt Avenue that connects to the LACSD 

sewer system.

Electric Power

Southern California Edison is the electricity supplier for the project area. Two 66-kilovolt aerial systems 

are located along the north side of Rosecrans Avenue and along Marquardt Avenue in the project area. In 

addition, 12-kilovolt overhead and underground lines run along Rosecrans Avenue, Marquardt Avenue, 

and Stage Road.

Natural Gas

The Southern California Gas (SoCalGas) Company provides natural gas for the project area. Two gas lines 

are located in the project area on Rosecrans Avenue. A 4-inch gas line runs east and west along the north 

side of Rosecrans Avenue. Another 30-inch gas line runs north and south along the east side of Marquardt 

Avenue (south).
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

61

This page has been intentionally left blank.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

62

Figure 3-5. Utilities in the Project Area
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

63

This page has been intentionally left blank.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

64

Telecommunications Systems

Telecommunications companies that provide services to the project area include Verizon, Time Warner, 

and AT&T. Verizon has a major duct bank (i.e., a group of electrical conduits that provide pathways and 

protection for electrical wiring) on Rosecrans Avenue, and Verizon and AT&T also share a major duct bank 

system along Rosecrans Avenue, which also feeds into Stage Road and Marquardt Avenue. An 

underground Time Warner Cable line exists along Rosecrans Avenue and Marquardt Avenue, and an 

underground Verizon line exists along Marquardt Avenue. Verizon Wireless also has an aerial system on 

joint poles with Southern California Edison on Marquardt Avenue and Rosecrans Avenue in the project 

area.

Solid Waste

Solid waste services are provided by LACSD. Several solid waste facilities are in proximity to the study

area, including the Puente Hills Intermodal Facility, the Puente Hills Materials Recovery/Transfer Facility, 

the Downey Area Recycling and Transfer Facility, the South Gate Transfer Facility, the Commerce Refuseto-Energy Facility, and the Southeast Resource and Recovery Facility.

Other Utilities

Other utilities in the project area include the BNSF railroad tracks, traffic signals, street lights, and railroad 

crossing equipment. In addition, several Chevron and Crimson Pipeline oil/fuel pipelines ranging from six 

inches to 12 inches in diameter run parallel to the BNSF railroad tracks and Stage Road in the project area.

Emergency Services

Emergency service providers in the study area are shown in Figure 3-6. Emergency Services. The Santa Fe 

Springs Department of Fire and the Los Angeles County Fire Department provide fire protection services 

in the study area. Los Angeles County Fire Department Station No. 49 is in the study area at 13820 La 

Mirada Boulevard in La Mirada. Fire Help Services, Inc., which provides fire and water damage contents 

restoration services, is also in the study area at 15320 Valley View Avenue in La Mirada. No Santa Fe 

Springs Department of Fire stations are in the study area; however, they were consulted regarding the 

Project and did not provide any additional comment for consideration.

Law enforcement services in the study area are provided by the City of Santa Fe Springs Police Department 

and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. No police or sheriff stations are in the study area. 

The following hospitals are in the study area:

• Norwalk Community Hospital at 13222 Bloomfield Avenue in Norwalk;

• Kindred Hospital La Mirada at 14900 Imperial Highway in La Mirada; and

• Sothern California Immediate at 15330 Valley View Avenue in La Mirada.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

65

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative would not affect emergency services or public utilities; therefore, no impacts are 

anticipated.

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road (Build Alternative)

Project improvements would increase safety and circulation in the project area and for the surrounding 

community. Proposed facilities are expected to accommodate the needs of the community following 

Project completion. Utilities would be relocated as necessary. An emergency access road would be 

constructed from the new Rosecrans Avenue overpass to Anson Avenue to provide residential properties 

on Anson adequate access for the fire department, as well as other emergency services.

The Build Alternative would require construction activities that could result in temporary disruption of 

utilities, traffic, and emergency services. Several utilities are in the project area, including oil pipelines, 

railroad crossing equipment, street lights, traffic signals, pull boxes, electrical controller cabinets, and 

underground and overhead utilities, including power poles. During construction, intermittent disruptions 

of utilities and relocation of utilities could be necessary to complete the Project. Therefore, no adverse 

impacts on railroad access are anticipated.

Rosecrans Avenue would remain open during construction, and subsequently, emergency access would 

not be adversely affected. Temporary traffic impacts from construction vehicles/equipment on roadways 

could affect emergency service response times due to increased traffic delay through the construction 

area. Measures U-1 through U-5 would avoid and minimize anticipated impacts, and therefore, the Project 

would not adversely affect utilities and emergency services.

3.7.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

The Project would include implementation of the minimization measures below.

U-1. Any disruptions to utility service would be scheduled and coordinated to ensure they would not 

adversely impact the surrounding community. 

U-2. Coordination with local emergency service providers would be conducted to provide adequate 

accommodation during Project construction.

Project implementation would include railroad flagging services, close coordination with BNSF, and 

implementation of a traffic management plan (see Section 3.8.3). Additionally, the proposed overpass 

would not have any columns or footings within BNSF ROW that would permanently affect railroad 

operations. 

With implementation of the measures above, the Project would not result in adverse impacts on utilities 

and emergency services in the project area, and mitigation measures are not required.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

66

This page has been intentionally left blank.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

67

Figure 3-6. Emergency Services
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

68

This page has been intentionally left blank.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

69

3.8 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

The following discussion incorporates the results of the Traffic Analysis Report and the Community Impact 

Assessment (CIA) prepared for the Project (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Tranportation Authority, 

2016; GPA Consulting, 2016a; W.G. Zimmerman Engineering, Inc., 2017).

3.8.1 Regulatory Setting

United States Department of Transportation Regulations and Policy Statement

Accessibility in federally assisted programs is governed by the USDOT regulations (Title 49 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Part 27) implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Title 29 USC 

Section 794). In July 1999, the USDOT issued an Accessibility Policy Statement pledging a fully accessible 

multimodal transportation system.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits discrimination and ensures equal opportunity 

and access for persons with disabilities. FRA works to ensure nondiscriminatory transportation in support 

of its mission to enhance the social and economic quality of life for all Americans. The FRA Office of Civil 

Rights is responsible for civil rights compliance and monitoring to ensure non-discrimination of inter-city 

railroad services.

3.8.2 Affected Environment

The study area boundaries for community impacts are generally within a 0.5-mile radius of the project 

area, but were adjusted to be consistent with roadways that serve as physical delineators, such as Imperial 

Highway (State Route 90) to the north, La Mirada Boulevard and Escalona Road to the east, Bloomfield 

Avenue to the west, and Alondra Boulevard to the south (see Figure 3-1. Community Impacts Study Area). 

Traffic transportation, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities in the study area are identified in Figure 3-7. Los 

Angeles Metro 2014 Bike Map and Figure 3-8. Train Station and Bus Stop Locations.

Roadways

The following roadways are in the project area: 

• Rosecrans Avenue is an 84-foot-wide, 4-lane (two lanes each direction) street oriented in the eastwest direction with approximately 25,000 vehicle trips per day. Rosecrans Avenue is classified as 

a major highway per the City of Santa Fe Springs General Plan-Circulation Element. Rosecrans 

Avenue provides access to the City of Norwalk in the westerly direction and to the City of La 

Mirada in the easterly direction. The posted speed limit on Rosecrans Avenue is 45 mph within 

the study area. On-street parking is allowed near the study area. 

• Marquardt Avenue is a 64-foot wide, 2-lane (one lane each direction) street oriented in the northsouth direction and is designated as a secondary highway with approximately 5,000 vehicle trips 

per day north of Rosecrans Avenue, and 3,500 vehicle trips per day south of Rosecrans Avenue. 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

70

Marquardt Avenue provides access to Imperial Highway (SR 90) to the north and dead-ends at 

Coyote Creek channel to the south. The posted speed limit is 40 mph north of Rosecrans Avenue 

and 35 mph south of Rosecrans Avenue. On-street parking is allowed within the study area.

• Stage Road is a 35 to 40-foot-wide, 2 to 3-lane roadway (one lane in each direction to the west of 

Valley View Avenue; and one southbound and two northbound lanes to the east of Valley View 

Avenue) that runs in a northwest to southeast direction, approximately 80 feet north of and 

parallel to the BNSF railroad tracks. Stage Road intersects with Rosecrans Avenue approximately 

200 feet east of the Rosecrans/Marquardt Avenue and BSNF railroad tracks intersection, and is 

classified as a major arterial roadway with approximately 5,000 to 10,000 vehicle trips per day.

• Anson Avenue is a 2-lane cul-de-sac (one lane in each direction) that runs in a north-south 

direction and is approximately 700 feet east of the Rosecrans/Marquardt Avenue and BNSF 

railroad tracks intersection. Anson Avenue provides access to local businesses to the north and 

Rosecrans Avenue to the south. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. On-street parking is allowed 

within the study area.

The existing roadways are asphalt-paved with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, and provide access to 

industrial and commercial businesses.

Other major arterial roadways in the study area include Imperial Highway (State Route 90) in the northern 

portion of the study area, I-5 in the southwestern portion of the study area, Valley View Avenue and La 

Mirada Boulevard in the eastern portion of the study area, Alondra Boulevard in the southern portion of 

the study area, and Carmenita Road and Bloomfield Avenue in the western portion of the study area, and 

Iseli Road between Rosecrans Avenue and Stage Road in the southeast portion of the study area. 

According to the September 2017 Traffic Analysis Report prepared for the Project, the existing 2015 Level 

of Service (LOS) for the Rosecrans/Marquardt Avenue intersection is LOS B during the A.M. and P.M. 

hours. 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

No existing bike lanes are located along Rosecrans Avenue or Marquardt Avenue in the project area. The 

study area includes an existing Class II bicycle lane (a bicycle lane along the curb lane of a street or highway 

that provides 1-way travel with special striping and signage) on the portion of Rosecrans Avenue in the 

city of La Mirada, adjacent to and east of the project area (City of La Mirada, 2003a). The portion of 

Rosecrans Avenue in the project area in Santa Fe Springs is designated as a proposed bikeway in the 

County of Los Angeles Bicycle Master Plan (County of Los Angeles Public Works, 2012).
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

71

Figure 3-7. Los Angeles Metro 2014 Bike Map
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

72

This page has been intentionally left blank.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

73

Figure 3-8. Train Station and Bus Stop Locations
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

74

This page has been intentionally left blank.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

75

In addition, a Class I regional bike trail (a bicycle path with exclusive rights of way intended to serve 

bicyclists with the safest means of travel) named Coyote Creek Bikeway is 0.2 miles west of the 

Rosecrans/Marquardt Avenue intersection as shown in Figure 3-7. Los Angeles Metro 2014 Bike Map. The 

nearest access point is at the intersection of Rosecrans Avenue and the Coyote Creek Bikeway where there 

is an access ramp from the bicycle path to the roadway above. The Coyote Creek Bikeway follows the 

Coyote Creek channel through residential and industrial neighborhoods. The bikeway is 12 miles long and 

provides access from inland Los Angeles County to the Pacific Ocean via the connecting San Gabriel River. 

The LA Metro/Gateway Council of Governments Strategic Transportation Plan outlines the future 

construction of a Class II bikeway facility on Rosecrans Avenue between Fidel Avenue and Valley View 

Avenue.

Pedestrian facilities in the project area include sidewalks along both sides of the existing roadways.

Sidewalks are currently provided along all legs of the Rosecrans/Marquardt Avenue intersection to 

facilitate pedestrian movement. Crosswalks are provided on the north, west and south legs of the 

Rosecrans/Marquardt Avenue intersection. Stage Road does not have sidewalk facilities in the south-east 

direction and has limited sidewalk facilities in the north-west direction near the Rosecrans Avenue and 

Stage Road intersection. No crosswalk is currently provided at the Rosecrans Avenue and Stage Road 

intersection.

Public Bus System

Public bus services in the study area are provided by the Norwalk Transit System and Metro. Three 

Norwalk Transit routes (Routes 3, 4, and 5) and several Norwalk Transit bus stops are in the study area, as 

shown in Figure 3-8. Train Station and Bus Stop Locations

Norwalk Transit Route 5 runs along Rosecrans Avenue in the project area. Los Angeles Metro Bus Line 

Route 460 also runs along Rosecrans. For Route 460, the two nearest stops to the project area are to the 

west on the Rosecrans Avenue and Carmenita Road intersection. (These bus routes are not illustrated in

Figure 3-8. Train Station and Bus Stop Locations but the bus stops are shown).

Railroad Facilities

BNSF railroad tracks are located within the project area. The railroad corridor serves approximately 55

long distance and local freight trains, as well as an average of 57 passenger trains for both Metrolink and 

Amtrak, making it the second busiest inter-city passenger railroad corridor in the nation (Biggs Cardosa 

Associates, Inc., 2016). The Metrolink Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs station is 1.6 miles northwest and the 

Buena Park Metrolink Station is 3.4 miles southeast of the project area. 

Most of the long-distance freight traffic along the corridor goes in and out of the Ports of Long Beach and 

Los Angeles, and is an important route for the movement of goods from the ports to the rest of the 

country. In addition, the railroad corridor has been identified by the CHSRA as a viable shared corridor

alternative for the LA-Anaheim section. The corridor has also been identified as potential candidate for 

future electrified HSR vehicles.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

76

3.8.3 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would not result in any traffic or transportation improvements, or improvements 

in pedestrian or bicycle facilities in the project area. This alternative would not improve the safety of 

railroad-roadway crossings or address future traffic and circulation issues forecasted for the project area. 

Under the No Build Alternative, LOS and vehicle delays for the A.M. and P.M. hours in 2020 would either 

remain the same or slightly increase from existing conditions. Longer vehicle delays and worsening levels 

of LOS would be a result of growth-induced traffic in the study area. Because this alternative would not 

directly affect existing conditions in the study area, no impacts are anticipated.

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road (Build Alternative)

Under the Build Alternative, Rosecrans Avenue would be realigned approximately 125 feet to the south, 

and an overpass would be constructed to raise Rosecrans Avenue over Marquardt Avenue, the BNSF ROW, 

and Stage Road. The southern leg of Marquardt Avenue (Marquardt Avenue [S]) would be extended under 

the overpass and connected to Rosecrans Avenue. The northern leg of Marquardt Avenue (Marquardt 

Avenue [N]) would be connected to Stage Road. A frontage road would also be constructed to connect 

Anson Avenue to the northern leg of Marquardt Avenue and Stage Road. Traffic signals would be installed

on Rosecrans Avenue: one at the intersection with Marquardt Avenue to the west, and one to the east of 

the overpass structure at the intersection with Iseli Road. Other transportation improvements include 

sidewalk construction and parking lot reconfiguration.

Roadways

Since the City of Santa Fe Springs does not have an established criterion for determining significant traffic 

impacts, the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation criteria1 were used to determine significant 

changes in delay time during A.M. and P.M. peak hours, as shown in Table 3-6. Significant Delay Impact 

Criteria.

Table 3-6. Significant Delay Impact Criteria

Level of Service Final Delay Project-Related Increase In Delay

C > 20 - 35 Equal to or greater than 6.0 seconds

D > 35 – 55 Equal to or greater than 4.0 seconds

E > 55 – 80 Equal to or greater than 2.5 seconds

F > 80 Equal to or greater than 2.5 seconds

1 City of Los Angeles criteria was used because County of Los Angeles criteria 

(http://dpw.lacounty.gov/traffic/traffic%20impact%20analysis%20guidelines.pdf) uses volume to capacity (v/c) ratios rather 

than seconds of delay.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

77

Source: L.A. Department of Transportation Traffic Study Policies and Procedures

Removal of the at-grade Rosecrans Avenue and Marquardt Avenue intersection would require traffic to 

be diverted. Marquardt Avenue (N) and Marquardt Avenue (S) would no longer connect. Marquardt 

Avenue (N) would connect to Stage Road. Stage Road would connect to Anson Avenue via the new 

connector road. The connector road would be stop-controlled at the Stage Road intersection. Eastbound 

and Westbound traffic on Rosecrans Avenue would access Marquardt Avenue (S) through a new signalized 

intersection west of the proposed overpass. Northbound traffic on Stage Road would have access to 

Rosecrans Avenue via Iseli Road. A signalized intersection would replace the existing three-way stopcontrolled intersection at Iseli Road and Rosecrans Avenue. Anson Avenue would be accessible via Stage 

Road or Marquardt Avenue (N). Eastbound and westbound traffic on Rosecrans Avenue would access 

Stage Road and Marquardt Avenue (N) from Iseli Road.

The anticipated increased delay at the Valley View Avenue and Rosecrans Avenue intersection will be

averted by installing striping for right turn lanes within the existing roadway ROW for the eastbound and 

westbound approaches. The anticipated vehicle delay at Valley View Avenue and Foster Road will be 

avoided by installing a right turn lane on the eastbound approach. Traffic signals (Valley View 

Avenue/Rosecrans Avenue and Valley View Avenue/Foster Road intersections) will be retimed and 

monitored after Project completion for optimal circulation efficiency.

Traffic conditions under the No Build and Build Alternatives were modeled for future conditions (year 

2040), as shown in Table 3-7. Intersection Level of Service and Delay. Removal of the Rosecrans Avenue

and Marquardt Avenue would decentralize congestion by diverting traffic to surrounding intersections

and roadways. Several intersections are expected to experience shortened delays and better LOS under 

the Build Alternative due to altered traffic circulation. Other intersections would experience minor 

increases in delay times. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to result in long-term operational 

impacts on traffic in the project area. 

Rosecrans Avenue would remain open during construction to ensure that vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and 

public transit access in the study area would not be substantially changed or affected during construction. 

However, there could be temporary delays in traffic movements through the project area during the 

construction period because of construction equipment and vehicles traveling on roadways in the project 

area. A traffic management plan will be prepared to avoid additional traffic impacts on surrounding 

roadways in the study area from construction worker commutes, and material and equipment deliveries. 

Any minor traffic impacts resulting from construction would be temporary. Therefore, the Project would 

result in minor short-term construction impacts on traffic in the project area. 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities

There are no existing bike paths in the project area, and therefore, the Project would not result in

permanent adverse impacts to bicycle facilities. Sidewalks would be included along the overpass as part 

of the Project as proposed in the County of Los Angeles Bicycle Master Plan (County of Los Angeles Public 

Works, 2012). Therefore, the Project would not result in adverse impacts on bicycle facilities.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

78

Pedestrian access between Marquardt Avenue north of the project area and Rosecrans Avenue would be 

limited by the Project. A direct access route would no longer be available under the Project. However, 

pedestrians would still have access to Rosecrans Avenue via Anson Avenue pathway connection. 

Pedestrian access between Marquardt Avenue south of the project area and Rosecrans Avenue would be 

moved to a new location west of the existing intersection.

Public Bus System

Through implementation of the Project, the Norwalk Transit Route 5 bus stop would no longer be 

accessible. The Norwalk Transit Route 5 bus stop in the project area would need to be relocated as part 

of the Project. However, transit services would continue to be provided through the project area, and the 

bus stop would continue to operate at a new location in proximity to the project area. The new bus stop 

would be accessible to pedestrians via the pedestrian pathway connecting Rosecrans Avenue and Anson 

Avenue.

Railroad Facilities

Implementation of Alternative 2 would improve safety, maintain easy access for emergency responders, 

develop geometric solutions, minimize ROW and utility impacts, minimize impacts on BNSF facilities and 

operations, and provide for future HSR. The Project would not require any removal or construction on the 

BNSF railroad tracks, and therefore, would not disrupt BNSF operations. The overpass would not have any 

columns or footings within BNSF ROW that would permanently affect railroad operations. Railroad 

flagging services would be required during construction for work performed within BNSF ROW or with 

equipment (such as cranes) that could potentially come in conflict with a train. Continual coordination 

with BNSF would be conducted to ensure that Project construction would not adversely affect railroad 

operations in the project area.

3.8.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

The following avoidance and minimization measures will be implemented for the Project.

T-1. The overpass would not have any columns or footings within BNSF ROW that would permanently 

affect railroad operations.

T-2. The Project would include development and implementation of a traffic management plan to 

accommodate traffic during Project construction.

T-3. Railroad flagging services would be required during construction for work performed within BNSF 

ROW or with equipment (such as cranes) that could potentially come in conflict with a train.

T-4. Continual coordination with BNSF would be conducted to ensure that Project construction would 

not adversely affect railroad operations in the project area.

T-5. Pedestrian access between Marquardt Avenue south of the project area and Rosecrans Avenue 

would be moved to a new location west of the existing intersection.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

79

T-6. A Norwalk Transit Route 5 bus stop in the project area would be relocated nearby and would be 

accessible to pedestrians via the pedestrian pathway connecting Rosecrans Avenue and Anson 

Avenue to maintain bus access for the local community.

With implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures above, the Project is not anticipated 

to result in adverse impacts on traffic and transportation/pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Therefore, no 

mitigation would be necessary.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

80

This page has been intentionally left blank.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

81

Table 3-7. Intersection Level of Service and Delay

Intersection

Year 2015 Year 2020 Year 2040

No Build Alternative No Build Alternative No Build Alternative Alternative 2

Delay (seconds)

AM/PM

LOS

AM/PM

Delay (seconds)

AM/PM

LOS

AM/PM

Delay (seconds)

AM/PM

LOS

AM/PM

Delay (seconds)

AM/PM

LOS

AM/PM

Carmenita Rd and Imperial Hwy 29.0/40.0 C/D 31.7/40.0 C/D 44.9/65.8 D/E 44.7/63.5 D/E

Carmenita Rd and Orden Dr 11.9/17.4 B/B 12.4/18.2 B/B 13.1/22.5 B/C 11.1/22.1 B/C

Carmenita Rd and Foster Rd 9.9/9.3 A/A 10.4/9.5 B/A 14.3/13.8 B/B 15.3/17.7 B/B

Carmenita Rd and Rosecrans Ave 36.9/37.5 D/D 40.4/39.5 D/D 62.2/57.9 E/E 60.8/60.6 E/E

Carmenita Rd and Pumice St 13.0/10.8 B/B 14.4/11.3 B/B 18.7/14.7 B/B 18.7/14.7 B/B

Carmenita Rd and Lowes Dr 3.8/4.1 A/A 3.9/4.9 A/A 4/5.3 A/A 4.0/5.3 A/A

Carmenita Rd and Alondra Blvd 56.3/42.7 E/D 61.9/45.9 E/D 86.3/65.9 F/E 86.6/65.9 F/E

Marquardt Ave and Imperial Hwy 8.6/9.0 A/A 8.8/9.2 A/A 9/9.9 A/A 8.5/9.3 A/A

Marquardt Ave and Foster Rd* 14.5/12.0 B/B 15.2/12.5 C/B 20.4/14.7 C/B 20.7/14.6 C/B

Marquardt Ave and Rosecrans Ave 11.2/10.7 B/B 11.4/10.9 B/B 12.7/11.3 B/B - -

Marquardt (S) Ave and Rosecrans Ave - - - - - - 5.3/6.0 A/A

Stage Rd and Connector Rd* - - - - - - 10.1/10.8 B/B

Rosecrans Ave and Stage Rd* 4.8/6.7 A/A 5.8/8.6 A/A 22.8/6.8 C/A - -

Rosecrans Ave and Anson Ave* 0.2/0.4 A/A 0.2/0.4 A/A 0.3/0.6 A/A - -

Marquardt Ave and Alondra Blvd 26.4/28.6 C/C 27.8/32.5 C/C 31.8/41.4 D/D 31.8/41.4 C/D

Alondra Blvd and W Freeway Dr 19.1/11.2 B/B 21.1/11.3 C/B 23.2/11.8 C/B 23.2/11.2 C/B

Alondra Blvd and E Freeway Dr 13.0/13.2 B/B 13.5/15.9 B/B 15.9/17.7 B/B 15.9/17.7 B/B

Valley View Ave and Alondra Blvd 43.2/41.9 D/D 46.9/47.5 D/D 75.1/68.2 E/E 75.2/68.2 E/E

Valley View Ave and Gannet St 13.4/13.0 B/B 14.5/13.9 B/B 16.2/20.8 B/C 16.6/22.8 B/C

Valley View Ave and Stage Rd 13.9/14.5 B/B 14.3/15.0 B/B 15.4/18.5 B/B 15.9/17.8 B/B

Valley View Ave and Rosecrans Ave 34.4/50.5 C/D 36.1/55.5 D/E 52.9/78.9 D/E 55.0/73.0 D/E

Valley View Ave and Foster Rd 26.9/15.4 C/B 29.6/15.8 C/B 50.6/19.9 D/B 46.3/19.1 D/B

Valley View Ave and Imperial Hwy 48.7/48.9 D/D 54.3/53.2 D/D 84.4/82.6 F/F 83.8/81.7 F/F

Imperial Hwy and Meyer Rd 23.3/20.0 C/B 25.6/21.1 C/C 25.0/24.7 C/C 24.3/24.4 C/C

Rosecrans Ave and Iseli Rd* 1/1 A/A 1.1/2 A/A 2.6/3.9 A/A 12.1/13.3 B/B

Notes: *Unsignalized Intersection

Source: W.G. Zimmerman Engineering, Inc., 2017
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

82

This page has been intentionally left blank.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

83

3.9 Visual/ Aesthetics

The following discussion incorporates the results of the CIA prepared for the Project (GPA Consulting, 

2016a).

3.9.1 Regulatory Setting

NEPA establishes that the federal government use all practicable means to ensure all Americans safe, 

healthful, productive, and aesthetically (emphasis added) and culturally pleasing surroundings (42 United 

States Code [USC] 4331[b][2]).

3.9.2 Affected Environment

The study area considered for visual and aesthetic impacts was generally inclusive of the project area, the 

viewshed from the project area, and areas from where there are views of the project area.

Visual Setting

The visual character in the project area can generally be described as an urban developed area with 

primarily industrial and commercial land uses. Residences are approximately 400 feet north and not visible 

from the project area. The visual quality of the project area and its surroundings would generally be 

considered low. Several industrial warehouse buildings are located between the project area and the 

residences. One industrial building, the Vance and Hines building, is in the northeast corner of the 

Rosecrans Avenue and Marquardt Avenue intersection and is approximately 20 feet high. This building is 

the tallest feature between the residential area to the northeast and the project area to the southwest.

Scenic Resources

The project area does not include scenic resources. No scenic vistas are in the project area, and the project 

area is not within the viewshed of a state-designated scenic highway. The project area consists primarily 

of roadways, commercial and industrial buildings, and some residences approximately 400 feet north. 

Coyote Creek, approximately 1,086 feet west of the project area, is not considered a scenic resource and 

is not visible from the project area. 

Existing Sources of Light or Glare

Existing sources of light and glare in the project area include vehicles on the roadway (from headlights at 

night, and sun reflecting off vehicles during the day), and nighttime lighting from street lights and buildings 

in the residential, commercial, and industrial developments adjacent to the roadway. 

3.9.3 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative

Implementation of the No Build Alternative would not require construction or result in changes to the 

existing roadway; therefore, no visual or aesthetic impacts are anticipated.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

84

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road (Build Alternative)

Visual Resources

The Project would include construction of an overpass to replace the existing at-grade railroad crossing, 

which would result in a new vertical element that would be visible to nearby viewers and could alter the 

visual character of the project area. However, the road realignment and the new overpass would be 

designed to maintain or complement the aesthetic appearance of the surroundings, and would not be 

expected to result in noticeable visual changes during Project operation.

The nearest sensitive viewers are residences approximately 400 feet north of the project area. Industrial 

warehouse buildings are located between the project area and the residences. The buildings to the south 

would be acquired and removed to construct the Project. A building to the north, the Vance & Hines 

Building would remain following Project construction and would continue to impair views of the overpass 

from residences to the northeast. Therefore, the overpass would not be visible from the residences 

because the overpass would only be 1.75 time taller than the Vance and Hines building, and views of the 

overpass from the community would be blocked by buildings adjacent to the community, north of the 

Vance and Hines building (see Figure 3-3. Visual Simulation).

In addition, the new overpass would likely blend in with the industrial landscape surrounding the project 

area because the overpass would most likely be constructed of similar colors and materials as adjacent 

buildings (e.g., gray concrete and asphalt). Landscaping and aesthetic features would be incorporated in 

to the Project as well. The proposed overpass would be lined by decorative chain-link fencing, barrier 

motif, and lighting. Aesthetic designs concepts were submitted in November 2016 and were approved by 

Santa Fe Springs City Council Aesthetics Subcommittee. Therefore, the Project would not result in impacts 

on visual resources.

Scenic Resources 

Because no scenic resources are in or near the project area, no adverse impacts on scenic resources are 

anticipated.

Sources of Light and Glare

The road re-alignment and new overpass would be designed to maintain or complement the aesthetic 

appearance of the surroundings, and would result in minimal additional sources of light or glare during 

Project construction and operation. During construction, vehicles, equipment, and materials may be 

staged adjacent to the project area, and may temporarily result in additional glare, and some construction 

activities may require additional lighting; however, these impacts would be short-term and temporary, 

and would not be expected to be substantial because the levels of light and glare would be restored to 

existing conditions following construction. 

During operation, the installation of new street lights and traffic signals would slightly increase light 

sources above existing conditions. However, the project area is in an urban setting with primarily industrial 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

85

and commercial structures, and no residential dwellings are within the immediate project area. The 

nearest residences are 400 feet north of the project area, and views of the project area are blocked by 

existing structures, so slight increases in light sources from the Project would not be noticeable to 

sensitive viewers. Therefore, impacts from light and glare would not be adverse.

3.9.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

The Project would not be expected to result in adverse impacts related to visual/aesthetics; therefore, no 

avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required.

3.10 Cultural Resources

The following discussion incorporates results from the Historic Properties Evaluation Report (HPER) (GPA 

Consulting, 2016b), the Archaeological and Paleontological Resources Phase I Assessment (ASR) that were

completed for the Project (GPA Consulting, 2017).

3.10.1 Regulatory Setting

The term “cultural resources,” as used in this document, refers to all “built environment” resources 

(structures, bridges, railroads, water conveyance systems, etc.), culturally important resources, 

archaeological resources (both prehistoric and historic), and paleontological resources regardless of 

significance. Laws and regulations dealing with cultural resources include:

National Environmental Policy Act

NEPA mandates the preservation of “important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national 

heritage” (§101.b4). In addition, NEPA is interpreted as providing for the protection and preservation of 

paleontological remains.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (Public Law 89-665; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) is 

legislation intended to preserve historical and archaeological sites in the United States. Section 106 of the 

NHPA requires federal agencies that license or fund projects to consider the undertaking’s effects on 

historic properties. For the purposes of Section 106 of the NHPA, an “historic property” is a resource 

(prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object) that is included in, or eligible for 

inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 106 review gives equal consideration 

to properties that have already been included in the NRHP as well as those that have not yet been 

included, but that meet one or more of the NRHP Criteria.

3.10.2 Affected Environment

Area of Potential Effects

Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the Project includes all areas that could potentially be affected either 

directly or indirectly by the Project, including construction, excavation, staging, and other activities that 

would disturb the site. The APE is considered the study area for cultural resources. The historic, 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

86

archeological, and paleontological resource APEs are the same for the Project. The APE is located north of 

I-5 and west of Valley View Avenue at milepost 157.8 on the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision (MTA 2014). 

The APE is on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Whittier quadrangle (1965 PR 1981). 

The APE is on the border of Sections 16 and 21 of Township 3S Range 11W of the San Bernardino Base 

and Meridian, and has a surface elevation range of between 82 and 112 feet above mean sea level (amsl).

The total horizontal area of the APE is approximately 53.2 acres (see Figure 3-9. Area of Potential 

EffectsError! Reference source not found.). The vertical extent of the APE is approximately 100 feet below 

grade at its lowest points, which are at the locations of the 28 concrete piles (piles provide support for 

the overpass). The purpose of the concrete piles is to provide support for the overpass. The piles would

be constructed by drilling large diameter holes in the ground. The APE also extends 35 feet above grade 

at the tallest points of the proposed overpass.

Per Section 106, SHPO was consulted on January 19, 2017 to verify the Project’s APE boundary (see 

Appendix A). SHPO approved the proposed APE on February 16, 2017 (See Appendix B). The APE 

boundary is illustrated in Figure 3-9. Area of Potential Effects.

Records Searches and Research

Historic Structures

According to the California Office of Historic Preservation, a structure is “historic” if it is 50 years old or 

older. Historic structures that are determined eligible for the NRHP are “historic properties” for the 

purposes of Section 106 compliance. 

A records search for historic structures was conducted on December 4, 2015 at the South Central Coastal 

Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University, Fullerton for the Project’s HPER (GPA Consulting, 

2016b). The records search included a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric archaeological sites 

within a 0.5-mile radius of the APE, as well as a review of known cultural resource surveys and excavation 

reports.

The records search included an examination of national, state, and local inventories of 

architectural/historic resources, including listings from the NRHP, California Register of Historical 

Resources, California Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the California State 

Historic Resources Inventory for Santa Fe Springs. The results of the records search indicated that four 

structures within a 0.5-mile radius of the APE had been evaluated previously for historic significance. The 

four identified structures included three properties and a segment of the BNSF railroad. One additional 

structure located just outside the 0.5-mile radius was also previously evaluated. Although not technically 

within the search radius, it was included in the record search results due to its close proximity.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

87

Figure 3-9. Area of Potential Effects
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

88

This page has been intentionally left blank.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

89

Of the four structures identified in the 0.5-mile radius, the BNSF railroad segment was previously 

determined ineligible for the NRHP, California Register of Historical Resources, and Local Listing; one 

property was previously determined ineligible for the NRHP, but the evaluation was considered 

incomplete; and two properties have been demolished since their previous NRHP eligibility 

determination. The structure identified outside of the 0.5-mile radius did not include an eligibility status.

In addition to reviewing the records search, the Caltrans Historic Bridge Inventory was reviewed due to 

the presence of one bridge, Caltrans Bridge No. 53C1443, within the APE. Bridge No. 53C1443, constructed 

in 1959, is listed in the Caltrans Historic Bridge Inventory as a Category 5 bridge, indicating that it has been 

previously evaluated and determined ineligible for the NRHP.

Archaeological & Paleontological

A cultural records search, preliminary archival research, and paleontological resource records search were 

conducted for the Project in January 2016 for the Project’s ASR (GPA Consulting, 2017). The results of this 

research indicated that 31 historic-period built resources and no prehistoric resources have been recorded 

within a 1-mile radius of the project area. Findings regarding historic-period built resources identified 

within the 0.5-mile radius search were consistent with the HRER search results above. 

Of the additional historic-period built resources identified within the 0.5-mile and 1-mile buffer, one 

existing significant historic resource was identified, P19-178616 (also P19-180617), in the City of La 

Mirada. This resource, the McNally’s Windermere Ranch (Neff Park), contains three additional resources, 

all of which are listed on the NRHP. These resources are P19-180618 (Carriage Barn), P19-180619 (George 

House), and P19-180620 (Neff Home). They consist of single-story, post-World War II residences that 

surround Neff Park on the west and south. They are located on San Ardo Drive and on Valley View Road 

in La Mirada.

No paleontological resources have been recorded within the APE, but one fossil locality has been recorded 

within the vicinity of the project area. This fossil specimen was at a shallow depth in older Quaternary 

alluvium, which is the same geologic unit as that at the Rosecrans/Marquardt Avenue intersection.

Native American Contact

A search of the Sacred Lands Inventory was requested from the Native American Heritage Commission 

(NAHC) in January 2016. Based on the NAHC’s search of the Sacred Lands Inventory, no recorded Native 

American traditional sites or places have been identified in the project area. However, the NAHC provided 

a list of Native American tribes, individuals, and organizations, who may have knowledge of cultural 

resources in the project area. On February 19, 2016, FRA initiated contact with Native American tribes, 

federally recognized and unrecognized, via letters through mail and email, for information regarding the 

presence of sensitive Native American cultural resources or other sensitive resources within the project 

area, consistent with Section 106 of the National Preservation Act. Per Section 106, SHPO was consulted 

on January 19, 2017 to verify the Project’s APE boundary and Native American consultation process (see 

Appendix A). SHPO approved the proposed process with the APE on February 16, 2017 (See Appendix B). 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

90

Ten persons were contacted for consultation. Follow-up calls were made to the Native American tribes 

on March 4, 2016. The following people in Table 3-8. Native American Consultation Summary were 

contacted for consultation.

Table 3-8. Native American Consultation Summary

Name Affiliation Contact 

Type

Comments

Sam Dunlap

Gabrielino/Tongva

Nation, Cultural

Resources Director

Left voicemail 

on March 4, 

2016

Sent letter on 

Feb 19, 2016

No written response as of May 18, 

2016

Ron Andrade

Los Angeles City/

County Native 

American

Indian Commission

Phone 

number 

disconnected

,

sent email on 

March 7, 

2016

Sent letter on 

Feb 19, 2016

No written response as of May 18, 

2016

Robert F. Dorame

Gabrielino Tongva

Indians of California

Tribal Council, Director

Phone call on

March 4, 

2016

Sent letter on 

Feb 19, 2016

Asked to resend packet. Reiterated if 

there is still no response, they have no 

affiliated family. No written response 

as of May 18, 2016

Bernie Acuña Gabrielino-Tongva

Tribe, Co-Chairperson

Left voicemail 

on March 4, 

2016

Sent letter on 

Feb 19, 2016

No written response as of May 18, 

2016

Linda Candelaria Gabrielino-Tongva

Tribe, Co-Chairperson

Left voicemail 

on March 4, 

2016

Sent letter on 

Feb 19, 2016

No written response as of May 18, 

2016

Andrew Salas

Gabrieleno Band of

Mission Indians – Kizh

Nation

Phone call on

March 4, 

2016

Sent letter on 

Feb 19, 2016

Mentioned that the Project is located 

within the boundaries of two prominent 

overlapping villages, Sejat and 

Nacuangna. Recommended 

archaeological and Native American 

monitors during ground disturbing 

activities, and requested phone log 

documentation. No written response 

as of May 18, 2016

Claimed direct family connection 

through Spanish and Native ancestry. 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

91

Name Affiliation Contact 

Type

Comments

Asked for email correspondence to 

send pertinent information. Emailed 

response on March 4, 2016

Anthony Morales

Gabrieleño/Tongva 

San

Gabriel Band of 

Mission

Indians, Chairperson

Phone call on

March 4, 

2016

Sent letter on 

Feb 19, 2016

Expressed concern due to village sites 

near San Gabriel River bed and the 

probability of railroads built on major 

prehistoric footpaths.

Sandonne Goad Gabrielino/Tongva

Nation, Chairperson

Left voicemail 

on March 4, 

2016

Sent letter on 

Feb 19, 2016

No written response as of May 18, 

2016

Conrad Acuña Gabrielino-Tongva 

Tribe

No phone 

number or 

email to

contact

Sent letter on 

Feb 19, 2016

No written response as of May 18, 

2016

John Tommy 

Rosas

Tongva Ancestral

Territorial Tribal Nation,

Tribal Administrator

No mailing 

address so 

letter

sent via email 

on Feb 22, 

2016

Emailed confirmation of receipt of 

letter

No written response as of May 18, 

2016

Source: GPA Consulting, 2017

Of the tribes, individuals, and organizations contacted regarding the Project, a response was received 

from Chairperson Andrew Salas of the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. In his response, 

Chairperson Salas did not mention any specific sites within the proposed APE, but did mention that the 

Project is located within the boundaries of two prominent overlapping villages, Sejat and Nacuangna. 

These two villages correlate with two of the villages discussed in the Archival Research results, Suvangna 

and Nakaungna, though research places the villages north and west of the Project. Historical records of 

these villages utilize the course of the San Gabriel River and its tributaries as locational data. Before 

modern channelization, the San Gabriel River was known to change course dramatically following flood 

events, and may subsequently prove an unreliable indicator of historic sites. Salas states that these two 

villages covered the area now occupied by Santa Fe Springs and Los Nietos (unincorporated area 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

92

northwest of Santa Fe Springs). Due to the sensitivity of the area, Mr. Salas requested a tribal monitor be

“on site at this Project location during all ground disturbance (this includes but is not limited to pavement 

removal, pot-holing or auguring, boring, grading, excavation and trenching).” The monitor would provide 

daily written reports and photographs of all activities as well as any cultural materials identified. Salas also 

states that despite the area being disturbed, there is still a possibility of finding cultural resources. He lists 

two examples of where prominent archaeological sites were encountered on previously developed 

project sites, one of which was not properly mitigated.

Anthony Morales, Chairperson of the Gabrieleño/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, also 

expressed his concerns regarding the Project, although he never sent a formal response but conveyed this 

information via telephone, stating that putting his comments in a phone log would serve as official 

documentation. He initially asked how close the project area is to the San Gabriel River, because the area 

around the riverbed is sensitive as many village sites were once located there. He also stated that historic 

railways were often built on major prehistoric footpaths. He therefore felt that the Project had the 

potential to yield Native American cultural resources and thus recommended that both an archaeological 

monitor and Native American monitor be present during Project-related ground disturbance.

Historic Structures

Based on the results of the records search, research, and field surveys, two of the four historic structures 

identified in the 0.5-mile search radius were within the APE. One resource was previously evaluated for 

listing in the NRHP. The resource is a segment of the BNSF railroad (Record # 19-186804) that runs through 

the APE and the half-mile search radius. An approximately 15-mile segment of the railroad was previously 

evaluated and found ineligible for the NRHP due to a lack of integrity. The segment was given a status 

code of 6Z (Found ineligible for the NRHP, California Register of Historical Resources, or Local designation 

through survey evaluation).

The second historic structure within the APE is a single-story industrial building (P19-186801) attached to 

a large warehouse belonging to Pan Pacific Fiber, Incorporated (Recycling). The resource is in the 

northwestern portion of the APE, within 0.25-mile of the Rosecrans/Marquardt Avenue intersection. The 

building was previously determined ineligible for the NRHP, but the evaluation was considered 

incomplete. The building was reevaluated as part of the Project, and was determined ineligible for the 

NRHP.

An architectural field survey was conducted on December 9, 2015. The purpose of the field survey was to 

examine the buildings and structures located within the APE greater than 45 years of age. Nine parcels

were identified with buildings greater than 45 years of age were identified in the APE. One of the parcels 

was the previously identified industrial building (P19-186801), which was determined ineligible for the 

NRHP. The eight remaining parcels were evaluated and determined to be ineligible for NRHP listing as well 

(see Appendix C).
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

93

Coordination is ongoing with SHPO, who confirmed determinations regarding historic resources in the 

study area on November 22, 2017, as noted in Appendix C. Therefore, these structures are not considered 

historic properties for the purposes of Section 106 compliance, and no further analysis is required. 

Archaeological Resources

During a pedestrian survey on January 15, 2016, historic archaeological resources were identified near the 

BNSF lines from the public ROW that may be related to either the current tracks or tracks that were 

previously present.

The artifacts include railroad spikes, bolts, tie plates, anchors, washers, and other metal artifacts. None of 

the non-attached metal artifacts were diagnostic, and were not significant by themselves. Several nonattached rails were nearby that were manufactured by Progress Rail, but they did not appear to be 

historic. 

Many of the base plate shoulders and brackets attached to the inactive rails did have marks on them, but 

not enough information could be obtained to identify the marks or assign dates, with the exception of 

PMCo that belongs to the no longer existing P.M. Company. One potential artifact was southwest of the 

railroad tracks on the southeast side of the Rosecrans/Marquardt Avenue intersection. The artifact 

consists of two halves of a ceramic item and was partially marked with “RAC/...AD”. The mark is unknown 

and no information could be obtained about it, and thus no date was identified.

No previously recorded prehistoric archaeological resources were identified through record searches or 

observed in the project area. However, responses from the Native American tribes indicated that the 

Project is in a sensitive area where many Native American villages were once present.

The majority of the project area is paved and in a heavily developed area, with properties/businesses 

surrounding the Rosecrans/Marquardt Avenue intersection. The only portion of the APE that was not 

paved was the BNSF ROW on the northwest and southeast sides of the intersection, which was covered 

in imported gravel and sand. The intersection is mostly covered in asphalt and surrounded by businesses, 

and no native soil was observable on the surface. 

Because the APE is mostly surrounded by businesses and covered in asphalt and concrete, the ability to 

identify signs of potential historic and prehistoric archaeological resources may be limited. However, 

historic or prehistoric archaeological resources may occur beneath the project area because historic 

archaeological resources were observed near the BNSF lines, and because the project area is sensitive for 

Native American resources as indicated through Native American consultation. Several informational 

sources were consulted with for general contextual research on the surrounding project area to identify

significant local historical events and personages, development patterns, and unique interpretations of 

architectural styles, as well as building specific research on the properties located within the Project APE. 

Sanborn maps from 1924, along with other relevant historic archives, were researched for the Project. No 

specific findings regarding cultural resources were identified from review of the Sanborn Maps.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

94

Paleontological Resources

No previously recorded paleontological resources were identified through record searches or observed in 

the project area. According to the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM), the native 

sediment beneath the Rosecrans/Marquardt Avenue intersection, along with the majority the APE, has a 

high potential for paleontological resources. Therefore, paleontological resources may occur below the 

surface within native deposits that are composed of older Quaternary alluvium.

3.10.3 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative

Implementation of the No Build Alternative would not require construction or result in changes to existing 

conditions; therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road (Build Alternative)

Historic archaeological resources were encountered in the project area, specifically in the BNSF ROW, 

during a field survey conducted in January 2016. The resources identified were directly related to the BNSF 

railroad tracks. Project construction would not require realignment or excavation of the BNSF railroad 

tracks in the project area. Excavation outside of the BNSF ROW could be required for completion of the 

Project. Project construction activities have the potential unearth historic archaeological resources. 

Disturbance of previously-unidentified historic archaeological resources would be considered an adverse 

impact. However, implementation of avoidance and minimization measures discussed below, would avoid 

or substantially minimize any potential impacts. 

No previously recorded prehistoric archaeological resources were identified through record searches or 

observed in the project area. Responses from the Native American tribes indicated that the Project is in a 

sensitive area where many Native American villages were once present. Although no Native American 

resources have been recorded within one mile of the project area, there is still the potential for resources 

to occur in buried native sediments that could be disturbed by the Project, based on the former Native 

American occupation of the area, and as stated in the Native American responses.

The Native American responses requested the presence of a Native American monitor during Projectrelated ground disturbance as included in measure C-7. With implementation of avoidance and 

minimization measures discussed below, the Project’s impacts would be avoided or substantially 

minimized, and no adverse impacts on Native American prehistoric archaeological resources are 

anticipated.

According to LACM, the native sediment beneath the Rosecrans/Marquardt Avenue intersection, along 

with the majority the APE, has a high potential for paleontological resources. Therefore, paleontological 

resources may occur below the surface within native deposits that are composed of older Quaternary 

alluvium. Disturbance of previously-unidentified paleontological resources would be considered an 

adverse impact. With implementation of avoidance and minimization measures discussed below, the 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

95

Project’s impacts would be avoided or substantially minimized, and no adverse impacts on paleontological

resources are anticipated.

3.10.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

To avoid and/or minimize potential impacts on archaeological and paleontological resources during 

construction, the following avoidance and minimization, measures would be implemented:

C-1 If any excavations or disturbances are to occur within the BNSF ROW (tracks plus imported 

fill/gravel on either side of the tracks), then they should be monitored full-time by a qualified 

archaeologist or archaeological monitor.

C-2 Any ground disturbances deeper than the engineered fill should be monitored full-time for 

paleontological resources by a qualified paleontologist or paleontological resources monitor. In 

addition, if indicators of microfossils (small teeth, bone fragments, abundant mollusks, plant 

debris, clay casts, carbonate-rich paleosols, or mudstones) are observed at any time during 

mitigation monitoring, samples of native sediment should be collected and processed per the 

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) 2010 guidelines. If paleontological resources are 

uncovered during Project construction, then work must stop in the immediate area of the 

resource and the paleontologist must assess the find and make appropriate recommendations.

C-3 If an archaeological or paleontological resource is encountered during construction when a 

monitor is not on site, then all work must halt in the area, and the Project Archaeologist and/or 

Project Paleontologist must be notified. Work cannot resume in the area until the find is assessed 

by the archaeological or paleontological professional and properly mitigated, and the professional 

indicates that construction can resume. If human remains are encountered at any point during 

Project construction, then the procedures dictated by law (see Regulatory Setting) must be 

implemented. If any resources are collected during mitigation monitoring of the Project, they 

must be properly processed, identified, analyzed, catalogued, and prepared for curation, as well 

as any other laboratory tasks that may need to be undertaken. All significant archaeological and 

paleontological resources collected during mitigation monitoring are to be curated at an 

accredited and permanent scientific institution. A Final Report of Findings document must also be 

prepared before the artifacts and/or fossils are curated at a legal repository. If no resources are 

collected or observed, then a Negative Findings document must be prepared instead. The report 

is to be submitted to Metro, SCCIC, and to the scientific institution at which any collected artifacts 

and/or fossils will be curated.

C-4 Section 106 of the NHPA does not apply to paleontological resources unless the paleontological 

specimens are found in a culturally related context (i.e., fossil shells included as mortuary 

offerings in a burial or a rock formation containing petrified wood used as a chipped stone quarry). 

In such instances, the material is considered a cultural resource and is treated in the manner 

prescribed for the site by Section 106. If excavation is required during Project construction, and a 

paleontological site is uncovered during construction monitoring, then the site would need to be 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

96

evaluated for NRHP listing eligibility and significance. If the site is determined to be significant, 

Metro would consult with the SHPO for further direction under Section 106. 

C-5 Any previously unknown archaeological sites discovered during the construction process will be 

subject to Section 106 review. The Project archaeologist must determine, in coordination with 

FRA, if the site is, or has the potential to be, eligible for the NRHP. All potential impacts to the 

resource must be considered, along with Project alternatives to avoid or reduce impacts on the 

site. Any determinations of eligibility, determinations of effect, or potential treatment/mitigation 

measures must be done within the Section 106 process. That process would require consultation 

with the SHPO and consulting parties to reach concurrence. If the Section 106 consultation results 

in an adverse effect, that adverse effect must be resolved. Resolution may require the execution 

of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in order to summarize the commitments required to 

fulfill the Section 106 process

C-6 At the conclusion of the Project, an update to the Department of Parks and Recreation site record 

for the BNSF (P18-186804) should be completed that documents the artifacts that are found 

within its vicinity.

C-7 An archaeological monitor will be present in addition to a Native American monitor during any 

ground disturbance activity.

With implementation of these avoidance and minimization measures, adverse impacts would be 

minimized and no mitigation measures are required.

3.11 Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff 

The following discussion incorporates the results of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report and the Phase I 

Initial Site Assessment (ISA) prepared for the Project (Earth Mechanics, Inc., 2015; Cornerstone 

Technologies, 2016).

3.11.1 Regulatory Setting

Federal 

Clean Water Act

In 1972, Congress amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, making the addition of pollutants to 

the waters of the U.S. from any point source unlawful unless the discharge is in compliance with a National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This act and its amendments are known today as 

the Clean Water Act (CWA). Congress has amended the act several times. In the 1987 amendments, 

Congress directed dischargers of storm water from municipal and industrial/construction point sources to 

comply with the NPDES permit scheme. The following are important CWA sections:

• Sections 303 and 304 require states to issue water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

97

• Section 401 requires an applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may 

result in a discharge to waters of the U.S. to obtain certification from the state that the discharge 

will comply with other provisions of the act. This is most frequently required in tandem with a 

Section 404 permit request (see below).

• Section 402 establishes the NPDES, a permitting system for the discharges (except for dredge or 

fill material) of any pollutant into waters of the U.S. Regional Water Quality Control Boards 

(RWQCB) administer this permitting program in California. Section 402(p) requires permits for 

discharges of storm water from industrial/construction and municipal separate storm sewer 

systems (MS4s).

• Section 404 establishes a permit program for the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters 

of the United States. This permit program is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE).

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4)

Section 402(p) of the CWA requires the issuance of NPDES permits for five categories of storm water 

discharges, including MS4s. An MS4 is defined as “any conveyance or system of conveyances (roads with 

drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, human-made channels, and 

storm drains) owned or operated by a state, city, town, county, or other public body having jurisdiction 

over storm water, that is designed or used for collecting or conveying storm water.” 

The Project is in Santa Fe Springs, which is under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality

Control Board (LARWQCB, Region 4). LARWQCB protects ground and surface water quality in the Los Angeles 

Region and oversees implementation of permit requirements and discharge controls pursuant to the 

federal NPDES program. The regional Water Quality Control Plan (WQCP) was adopted by LARWQCB to 

provide guidance to Los Angeles dischargers regulated under NPDES. The Basin Plan is organized by 

watershed within the entire Los Angeles Basin and the city is included within the San Gabriel River 

watershed, which receives drainage from a large area of eastern Los Angeles County. The LARWQCB 

implements the Basin Plan by issuing orders for investigation, cleanup, and abatement at sites containing 

discharges of waste and prohibiting certain discharges of waste in some areas.

Construction General Permit

Construction General Permit (Order No. 2009-009-DWQ), adopted on September 2, 2009, became 

effective on July 1, 2010. The permit regulates storm water discharges from all construction sites in 

California that disturb one acre or more. By law, all storm water discharges associated with construction 

activity where clearing, grading, and excavation result in soil disturbance of at least one acre must comply 

with the provisions of the General Construction Permit. Operators of regulated construction sites are 

required to develop storm water pollution prevention plans (SWPPP); to implement sediment, erosion, 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

98

and pollution prevention control measures; and to obtain coverage under the Construction General 

Permit.

3.11.2 Affected Environment

The project area is in an urban developed area surrounded primarily with asphalt paving and industrial 

and commercial land uses. No natural drainage or riparian areas existing within the project area. Storm 

water in the project area discharges into Coyote Creek approximately 0.2 mile to the west, which 

discharges into the Pacific Ocean approximately 11.8 miles south. 

Many of the channels, creeks, and rivers in the Los Angeles area are controlled through channelized 

structures and other flood control mechanisms. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works 

Flood Control District (LAFCD) has jurisdiction over major drainage and flood control improvements in 

Santa Fe Springs, and maintains numerous regional storm drains and flood control channels for this 

purpose. These regional improvements are complemented by local storm drain improvements provided 

by the City. 

The principal streams near the project area are the San Gabriel River and Rio Hondo River, which flow 

south from the San Gabriel Mountains and through the Whittier Narrows and down towards the Pacific 

Ocean. The San Gabriel River is approximately four miles west of the project area, while the Rio Hondo 

River is approximately 6.8 miles northwest of the project area. 

The primary sources of pollution in local waterbodies are from existing roadway operations including oil, 

grease, metals, petroleum products, pesticides, total suspended solids (TSS, which are solids in water that 

can be trapped by a filter, such as silt, decaying plant and animal matter, industrial wastes, and sewage), 

total dissolved solids (TDS, which are mobile charged ions, including minerals, salts, or metals, that are 

dissolved in water), nutrients, pathogens (bacteria, viruses, or other microorganisms that can result in 

disease), and litter. These pollutants are typically washed off the roadway surfaces by rainfall and 

discharged into local waterways via drains or directly through storm water runoff.

3.11.3 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative

Implementation of the No Build Alternative would not require construction or result in changes to existing 

conditions; therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road (Build Alternative)

When surface area of impervious surface is increased, additional storm water runoff is produced and 

conveyed into storm water facilities. The Project would include construction of an overpass at the 

intersection of Rosecrans Avenue, Marquardt Avenue, and the BNSF railroad tracks. However, 

implementation of the Project would not result in an increase of impervious surfaces because the original 

roadway would be removed and restored to pervious surface (see Table 3-9. Impervious Surface Area). 

The Project would result in a two percent increase of perviousness in the project area (Civil Works 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

99

Engineers, 2016). Existing drainage patterns would be maintained, and the Project would be able to 

adequately accommodate runoff levels, and adverse impacts on storm water facilities are not anticipated. 

Table 3-9. Impervious Surface Area

Existing Conditions Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector 

Road

Acres Percent Impervious Acres Percent Impervious

50.5 87 50.5 85

Source: Civil Works Engineers, 2016

The Project would not result in a substantial increase in impervious surface area and generally would 

improve traffic circulation in the study area without increasing overall volume. Therefore, the Project

would not result in additional sources of pollution, such as oils, grease, and petroleum products that come 

from motor vehicles, because the Project would not result in additional amounts of vehicular traffic 

moving through the area beyond what would move through the area under the No Build alternative. 

During construction, there is potential that exposed soils, construction debris, and other pollutants could 

be carried in storm water runoff and discharged into drainages near the project area. The Project would 

be required to comply with applicable permits, as identified in avoidance and minimization below. 

3.11.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

The Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the objectives of applicable NPDES 

MS4 and Construction General Permits, which would substantially minimize potential impacts as reflected 

in the measures below. 

W-1. The Project would include storm water treatment BMPs that would minimize sediment 

movement and storm water contamination along roadways. Therefore, no adverse impacts on 

water quality are anticipated from operation of the Project.

W-2. Construction impacts from the Project would be minimized through compliance with the NPDES 

Construction General Permit, which requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP. 

The SWPPP must include erosion and sediment control BMPs, as well as BMPs that control other 

potential construction-related pollutants. A Construction Site Monitoring Program that identifies 

monitoring and sampling requirements during construction is also a required component of the 

SWPPP. 

W-3. Construction BMPs would include implementation of erosion control measures, street sweeping 

and vacuuming, and installation of concrete washout bins, fiber rolls, drainage inlet protection, 

and sediment barriers. BMPs would be finalized during final Project design.

The Project would include implementation of avoidance and minimization measures identified above and 

would comply with applicable permit requirements. Therefore the Project is not anticipated to result in 

adverse impacts on water quality and storm water runoff.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

100

3.12 Hazardous Waste/ Materials

The following discussion incorporates the results of the Phase I ISA prepared for the Project (Cornerstone 

Technologies, 2016).

3.12.1 Regulatory Setting

Hazardous materials, including hazardous substances and wastes, are regulated by many state and federal 

laws. Statutes govern the generation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous materials, substances, 

waste, and the investigation and mitigation of waste releases, air and water quality, human health and 

land use.

The primary federal laws regulating hazardous wastes/materials are the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act of 1976 (RCRA). The purpose of CERCLA, often referred to as “Superfund,” is to identify and clean up 

abandoned contaminated sites so that public health and welfare are not compromised. The RCRA provides 

for “cradle to grave” regulation of hazardous waste generated by operating entities. Other federal laws 

include:

• Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA) of 1992;

• CWA;

• Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA);

• Safe Drinking Water Act;

• Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA);

• Atomic Energy Act;

• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); and

• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

In addition to the acts listed above, EO 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards,

mandates that necessary actions be taken to prevent and control environmental pollution when federal 

activities or federal facilities are involved.

California regulates hazardous materials, waste, and substances under the authority of the California

Health and Safety Code and is also authorized by the federal government to implement RCRA in the state.

California law also addresses specific handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, 

cleanup and emergency planning of hazardous waste. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act also 

restricts disposal of wastes and requires clean-up of wastes that are below hazardous waste 

concentrations but could impact ground and surface water quality. 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

101

Worker and public health and safety are key issues when addressing hazardous materials that may affect 

human health and the environment. Proper management and disposal of hazardous material is vital if it 

is found, disturbed, or generated during Project construction.

3.12.2 Affected Environment

Sensitive Receptors

Sensitive receptors are those members of the population that are most sensitive to pollutants, including 

children, the elderly, and the acutely and chronically ill. Sensitive receptors are often found in schools, 

daycare centers, playgrounds, and medical facilities. No schools, daycare centers, or medical facilities are

in or adjacent to the project area. The nearest schools to the project area are Forest Road Elementary 

School at 13930 Foster Road in La Mirada, approximately 0.5 mile north; Saint Paul of the Cross School at

14030 Foster Road in La Mirada, approximately 0.5 mile north; Arlie F. Hutchinson Middle School at 13900 

Estero Road in La Mirada, approximately 0.5 mile east of the Project.

Asbestos-Containing Materials

A preliminary survey for asbestos-containing materials (ACM) was not conducted. Structures built before 

1978 have the potential to contain ACMs. Based on the age of existing structures in the project area, there 

is potential for ACMs to be present in the project area. Smaller structures in the project area may contain 

ACMs. ACMs may also be on power poles in wire conduits. 

Lead-Based Paint

Due to the age of some structures, there is the potential for lead-based paint (LBP) to be present in the 

project area. Deteriorated LBP may mix with dust, soil, and other particulate matter and become spread 

throughout a structure. Lead is a highly toxic metal that may cause a range of health problems when 

absorbed into the body. 

Aerially-Deposited Lead

Aerially Deposited Lead (ADL) refers to lead deposited on highway shoulders from past leaded fuel vehicle 

emissions. Although leaded fuel was prohibited in California since the 1980s, ADL may still be present in 

soils adjacent to roadways that were in use prior to that time. 

The State of California and the federal government both have hazardous waste regulations pertaining to 

lead in soil and other waste materials. In California, soil containing 1,000 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) 

or more of total lead or 5 milligrams per liter (mg/l) or more of soluble lead is considered a “California 

hazardous waste,” although certain variances or exemptions may apply. These total and soluble lead 

concentrations are often referred to as the “total threshold limit concentration” (TTLC) and the “soluble 

threshold limit concentration” (STLC), respectively.

Due to the historical use of motor vehicle fuels (MVF) containing lead, property adjacent to historical 

thoroughfares typically contain concentrations of lead that have been historically aerially deposited.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

102

Creosote

Creosote is a wood preservative that is the result of distillation of tar from wood and coal (United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, 2016). Creosote is a pesticide treatment that is used to protect wood 

against termites, fungi, mites and other pests that degrade wood. These treated wood products are used 

in outdoor settings such as in railroad ties and utility poles. The BNSF railroad ties in the project area may 

contain creosote. Creosote treated wood waste is designated as Treated Wood Waste and requires special 

handling and disposal at an approved Treated Wood Waste disposal facility.

Oil and Gas Operations

A SoCalGas High Pressure Gas Line sign was observed along the Coyote Creek Bikeway near the project 

area. Review of the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) and SoCalGas Pipeline Map identified 

active Chevron and Crimson Oil pipelines along Stage Road. According to the California Department of 

Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) database, there is one oil/gas 

well approximately 600 feet southwest of the Rosecrans/Marquardt Avenue intersection. The well is 

identified as API# 03705675 Mobil Oil Corporation. This well is located at 14032 Marquardt Avenue.

An issue of concern with oil wells is the potential emission of methane and hydrogen sulfide gases. These 

gases can migrate through geologic materials, foundations, and/or through pathways such as old oil wells, 

and fissures and fractures in underlying geologic formations. The emitted gases have the potential to 

accumulate within building interiors, adversely affecting human health and create explosive conditions.

Polychlorinated Biphenyls

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) are a major type of toxic chemical regulated by TSCA. PCBs are most 

commonly found in electrical transformers and capacitors, air conditioning equipment, and lighting

ballasts. PCB liquids have been used as coolants, lubricants and hydraulic fluids in such equipment as 

electrical transformers, fluorescent light ballasts, electrical panels, large compressor, internal combustion 

engine crankcases, and hydraulic elevator lift equipment. In May of 1979, Federal regulations prohibited 

the use of PCB dielectric fluids in the manufacture or service of equipment. 

No possible PCBs were observed in the project area. However, overhead power lines were identified along 

both Rosecrans and Marquardt Avenues, and utility poles and transformers were observed in the 

immediate surroundings.

Underground Storage Tanks

The Phase I ISA Report completed for the Project did not identify any Underground Storage Tanks (UST) 

in the project area; however, further investigation of property information and compliance records

identified one UST site located at 13949 Stage Road. The report identified three Leaking Underground 

Storage Tanks (LUST) designations within a 0.25-mile search radius of the project area. The report did not 

identify any UST designations within a 0.25-mile search radius of the subject site. Additionally, the report 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

103

identified six Hazardous Substance Storage Container Database (HIST UST) designations within a 0.25-mile

search radius of the subject site. Cleanup has been completed at all identified LUST sites.

3.12.3 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative

Implementation of the No Build Alternative would not require construction or result in changes to existing 

conditions; therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road (Build Alternative)

Asbestos-Containing Materials and Lead-Based Paint

A preliminary survey for Asbestos Containing Building Materials (ACMs) and Lead Based Paint (LBP) was 

not included as a part of the Phase I Initial Study. Based on the age of existing structures in the project 

area, there is potential for ACM and LBP to be present in the project area. The Project would require the 

removal of roadway and several structures in the project area during Project construction. Removal of 

structures containing ACM or LBP could pose a health threat to workers and pedestrians in the project 

area via exposure of these hazardous materials. 

Aerially-Deposited Lead

Depending on the concentrations, near-surface soil containing ADL can pose a health risk to construction 

workers through inadvertent ingestion and/or the inhalation of particulates, and can be a hazardous 

waste. There is potential for the exposure of ADL to occur during construction activities because the 

Project is in a transportation corridor where ADL could be present.

Creosote

Based on the age of the BNSF railroad tracks in the project area, the railroad ties have potential to contain 

creosote. Creosote treated wood waste is designated as Treated Wood Waste and requires special 

handling and disposal at an approved Treated Wood Waste disposal facility.

Project improvements would include re-aligning Rosecrans Avenue to the south and constructing an 

overpass over the BNSF railroad tracks. The Project would not require any removal or construction on the 

BNSF railroad tracks that could expose workers or pedestrians to creosote. Therefore, the Project would 

not result in impacts related to creosote. 

Oil and Gas Operations

An oil/gas well was identified in the project area at 14032 Marquardt Avenue, approximately 600 feet 

southwest of the Rosecrans/Marquardt Avenue intersection. Construction activity near oil and gas 

operation facilities could result in emission of methane and hydrogen sulfide gases.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

104

Polychlorinated Biphenyls

Overhead power lines were identified along both Rosecrans and Marquardt Avenues along with utility 

poles and transformers observed in the immediate surroundings. 

Underground Storage Tanks

No LUST are located in the project area that could pose a threat on Project construction or operation. The 

identified UST in the project area would be avoided during construction. Therefore, the Project would not 

result in impacts related to USTs.

Other Hazardous Materials

Project construction would require the use of hazardous materials, such as concrete, paints, and sealants, 

and Project operation would also require the use of these materials for routine maintenance of the 

overpass. Additional hazardous materials may be identified during excavation for the proposed retaining 

walls and demolition of acquired properties. Therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated. 

3.12.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

Phase II SI is recommended to determine the presence of ACMs, ADL, and LBP in the project area. The 

Project would be implemented in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local hazardous 

material/waste regulations, which would substantially minimize potential impacts. In addition, the 

following avoidance and minimization measures would be implemented as part of the Project.

H-1. Prior to removal or renovation of structures that potentially contain ACMs or LBPs, a 

comprehensive survey would be completed by a hazardous waste professional at each structure. 

These surveys would be performed to determine if abatement is required prior to construction 

activities. If necessary, hazard abatement protocol would be followed to avoid potential health 

risks to the public; therefore, the Project would not result in adverse impacts related to ACMs or 

LBP.

H-2. The removal of LBP must be managed following a standardized lead compliance plan (LCP) and 

work plan (WP) to address the health and safety of workers performing the task. Excavation of 

soils containing lead and/or removal of LBP or coatings may also require monitoring of the 

ambient air by a certified industrial hygienist (CIH).

H-3. Based on the potential for soil contamination from ADL, a Phase II environmental site 

investigation (SI) is required. The investigation would be conducted in both the Project and 

construction detour areas. Further sampling and testing of the suspect materials would be 

conducted prior to any construction activity. 

H-4. Data from the soil investigation for ADL would be included in a WP. If adjacent soils test positive 

for levels of ADL, additional sampling investigations may be required to properly identify the 

vertical and lateral extents of ADL contamination. Additionally, excavation and removal of soils 

containing lead may require ambient air monitoring by a CIH. Through additional investigation 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

105

and any required remediation, ADL contamination would be characterized and remediated to 

avoid exposure of the public to hazardous levels of lead. Therefore, the Project would not result 

in adverse impacts related to ADL.

H-5. The DOGGR office would be contacted to determine if additional investigation or re-abandonment 

measures would be required in conjunction with construction near the project area. 

H-6. Closure, relocation, or construction adjacent to an oil well requires permitting, investigation, and 

possible methane avoidance measures. Upon consultation with DOGGR, proper measures would 

be followed, and the potential emission of methane and hydrogen sulfide gases would be avoided. 

Therefore, the Project would not result in adverse impacts related to oil and gas operations.

H-7. Transformers would be tested for possible PCBs prior to relocation or disposal, and disposed of in 

accordance with applicable hazardous materials regulations if PCBs were identified. Therefore, 

the Project would not result in adverse impacts related to PCBs.

H-8. Any hazardous materials in the project area would be handled in compliance with standard 

regulations, which would require the proper containment of these materials to avoid hazardous 

spill or leaks.

The Project would include implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures identified above 

that would stop or reduce any potential impacts related to hazardous materials from occurring. Therefore,

the Project would not result in adverse impacts from hazardous materials.

3.13 Air Quality

The following discussion incorporates the results of the Air Quality Study Report prepared for the Project

(AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting, LLC, 2018).

3.13.1 Regulatory Setting

Federal air quality policies are regulated through the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA). The FCAA required U.S. 

EPA to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and set deadlines for their attainment. 

Attainment status is determined by whether the criteria pollutant concentration meets the state or 

national ambient standards set for the region of interest. Two types of NAAQS have been established: 

primary standards, which protect public health, and secondary standards, which protect public welfare 

from non-health-related adverse impacts, such as visibility restrictions. The NAAQS and attainment 

designations are summarized in Table 3-10. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment 

Designations. 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

106

Table 3-10. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designations

Pollutant Averaging

Time

California Ambient Air Quality 

Standards

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards

Concentration Attainment 

Status Primary

Attainment 

Status for South 

Coast Air Basin

Ozone 

(O3)

1-hour 0.09 parts per 

million (ppm) NonAttainment

– NonAttainment1

8-hour 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm

Particulate Matter 

(PM10)

AAM 20 μg/m3

NonAttainment

– Attainment 

(Maintenance) 24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3

Fine Particulate 

Matter (PM2.5)

AAM 12 μg/m3

NonAttainment

12 μg/m3

Non-Attainment 

(Serious) 24-hour No Standard 35 μg/m3

Carbon Monoxide 

(CO)

1-hour 20 ppm

Attainment

35 ppm

Attainment 

(Maintenance)

8-hour 9 ppm 9 ppm

8-hour 

(Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm –

Nitrogen Dioxide 

(NO2)

AAM 0.030 ppm

Attainment

0.053 ppm Attainment/ 

Unclassified 1-hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppb

Sulfur Dioxide 

(SO2)

AAM –

Attainment

0.03 ppm

Attainment/ 

Unclassified2

24-hour 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm

3-hour – --

1-hour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb

Lead

30-day Average 1.5 μg/m3

Attainment

–

Nonattainment 

(Partial)3

Calendar 

Quarter – 1.5 μg/m3

Rolling 3-

Month Average – 0.15 μg/m3

Sulfates 24-hour 25 μg/m3 Attainment No
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

107

Pollutant Averaging

Time

California Ambient Air Quality 

Standards

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards

Concentration Attainment 

Status Primary

Attainment 

Status for South 

Coast Air Basin

Hydrogen Sulfide 1-hour 0.03 ppm 

(42 μg/m3

) Unclassified

Federal 

Standards

Vinyl Chloride 24-hour 0.01 ppm 

(26 μg/m3) Attainment

Visibility-Reducing 

Particle Matter 8-hour

Extinction 

coefficient: 

0.23/kilometervisibility of 10 

miles or more 

(0.07-30 miles or 

more for Lake 

Tahoe) due to 

particles when 

the relative 

humidity is less 

than 70%.

Unclassified

1.Los Angeles County is designated Nonattainment-Extreme for the 1-hour standard and the 2008 8-hour 

standard. Attainment designation for the 2015 8-hour standard is pending.

2.Designation for the 1-hour standard is pending; expected to be Attainment/Unclassified.

3.Los Angeles County portion of the South Coast Basin only for near-source monitors. Expect to remain in 

attainment based on current monitoring data.

Source: AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting, LLC, 2018

The FCAA also required each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The FCAA Amendments of 1990 added requirements for states with 

nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air 

pollution. The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, 

and rules and regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. The U.S. EPA has 

responsibility to review all state SIPs to determine conformance with the mandates of the FCAA, and the 

amendments thereof, and determine if implementation will achieve air quality goals. If the U.S. EPA 

determines a SIP to be inadequate, a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) may be prepared for the 

nonattainment area that imposes additional control measures. 

The CAA requires that Federal agencies do not adopt, accept, approve or fund activities that are not 

consistent with air quality goals. The transportation and general conformity regulations provide the 

framework for meeting this CAA requirement. Transportation conformity applies to Federal highway and 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

108

transit projects that receive Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA) funding and approvals, while general conformity applies to all other Federal actions. The Project will 

not receive FHWA or FTA funding or approvals, and therefore transportation conformity does not apply. 

The Project is receiving funding through FRA; therefore, general conformity applies to the Project.

Localized Pollutant “Hot-spots”

“Hot-spot” analyses assess the air quality impacts on a scale smaller than an entire nonattainment or 

maintenance area, including, for example, congested intersections. In general, projects must not cause 

the “hot-spot”-related standard to be violated, and must not cause any increase in the number and 

severity of violations in nonattainment areas. If a known CO or particulate matter violation is in the project 

vicinity, the project must include measures to reduce or eliminate the existing violation(s) as well.

Within California, the Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol), University of 

California Davis, December 1997, is typically used for localized CO “hot-spot” analyses. The CO Protocol

provides procedures and guidelines for use by agencies to evaluate the potential local level CO impacts of 

a transportation project. In accordance with the CO Protocol, a more detailed analysis of CO may be 

required for projects that would contribute to increased vehicle delay at signalized intersections projected 

to operate at unacceptable levels of service (i.e., LOS E or F). 

General Conformity

The program by which a federal agency determines that an action would not obstruct or conflict with air 

quality attainment plans is called "general conformity." The implementing regulations for general 

conformity are found in Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, part 51, subpart W and part 93, subpart B. 

General conformity applies to Federal actions that do not include FHWA/FTA projects as defined in 40 CFR 

93.101 and that take place in nonattainment or maintenance areas for all criteria pollutants. A conformity 

determination is required for each criteria pollutant or precursor where the total of direct and indirect 

emissions of the criteria pollutant or precursor in a federal nonattainment or maintenance area would 

equal or exceed specified annual emission rates, referred to as de minimis levels. For ozone precursors 

(VOC/ROG and NOX) and PM10, the de minimis levels depend on the severity of the nonattainment 

classification; for other pollutants, the level is set at 100 tons per year. 

General Conformity applies to FRA projects, including this one. Because FRA will be funding the proposed 

project, General Conformity would apply to the proposed project. However, because emissions resulting 

from the Project would be under de minimis thresholds, a conformity determination is not required.

As noted in Table 3-10. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designations, the 

South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), where the project area is located, is designated extreme nonattainment for 

the federal O3 standards and serious nonattainment for the federal PM2.5 standard. The SCAB is designated 

maintenance for federal PM10 and CO standards. In addition, the Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB 

is designated nonattainment for the federal Lead standard. The relevant de minimis levels for the SCAB

are also shown in Table 3-11. Federal General Conformity De Minimis Levels for Los Angeles County.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

109

Table 3-11. Federal General Conformity De Minimis Levels for Los Angeles County

Pollutant De Minimis Level

VOC 10

NOX 10

CO 100

PM10 100

PM2.5 100

Source: AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting, LLC, 2018

SCAQMD Rules & Regulations

Construction of the Build Alternative would be required to comply with applicable SCAQMD rules and 

regulations including, but not limited to, Rule 402, Nuisance, and Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. Rule 402 requires 

that air pollutant emissions not be a nuisance off-site. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled 

with the best available control measures in order to reduce dust so that it does not remain visible in the 

atmosphere beyond the property line of the proposed project. In addition, the demolition of onsite 

structures would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403, Asbestos Emissions from Demolition 

Activities and the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61, Subpart M - asbestos 

NESHAP). The SCAQMD is delegated authority by the U.S. EPA to implement the Federal Asbestos National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), which requires the removal of identified 

asbestos-containing materials prior to demolition.

LACMTA Green Construction Policy

On August 4, 2011, the LACMTA adopted a Green Construction Policy (GCP). Through this GCP, the 

LACMTA commits to ensuring that all on-road and off-road equipment used in its construction activities 

are green and less-polluting. The GCP requires that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment 

greater than 50 hp to meet, at a minimum, Tier-4 off-road emission standards and implement Best 

Available Control Technology (BACT) for the control of diesel-exhaust particulate matter. In addition, onroad heavy-duty diesel vehicles with a GVWR of 19,500 pounds or greater shall comply with EPA 2007 onroad emission standards for PM and NOx (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 

2011).

3.13.2 Affected Environment

The study area for this impact analysis is considered the SCAB. The study area is described below.

Topography

The Project is in the SCAB, which is surrounded by mountains on three sides and the Pacific Ocean on the 

west. The mountains serve as a barrier, preventing the dispersion of pollutants. Prevailing wind patterns 

off the ocean carry pollutants eastward across the SCAB, enabling chemical reactions as new emissions 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

110

are added to existing pollutant concentrations. Intense sunlight provides the light necessary to allow

production of O3.

Regional Metrology and Climate

Average wind speeds in the SCAB are light and primarily from the west. Mild sea breezes slowly carry 

pollutants inland. An inversion layer, which is a layer of warm air that lies over cooler, ocean air, often 

acts as a lid, preventing air pollutants from escaping upward. In the summer, these temperature inversions 

are stronger than in winter, preventing O3 and other pollutants from escaping upward and dispersing. In 

the winter, a ground-level or surface inversion commonly forms during the night. Annual average 

temperature varies little throughout the SCAB averaging approximately 62 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Based 

on historical data for the Los Angeles area, average temperatures range from a January low of 

approximately 49 °F to an August high of approximately 84 °F.

Emissions Inventory and Trends

Emissions inventory and trends for the SCAB are summarized in Table 3-12. SCAB Emissions Inventory and 

Projections. Overall, since 2000, the emission levels for the O3 precursors, NOx and VOCs, have been 

decreasing in the SCAB and are projected to continue decreasing through 2035. The decreases are 

predominantly due to motor vehicle controls and reductions in evaporative emissions. In the SCAB, onroad motor vehicles are the largest contributors to NOx, and VOC emissions. Other mobile sources are 

also major contributors to NOx emissions. In addition, the emission levels for SOx have decreased since 

2000. This is mainly due to the switch from fuel oil to natural gas for electric generation and to reduced 

sulfur content in fuels. 

Table 3-12. SCAB Emissions Inventory and Projections

Pollutant

Emissions (tons/day, annual average)

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

VOC 956 678 544 429 400 393 393 391

NOX 1106 888 603 451 357 289 266 257

SOX 53 50 19 18 17 17 18 20

PM2.5 88 84 71 67 67 68 70 71

PM10 179 175 160 155 161 165 170 172

Source: AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting, LLC, 2017a
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

111

Air Quality Monitoring Data

Air pollutant concentrations are measured at several monitoring stations in the SCAB. The nearest 

representative ambient air quality monitoring station to the project area is the Pico Rivera-4144 San 

Gabriel monitoring station (which measures O3, PM10, CO, PM2.5, and NO2). The nearest monitoring station 

providing ambient PM10 measurement data is the Anaheim-Pampas Lane Monitoring Station. Ambient air 

quality monitoring data for these stations were obtained for the last five years of available measurement 

data (i.e., 2011 through 2015) and are summarized in Table 3-13. Summary of Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring Data. As depicted, state and federal O3 standards were exceeded on numerous occasions 

during the past five years. The state and federal standards for suspended particulates (i.e., PM10 and PM2.5) 

have also been exceeded on various occasions during the past five years. 

Attainment Status

Under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is required to 

designate areas of the state as “attainment”, “nonattainment”, or “unclassified” with respect to 

applicable standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did 

not violate the applicable standard in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant 

concentration violated the applicable standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation 

was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. Depending on the frequency and severity 

of pollutants exceeding applicable standards, the nonattainment designation can be further classified as 

serious nonattainment, severe nonattainment, or extreme nonattainment, with extreme nonattainment 

being the most severe of the classifications. An “unclassified” designation signifies that the data do not 

support either an attainment or nonattainment status. The CCAA divides districts into moderate, serious, 

and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each 

category.

The U.S. EPA designates areas for O3, CO, and NO2 as “does not meet the primary standards,” “cannot be 

classified,” or “better than national standards.” For SO2, areas are designated as “does not meet the 

primary standards,” “does not meet the secondary standards,” “cannot be classified,” or “better than 

national standards.” However, the CARB terminology of attainment, nonattainment, and unclassified is 

more frequently used. The U.S. EPA uses the same sub-categories for nonattainment status: serious, 

severe, and extreme. In 1991, U.S. EPA assigned new nonattainment designations to areas that had 

previously been classified as Group I, II, or III for PM10 based on the likelihood that they would violate 

national PM10 standards. All other areas are designated “unclassified.”
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

112

Table 3-13. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data

Summary of Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data1,2 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Ozone (O3)

Maximum concentration (1-hour/8-hour average) 0.096/0.074 0.106/0.075 0.101/0.072 0.121/0.092 0.107 /0.081

Number of days state/national 1-hour standard exceeded 1/0 5/0 2/0 7/0 6/0

Number of days state/national 8-hour standard exceeded 1/0 6/0 3/0 7/5 11/2

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

Maximum concentration (1-hour/8-hour average) 4 2.7/2.37 2.7/2.16 3.6/2.0 3.9/2.5 2.8/1.7

Number of days state 1-hour/8-hour standard exceeded 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

Number of days national 1-hour/8-hour standard exceeded 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)

Maximum concentration (1-hour average) 90.6 80.8 104.6 86.7 70.4

Annual average NA NA NA 19 NA

Number of days state/national standard exceeded 0/0 0/0 0/1 0/0 0/0

Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10)

Maximum concentration (state/national) 53.0 48.0 77.0 85.0 59.0

Number of days state standard exceeded

(measured/calculated 3 2/12.2 0/0 1/5.7 2/12.0 2/12.1

Number of days national standard exceeded

(measured/calculated 3 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

Maximum 24-hr. concentration (state/national) 41.2 45.3 29.1 35.1 52.7

Annual Average (state/national) 12.5/12.4 11.9/11.8 11.8/11.7 NA/12.0 11.5/11.5
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

113

Summary of Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Data1,2 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of days national standard exceeded

(measured/calculated 3 1/3.3 1/3.1 0/0 0/0 0/0

ppm = parts per million by volume; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; NA = Insufficient or no data available to determine value

1. Based on ambient air quality monitoring data obtained from the Pico Rivera-4144 San Gabriel Monitoring Station. PM10 data obtained from the Anaheim-Pampas 

Lane Monitoring Station.

2. Reported state and national monitoring values and statistics may differ for various reasons, including the monitor used, monitor location, and ambient/site conditions. 

Where variations in reported concentration values were noted, the higher value was identified in this table.

3. Measured days are those days that an actual measurement was greater than the level of the state daily standard or the national daily standard. Measurements are 

typically collected every six days. Calculated days are the estimated number of days that a measurement would have been greater than the level of the standard had 

measurements been collected every day. The number of days above the standard is not necessarily the number of violations of the standard for the year. 

4. One-hour CO concentrations obtained from the U.S. EPA. 

Source: AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting, LLC, 2017a
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

114

The state and national attainment status designations pertaining to the SCAB are summarized in Table 

3-10. Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Designations. The SCAB is currently 

designated as a nonattainment area with respect to the state and federal O3 and PM2.5 standards and the

state PM10 standards. The SCAB is also designated maintenance for the federal CO and PM10 standards. In 

addition, based on monitoring data obtained near a lead acid battery reclamation facility, Los Angeles 

County is currently designated nonattainment for the federal lead standards. With the exception of Los 

Angeles County, the remainder of the SCAB is designated attainment for the lead standards. The SCAB is 

designated attainment or unclassified for the remaining State and Federal standards.

Sensitive Receptors

One of the most important reasons for air quality standards is the protection of those members of the 

population who are most sensitive to the adverse health impacts of air pollution, termed "sensitive 

receptors." The term “sensitive receptors” refers to specific population groups, as well as the land uses 

where individuals would reside for long periods. Commonly identified sensitive population groups are 

children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill. Commonly identified sensitive land uses would 

include facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are 

especially sensitive to the impacts of air pollutants. Residential dwellings, schools, parks, playgrounds, 

childcare centers, convalescent homes, and hospitals are examples of sensitive land uses. 

Existing land uses in the project area consist of a mix of industrial/manufacturing land uses, as shown in 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

115

Figure 3-2 (see Section 3.2). No sensitive receptors have been identified in the project area. The nearest 

sensitive land uses consist of residential dwellings approximately 400 feet north of Rosecrans Avenue, 

east of Marquardt Avenue. No undeveloped lands currently permitted for future development have been 

identified in the project area.

3.13.3 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative

Implementation of the No Build Alternative would not require construction or result in changes to existing 

conditions; therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road (Build Alternative)

Criteria Air Pollutants

Project construction is anticipated to begin in 2020 and last approximately 24 months. Construction 

activities associated with the Project would result in emissions of fugitive dust associated with material 

handling activities, ground disturbance, and vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces. Off-road construction 

equipment and on-road vehicle trips would also result in short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. 

Construction-generated emissions would vary depending on the activities conducted.

Annual construction-generated emissions are summarized in Table 3-14. Annual Construction Emissions 

of Criteria Air Pollutants. As depicted, the highest annual construction-generated emissions would total 

approximately 0.5 tons per year (tons/year) of VOC, 9.5 tons/year of NOX, 9.5 tons/year of CO, 0.6

tons/year of PM10, and 0.4 tons/year of PM2.5. Construction-generated emissions would not exceed the 

General Conformity de minimis levels. As a result, a Federal General Conformity determination is not 

required for construction-related activities.

Long-term operational emissions of criteria air pollutants associated with the Project would be 

associated with the operation of motor vehicles. Based on information obtained from the traffic analysis 

prepared for this Project, implementation of the Project would not result in a change in average vehicle 

speeds or traffic volumes within the project area. However, implementation of the Project would result 

in slight changes in peak-hour vehicle delay at nearby roadway intersections, as well as, changes in vehicle 

distribution. Estimated changes in operational emissions are summarized below in Table 3-15.

Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants

Table 3-15. Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants.

In comparison to existing conditions, future year 2040 emissions are projected to decline, due largely to 

projected future improvements in vehicle emission standards and fleet turnover. The Project, in 

comparison to no-build conditions, would result in slight increases in on-road motor vehicle emissions. In 

comparison to no- build conditions, the Project would result in overall increases of approximately 0.1 

tons/year of VOC, 0.2 tons/year of NOX, and 0.8 tons/year of CO. Increases in PM10 and PM2.5 attributable 

to the Project would be negligible. Annual increases of operational criteria air pollutants would not exceed 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

116

Federal General Conformity de minimis levels. As a result, a Federal General Conformity determination is 

not required.

Table 3-14. Annual Construction Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants

Construction Year Emissions (tons/year)1,2

VOC NOX CO PM10 PM2.5

Year 1 0.5 9.5 8.6 0.6 0.4

Federal General Conformity De Minimis Levels: 10 10 100 100 100

Exceeds Federal General Conformity De Minimis

Levels? No No No No No

Year 2 0.5 8.1 9.5 0.6 0.4

Federal General Conformity De Minimis Levels: 10 10 100 100 100

Exceeds Federal General Conformity De Minimis

Levels? No No No No No

1. Includes compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 for the control of construction-generated fugitive dust and LACMTA 

GCP. Includes the use of heavy-duty, off-road construction equipment meeting, at a minimum, Tier 3 emission 

standards. SOX emissions are negligible.

2. Emissions were calculated using the CalEEMod computer program, version 2016.3.1. Includes demolition of 

approximately 134,200 sf of building area, 115,600 cy of fill imported, and approximately 6,400 cy of material 

exported.

Source: AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting, LLC, 2017a

Table 3-15. Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants

Year

Emissions (tons/year)1

VOC NOX PM10 PM2.5 CO

Existing Conditions

Project Area On-Road Motor Vehicle 

Idling 0.3 1.2 0.0 0.0 3.3

Project Area On-Road VMT 1.0 8.9 0.1 0.1 29.8

Total 1.3 10.1 0.1 0.1 33.1

Future Year 2040 –No Build Alternative

Project Area On-Road Motor Vehicle 

Idling 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.0

Project Area On-Road VMT 0.4 1.5 0.0 0.0 11.0

Total 0.6 2.4 0.0 0.0 13.0

Future Year 2040 –Build Alternative
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

117

Year

Emissions (tons/year)1

VOC NOX PM10 PM2.5 CO

Project Area On-Road Motor Vehicle 

Idling 0.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.4

Project Area On-Road VMT 0.4 1.6 0.0 0.0 11.4

Total 0.7 2.6 0.0 0.0 13.8

Change in Emissions Compared to 

Existing Conditions -0.6 -7.5 -0.1 -0.1 -19.3

Change in Emissions Compared to No 

Build Alternative 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.8

Federal General Conformity De Minimis

Levels: 10 10 100 100 100

Exceeds Federal General Conformity De 

Minimis Levels? No No No No No

3. Emissions of SOX, Lead, and PM are negligible. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

4. Vehicle idle emissions were calculated based on changes in vehicle-idle hours derived from the traffic analysis prepared for 

this Project. 

5. Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) emissions was calculated based on changes in vehicle travel distances associated with the 

proposed Project and vehicle trip distribution information derived from the traffic analysis prepared for this Project. 

Source: AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting, LLC, 2017a

Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations

The Project would eliminate vehicle idling at the existing Rosecrans/Marquardt Avenue at-grade railroad 

crossing and is anticipated to result in decreased delay for vehicles traveling on Rosecrans Avenue. Based 

on traffic analysis conducted, the Project would not result in a reduction in average vehicle speeds along 

area roadways. 

Under existing year 2015 conditions, all intersections, except for Carmenita Road/Alondra Boulevard, are 

projected to operate at level of service (LOS) D, or better. Intersections with the lowest performance are 

where the major highway corridors intersect. Carmenita Road/Alondra Boulevard is primarily affected by

inbound and outbound vehicle traffic from the I-5 freeway. 

Under future year 2040 conditions, the Build Alternative would result in a worsening of LOS and vehicle 

delay (compared to existing year 2015 conditions) at the following signalized intersections:

• Carmenita Road/Rosecrans Avenue (from Peak AM/PM LOS D/D to LOS E/E);

• Carmenita Road/Alondra Boulevard (from Peak AM/PM LOS E/D to LOS F/E);

• Valley View Avenue/Alondra Boulevard (from Peak AM/PM LOS D/D to LOS E/E);

• Valley View Avenue/Rosecrans Avenue (from Peak AM/PM LOS C/D to LOS D/E); and 

• Valley View Avenue/Foster Road (from Peak AM/PM LOS C/B to LOS D/B). 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

118

All other signalized intersections would either operate at LOS D, or better, or would not experience 

decreased vehicle delay with implementation of the Project (see Section 3.8.3).

The CO Protocol provides procedures and guidelines for use by California agencies to evaluate the 

potential local level CO impacts of a highway project. In accordance with the CO Protocol, a more detailed 

analysis of CO may be required for projects that would contribute to increased vehicle delay at signalized 

intersections projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service (i.e., LOS E or F). Localized mobilesource CO concentrations were, therefore, evaluated for the above noted intersections. 

The results of the CO modeling analysis are summarized in Table 3-16. Predicted Mobile-Source CO 

Concentrations at Primarily Affected Intersections. As depicted, the highest predicted 1-hour and 8-hour 

CO concentrations at the intersections evaluated would be approximately 5.3 parts per million (ppm) and 

3.6 ppm, respectively. Predicted 1-hour and 8-hour CO concentrations would not exceed applicable 

NAAQS for CO, nor the more stringent CAAQS.

Table 3-16. Predicted Mobile-Source CO Concentrations at Primarily Affected Intersections

Intersection

CO Concentration (ppm)

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

1-Hour 8-Hour 1-Hour 8-Hour

Year 2020 with Build Alternative1

1. Carmenita Road and Rosecrans Avenue 5.2 3.5 5.2 3.5

2. Carmenita Road and Alondra Boulevard 5.0 3.3 4.9 3.2

3. Valley View Avenue and Alondra Boulevard 5.3 3.6 5.2 3.5

4. Valley View Avenue and Rosecrans Avenue 5.2 3.5 5.1 3.4

5. Valley View Avenue and Foster Road 5.0 3.2 5.0 3.2

Year 2040 with Build Alternative2

1. Carmenita Road and Rosecrans Avenue 4.3 2.8 4.3 2.8

2. Carmenita Road and Alondra Boulevard 4.3 2.7 4.2 2.7

3. Valley View Avenue and Alondra Boulevard 4.4 2.9 4.3 2.8

4. Valley View Avenue and Rosecrans Avenue 4.3 2.8 4.3 2.8

5. Valley View Avenue and Foster Road 4.3 2.7 4.3 2.7

California Ambient Air Quality Standards: 9 20 9 20
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

119

Intersection

CO Concentration (ppm)

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

1-Hour 8-Hour 1-Hour 8-Hour

National Ambient Air Quality Standards: 9 35 9 35

Exceeds Ambient Air Quality Standards? No No No No

6. Intersection LOS and traffic data were not calculated for opening year 2020 conditions with 

implementation of the build alternative. To ensure a conservative analysis, traffic volumes for primarily 

affected roadway intersections were based on the higher year 2040 traffic conditions with implementation 

of the build alternative. Emission factors were based on year 2020 conditions derived from the CTEMFAC 

computer program, version 6.0.

7. Based on year 2040 conditions with implementation of the build alternative. Emission factors were based 

on year 2040 conditions derived from the CTEMFAC computer program, version 6.0.

Source: AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting, LLC, 2017aAsbestos

The project area is not in a location identified as containing or likely to contain serpentine and ultramafic 

rock. Therefore, the discovery of naturally occurring asbestos during construction would be unlikely. 

Asbestos can also be found in various building products, including (but not limited to) utility 

pipes/pipelines (transit pipes or insulation on pipes). Of particular concern are older structures 

constructed prior to 1970. Based on a preliminary search of the project area, one parcel has been 

identified as having structures that were potentially constructed prior to 1970, which is located at 13900 

Rosecrans Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Number 8069-005-002). If activities would involve the disturbance

or potential disturbance of ACM, various regulatory requirements may apply, including the requirements 

stipulated in SCAQMD Rule 1403, Asbestos Emissions from Demolition Activities and the National Emission 

Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61, Subpart M - asbestos NESHAP). These requirements 

include notification, inspection, work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions associated with 

building demolition and renovation activities.

Odors

Minor sources of odors would be present during construction, approximately 24-month period beginning 

in 2020. The predominant source of power for construction equipment is diesel engines. Exhaust odors 

from diesel engines, as well as emissions associated with asphalt paving, may be considered offensive to 

some individuals. However, because odors would be temporary and would disperse rapidly with distance 

from the source, construction-generated odors would not be anticipated to result in the frequent 

exposure of receptors to objectionable odorous emissions.

Mobile-Source Air Toxics

The following discussion is based on the FHWA Memorandum, Subject: INFORMATION: Updated Interim 

Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents, dated October 18, 2016. The purpose 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

120

of the guidance is to advise when and how to analyze MSATs in the NEPA process for highways. This 

guidance is interim, given that MSAT science is still evolving. As the science progresses, FHWA will update 

the guidance.

Background

Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that the U.S. EPA regulate 188 air toxics, also known 

as HAPs. The U.S. EPA has assessed this expansive list in their latest rule on the Control of Hazardous Air 

Pollutants from Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8430, February 26, 2007), and 

identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources that are listed in their Integrated Risk 

Information System (IRIS). In addition, the U.S. EPA identified seven compounds with significant 

contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and regional-scale cancer risk drivers from 

their 1999 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA). These are acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butidiene, diesel 

particulate matter plus diesel exhaust organic gases (diesel PM), formaldehyde, naphthalene, and 

polycyclic organic matter. While FHWA considers these the priority MSATs, the list is subject to change 

and may be adjusted in consideration of future U.S. EPA rules.

The 2007 U.S. EPA rule discussed above requires controls that will dramatically decrease MSAT emissions 

through cleaner fuels and cleaner engines. Based on an FHWA analysis using the U.S. EPA's MOVES2014a

model, as shown in Figure 3-10, even if VMT increases by 45 percent as assumed from 2010 to 2050, a 

combined reduction of 91 percent in the total annual emissions for the priority MSAT is projected for the 

same time period.

Diesel PM is the dominant component of MSAT emissions, making up 50 to 70 percent of all priority MSAT 

pollutants by mass, depending on calendar year. Users of MOVES2014a will notice some differences in 

emissions compared with MOVES2010b. MOVES2014a is based on updated data on some emissions and 

pollutant processes compared to MOVES2010b, and also reflects the latest Federal emissions standards 

in place at the time of its release. In addition, MOVES2014a emissions forecasts are based on lower VMT 

projections than MOVES2010b, consistent with recent trends suggesting reduced nationwide VMT growth 

compared to historical trends.

Mobile Source Air Toxics Research

Air toxics analysis is a continuing area of research. While much work has been done to assess the overall 

health risk of MSATs, many questions remain unanswered. In particular, the tools and techniques for 

assessing project-specific health outcomes as a result of lifetime MSAT exposure remain limited. These 

limitations impede the ability to evaluate how potential public health risks posed by MSAT exposure 

should be factored into project-level decision-making within the context of NEPA.

Nonetheless, MSAT concerns continue to be raised on highway projects during the NEPA process. Even as 

the science emerges, we are duly expected by the public and other agencies to address MSAT impacts in 

our environmental documents. The FHWA, U.S. EPA, the Health Effects Institute (HEI), and others have 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

121

funded and conducted research studies to try to more clearly define potential risks from MSAT emissions 

associated with highway projects. The FHWA will continue to monitor the developing research in this field.

Incomplete or Unavailable Information for Project-Specific Mobile Source Air Toxics Health Impacts 

Analysis 

Air toxics analysis is a continuing area of research. While much work has been done to assess the overall 

health risk of MSATs, many questions remain unanswered. In particular, the tools and techniques for 

assessing project-specific health outcomes as a result of lifetime MSAT exposure remain limited. In 

FHWA's view, information is incomplete or unavailable to credibly predict the project-specific health 

impacts due to changes in MSAT emissions associated with a proposed set of highway alternatives. The 

outcome of such an assessment, adverse or not, would be influenced more by the uncertainty introduced 

into the process through assumption and speculation rather than any genuine insight into the actual 

health impacts directly attributable to MSAT exposure associated with a proposed action.

The U.S. EPA is responsible for protecting the public health and welfare from any known or anticipated 

effect of an air pollutant. They are the lead authority for administering the FCAA and its amendments and 

have specific statutory obligations with respect to HAPs and MSATs. The U.S. EPA is in the continual 

process of assessing human health effects, exposures, and risks posed by air pollutants. They maintain the 

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which is “a compilation of electronic reports on specific 

substances found in the environment and their potential to cause human health effects.” Each report 

contains assessments of non-cancerous and cancerous effects for individual compounds and quantitative 

estimates of risk levels from lifetime oral and inhalation exposures with uncertainty spanning perhaps an 

order of magnitude. 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

122

Figure 3-10. National Mobile Source Air Toxics Emission Trends 2010-2050 or Vehicles Operating on 

Roadways Using U.S. EPA’s Moves2014a Model

Note: Trends for specific locations may be different, depending on locally derived information representing vehicle-miles 

travelled, vehicle mix, speeds, fuels, emission control programs, meteorology, and other factors

Source: FHWA, 2016

Other organizations are also active in the research and analyses of the human health effects of MSATs, 

including the HEI. Among the adverse health effects linked to MSAT compounds at high exposures are 

cancer in humans in occupational settings; cancer in animals; and irritation to the respiratory tract, 

including the exacerbation of asthma. Less obvious are the adverse human health effects of MSAT 

compounds at current environmental concentrations or in the future as vehicle emissions substantially 

decrease. The FHWA, U.S. EPA, the HEI, and others have funded and conducted research studies to try 

to more clearly define potential risks from MSAT emissions associated with highway projects. The 

FHWA will continue to monitor the developing research in this emerging field.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

123

The methodologies for forecasting health impacts include emissions modeling; dispersion modeling; 

exposure modeling; and then final determination of health impacts – each step in the process building 

on the model predictions obtained in the previous step. All are encumbered by technical shortcomings 

or uncertain science that prevents a more complete differentiation of the MSAT health impacts among 

a set of project alternatives. These difficulties are magnified for lifetime (i.e., 70 year) assessments, 

particularly because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in travel 

patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over that time frame, since such 

information is unavailable. 

It is particularly difficult to reliably forecast 70-year lifetime MSAT concentrations and exposure near 

roadways; to determine the portion of time that people are actually exposed at a specific location; and 

to establish the extent attributable to a proposed action, especially given that some of the information 

needed is unavailable.

There are considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of toxicity of the various 

MSATs, because of factors such as low-dose extrapolation and translation of occupational exposure 

data to the general population, a concern expressed by HEI. As a result, there is no national consensus 

on air dose-response values assumed to protect the public health and welfare for MSAT compounds, 

and in particular for diesel PM. The U.S. EPA and the HEI have not established a basis for quantitative 

risk assessment of diesel PM in ambient settings.

There is also the lack of a national consensus on an acceptable level of risk. The current context is the 

process used by the U.S. EPA as provided by the FCAA to determine whether more stringent controls 

are required in order to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public health or to prevent an 

adverse environmental effect for industrial sources subject to the maximum achievable control 

technology standards, such as benzene emissions from refineries. The decision framework is a two-step 

process. The first step requires the U.S. EPA to determine an "acceptable" level of risk due to emissions 

from a source, which is generally no greater than approximately 100 in a million. Additional factors are 

considered in the second step, the goal of which is to maximize the number of people with risks less 

than one in a million due to emissions from a source. The results of this statutory two-step process do 

not guarantee that cancer risks from exposure to air toxics are less than one in a million; in some cases, 

the residual risk determination could result in maximum individual cancer risks that are as high as 

approximately 100 in a million. In a June 2008 decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit upheld U.S. EPA's approach to addressing risk in its two-step decision 

framework. Information is incomplete or unavailable to establish that even the largest of highway 

projects would result in levels of risk greater than deemed acceptable.

Because of the limitations in the methodologies for forecasting health impacts described, any predicted 

difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much smaller than the uncertainties 

associated with predicting the impacts. Consequently, the results of such assessments would not be useful 

to decision makers who would need to weigh this information against Project benefits, such as reducing 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

124

traffic congestion, accident rates, and fatalities, plus improved access for emergency response, which are 

better suited for quantitative analysis.

Analysis of Mobile Source Air Toxicsin NEPA Documents

The FHWA's Updated Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents (October 

18, 2016) provides guidance on how MSATs should be addressed. FHWA has developed a tier approach 

for analyzing MSATs in NEPA documents. Depending on the specific Project circumstances, FHWA has 

identified three categories of analysis:

1) No analysis for projects with no potential for meaningful MSAT effects. This category is limited to 

projects that:

• Qualify as a categorical exclusion under 23 CFR 771.117;

• Are exempt under the FCAA conformity rule under 40 CFR 93.126; or

• Have no meaningful impacts on traffic volumes or vehicle mix.

2) Qualitative analysis for projects with low potential MSAT effects. The types of projects included in this 

category are those that serve to improve operations of highway, transit, or freight without adding 

substantial new capacity or without creating a facility that is likely to meaningfully increase MSAT 

emissions. Examples of these types of projects are minor widening projects; new interchanges, 

replacing a signalized intersection on a surface street; or projects where design year traffic is projected 

to be less than 140,000 to 150,000 annual average daily traffic (AADT). Projects that do not meet 

Category (1) or (3) criteria should be included in this category.

3) Quantitative analysis to differentiate alternatives for projects with higher potential MSAT effects. For 

a Project to be of the magnitude to have a higher potential for MSAT effects, a Project must:

• Create or significantly alter a major intermodal freight facility that has the potential to 

concentrate high levels of diesel PM in a single location; or

• Create new or add significant capacity to urban highways such as interstates, urban arterials, or 

urban collector-distributor routes with traffic volumes where the AADT is projected to be in the 

range of 140,000 to 150,000, or greater, by the design year; and also;

• Proposed to be located in proximity to populated areas.

The preferred Build Alternatives are not projected to result in changes in traffic volumes or meaningful 

changes in vehicle speeds along roadway segments within the study area. The project would not affect 

vehicle mix or VMT relative to the No-Build Alternative. Furthermore, it is important to note that the 

estimated AADT in the project area ranges from approximately 5,025 along Marquardt Avenue to 24,922 

along Rosecrans Avenue. Estimated AADT volumes along these roadways would be substantially lower 

than the FHWA criterion value of 140,000 AADT, which is identified as the minimum volume for higher 

potential MSAT effects. Based on this information, the project would be identified as a Category (2) 

project, that is, the project would have a low potential for MSAT effects. As a result, it is expected that 

the preferred Build Alternatives would not result in an appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

125

when compared to the No-Build Alternative. In addition, it is important to note that emissions will likely 

be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of U.S. EPA's national control programs that are 

projected to reduce annual MSAT emissions by over 80 percent between 2010 and 2050. As noted earlier, 

local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth 

rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the U.S. EPA-projected reductions is so 

great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower 

in the future in nearly all cases.

The preferred Build Alternatives will have the effect of moving some traffic closer to some nearby land 

uses; therefore, there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSAT could be higher

than the No-Build Alternative. However, the magnitude and the duration of these potential increases 

compared to the No-Build Alternative cannot be reliably quantified due to incomplete or unavailable 

information in forecasting project-specific MSAT health impacts. In addition, no sensitive land uses have 

been identified in the project area. In sum, when a roadway is widened, the localized level of MSAT 

emissions for the Build Alternative could be higher relative to the No-Build Alternative, but this could be 

offset due to overall increases in speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower 

MSAT emissions). Furthermore, traffic volumes along Rosecrans would not have a substantial number of 

diesel trucks (i.e., 10,000 ADT, or greater). Based on traffic counts conducted in the project area, heavyduty truck volumes are estimated to constitute roughly two percent of the total daily volumes, which 

would equate to roughly 500 trucks/day, or less, along Rosecrans Avenue. In addition, MSAT may be lower 

in other locations when traffic shifts away from nearby land uses. However, on a regional basis, the U.S. 

EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, will over time cause substantial reductions 

that, in almost all cases, will cause region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today. It is also 

important to note that the Build Alternative would not affect train operations along the BNSF railway.

Federal General Conformity

Construction of the Project would be completed over an approximately 24-month period. Because 

construction of the Project is expected to last less than five years, construction-related emissions are

considered short-term.

As previously discussed and summarized in Table 3-14. Annual Construction Emissions of Criteria Air 

Pollutants, total direct and indirect annual emissions during construction would not exceed the General 

Conformity de minimis levels. In addition, the Project would comply with all applicable rules and 

regulations for the control of construction-generated emissions, including those adopted by the CARB and 

the SCAQMD. In addition, the project would also be subject to LACMTA’s Green Construction Policy. As 

previously discussed, LACMTA’s Green Construction Policy includes policies requiring the use of newer, 

less polluting off-road equipment and on-road vehicles. Consistency with applicable rules and regulations,

and compliance with LACMTA’s Green Construction Policy would ensure consistency with the SIP.

Furthermore, as shown in
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

126

Table 3-15. Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants, total annual increases of operational criteria 

air pollutants would not exceed Federal General Conformity de minimis levels. As a result, a General 

Conformity determination is not required under the Federal General Conformity determination 

regulations. 

3.13.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

The Project would comply with the SCAQMD Rules and Regulations and the LACMTA Green Construction 

Policy, and annual construction emissions would fall below the general conformity thresholds. SCAQMD 

regulations and LACMATA policies will be incorporated into construction plans and contractor 

specifications of the construction contracts for the Project to ensure compliance. The Project would not 

result in impacts on air quality during operation. Therefore, no avoidance, minimization, or mitigation 

would be required for the Project.

3.14 Noise and Groundborne Vibrations

The following discussion incorporates the results of the Noise Study Report prepared for the Project

(AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting, LLC, 2017b).

3.14.1 Regulatory Setting

Federal Railroad Administration

FRA has developed guidance for the assessment of noise and vibration impacts associated with high-speed 

rail. The FRA high-speed ground transportation noise and vibration impact assessment guidance is for use 

in planning high-speed passenger train projects. The guidance includes criteria and procedures for use in 

analyzing the potential noise and vibration impacts of various types of high-speed fixed guideway 

transportation systems.

The FRA has published guidance for the evaluation of high-speed rail projects, entitled “High-Speed 

Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.” This guidance document identifies 

criteria and procedures for use in analyzing the potential noise and vibration impacts of various types of 

high-speed transportation systems. The FRA has not developed guidance for the assessment of noise or 

vibration impacts associated with conventional rail projects. For the assessment of conventional rail noise 

and vibration impacts the FRA recommends use of the impact assessment guidance issued by the FTA. 

The FTA transit noise and vibration impact assessment guidance, is relied on by FRA for the assessment 

of freight and conventional passenger rail lines, stationary rail facilities, and for horn noise assessment. 

The FTA noise and vibration criteria are largely consistent with the criteria identified in the FRA guidance 

manual for high-speed rail projects.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

127

Federal Transit Administration

Noise

The FTA’s guidance manual, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (May 2006), provides 

guidance for the analysis of noise and vibration associated with transit-related projects. A project’s

increase in cumulative noise exposure is assessed based on land use categories, as well as the sensitivity 

of receptors to transit noise. This guidance is recommended by the FRA for the evaluation of conventional 

railroad noise and vibration impacts.

Receiving land uses are characterized based on noise sensitivity. The FTA’s noise criteria for new transit 

sources are based on average-hourly equivalent (Leq) and average day-night (Ldn) noise metrics, depending 

on the sensitivity of the receiving land use. For Category 1 (e.g., amphitheaters, historic landmarks) and 

Category 3 (e.g., places of worship, schools, museums, and libraries) land uses the Leq noise metric is used 

to evaluate noise levels during the facility’s highest noise-generating period that occurs during hours of 

noise sensitivity. The average day-night noise metric is used to characterize noise exposure for Category 

2 (e.g., residences, hospitals, and hotels) land uses. The Ldn descriptor describes a receptor's cumulative 

noise exposure from all events over a full 24 hours, with events between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 

increased by 10 decibels to account for greater nighttime sensitivity to noise. The FTA’s land use 

categories for noise-sensitive land uses and associated noise metrics to be applied are summarized in

Table 3-17. FTA Land Use Categories and Noise Metrics. 

Table 3-17. FTA Land Use Categories and Noise Metrics

Land use Category Exterior Noise Metric Description of Land Use Category

1 Leq(h)

Tracts of land where quiet is an 

essential element in their intended 

purpose. This category includes 

lands set aside for serenity and 

quiet, and such land uses as 

outdoor amphitheaters and 

concert pavilions, as well as 

National Historic Landmarks with 

significant outdoor use. Also 

included are recording studios and 

concert halls.

2 Ldn

Residences and buildings where 

people normally sleep. This 

category includes homes, hospitals 

and hotels where a nighttime 

sensitivity to noise is assumed to 

be of utmost importance.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

128

Land use Category Exterior Noise Metric Description of Land Use Category

3 Leq(h)

Institutional land uses with 

primarily daytime and evening use. 

This category includes schools, 

libraries, theaters, and churches 

where it is important to avoid 

interference with such activities as 

speech, meditation and 

concentration on reading material. 

Places for meditation or study 

associated with cemeteries, 

monuments, museums, 

campgrounds and recreational 

facilities can also be considered to 

be in this category. Certain 

historical sites and parks are also 

included.

Leq for the noisiest hour of transit-related activity during hours of noise sensitivity.

Leq=average-hourly equivalent noise level

Ldn=average day-night noise level

Source: FTA, 2006

The FTA’s noise impact criteria are based on a comparison of existing exterior noise levels and projected 

future noise levels that would occur with Project implementation. Transit noise impacts are categorized 

as having “no impact,” a “moderate impact,” or a “severe impact (see Figure 3-11. Noise Exposure Criteria 

for Category 1 and 2 Land Uses). The “moderate impact” threshold defines areas where the increase in 

noise is noticeable, but may not be sufficient to cause a strong, adverse community reaction. The “severe 

impact” threshold defines the noise limits above which increases in existing noise levels would result in a 

significant percentage of population being be highly annoyed by new noise.

The proposed Project’s allowable contribution to the existing noise level is determined based on the 

overall resultant increase in cumulative noise exposure. Allowable project-generated noise levels and 

resultant increases in cumulative noise exposure levels decreases as the ambient noise level increases. 

The rationale for the FTA-recommended criteria is that as ambient noise levels increase, a smaller increase 

in noise resulting from a project is sufficient to cause substantial increases in annoyance.

FTA’s noise impact criteria for evaluation of a project’s increase in cumulative noise exposure are

identified in Figure 3-12. Allowable Increase in Cumulative Noise Exposure for Category 1 and 2 Land Uses. 

The FTA’s criteria for evaluation of cumulative noise exposure are defined by two curves. Below the lower 

curve, a proposed project is considered to have no noise impact. Project noise above the upper curve is 

considered to cause severe impact. Increases in noise levels that fall between the two curves would be 

considered to have a potentially moderate impact, which may be noticeable to most people but may not 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

129

be sufficient to cause adverse reactions from the community. As previously noted, the FTA transit noise 

impact assessment guidance is relied on by FRA for the assessment of railroad noise levels, including 

changes in train horn noise.

The FTA manual also provides guidance for the general assessment of construction noise. To the extent 

applicable, the guidance recommends the use of local ordinance criteria. In instances where local 

construction noise criteria are unavailable, the FTA’s guidelines identify criteria that can be considered 

reasonable for the general assessment of construction-noise impacts.

Based on these general assessment criteria, daytime average-hourly noise levels associated with off-road 

equipment operations exceeding 90 dBA Leq at residential land uses and 100 dBA Leq at commercial and 

industrial land uses would be considered to have a potential for increased levels of annoyance and adverse 

community reaction. For residential uses, this average-hourly noise standard is reduced to 80 dBA Leq

during the more noise-sensitive nighttime hours. 

Screening level criteria are intended to reflect the highest construction-generated noise levels anticipated 

to occur during a 1-hour period. For construction activities that would result in varying activities and 

associated noise levels, the 8-hour average noise criteria can also be applied. The 30-day average noise 

criteria can also be used for the assessment of noise associated with long-term construction projects. The 

FTA’s recommended noise criteria for construction activities are summarized in Table 3-18. FTA 

Construction Noise Assessment Criteria.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

130

Figure 3-11. Noise Exposure Criteria for Category 1 and 2 Land Uses

Source: AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting, LLC, 2017b

Figure 3-12. Allowable Increase in Cumulative Noise Exposure for Category 1 and 2 Land Uses

Source: AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting, LLC, 2017b 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

131

Table 3-18. FTA Construction Noise Assessment Criteria

Land Use

Noise Level (dBA)

1-Hour Average (Leq) 8-Hour Average (Leq) 30-Day Average

Day Night Day Night Avg.

Residential 90 80 80 70 75 a

Commercial 100 100 85 85 80 b

Industrial 100 100 90 90 85 b

a. In urban areas with very high ambient noise levels (Ldn > 65 dB), Ldn from construction operations should not exceed 

existing ambient plus 10 dB.

b.Based on a 24-hour Leq.

Source: AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting, LLC, 2017b

Groundborne Vibration

The FTA’s criteria for acceptable ground-borne vibration are based on the ground velocity levels expressed 

in root mean square (rms) vertical vibration velocity level at the ground surface. The criteria are 

categorized based on the frequency of the vibration event and the sensitivity of the receiving land use. 

These criteria are specified for the three land-use categories. Category 1 land uses include buildings where 

vibration would interfere with operations within the building, such as uses with vibration-sensitive 

equipment. Category 2 land uses include residences and buildings where people normally sleep. Category 

3 land uses include institutional land uses with primarily daytime hours of use, such as office buildings. It 

is important to note that the FTA’s assessment criteria noted in Table 3-19. Groundborne Vibration Impact 

Criteria for General Assessment (VdB) may not apply to some land uses, such as recording studios and 

concert halls, which can be particularly sensitive to vibration.

Table 3-19. Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria for General Assessment (VdB)

Land Use Category Frequent Events1 Occasional Events2 Infrequent Events3

Category 1: Buildings 

where vibration would 

interfere with interior 

operations.4

65 65 65

Category 2: Residences 

and buildings where 

people normally sleep.

72 75 80

Category 3: Institutional 

land uses with primarily 

daytime use.

75 78 83
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

132

Land Use Category Frequent Events1 Occasional Events2 Infrequent Events3

VdB = Root mean square vertical vibration velocity in decibels (re 1 micro-inch/second)

1."Frequent Events" is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most rapid transit projects fall 

into this category.

2. “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most commuter trunk 

lines have this many operations.

3."Infrequent Events" is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. This category includes most 

commuter rail branch lines. 

4. This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical 

microscopes. Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration 

levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building often requires special design of the HVAC systems and stiffened floors.

5.Vibration-sensitive equipment is generally not sensitive to ground-borne noise. 

Source: FTA 2006

For the evaluation of potential increases in annoyance associated with construction-related activities, the 

criteria identified in Table 3-19. Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria for General Assessment (VdB) can 

also be applied. The FTA’s recommended criteria for the evaluation of potential structural damage 

associated with construction activities are summarized in Table 3-20. Construction Vibration Criteria for 

the Evaluation of Structural Damage. The criteria for structural damage are based on the building 

construction categories, which take into account the susceptibility of fragile structures to vibration 

damage. 

Based on the FTA’s construction vibration damage criteria, construction vibration criteria would range 

from 0.2 in/sec ppv for non-engineered structures to 0.5 in/sec for engineered/reinforced structures. No 

land uses that would be considered extremely susceptible to groundborne vibration, such as recording 

studios and concert halls, have been identified in the project area.

Table 3-20. Construction Vibration Criteria for the Evaluation of Structural Damage

Land Use Category PPV VdB

Category 1: Reinforced-concrete, steel or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102

Category 2: Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98

Category 3: Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94

Category 4: Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90

PPV = Peak Particle Velocity (inches per second) 

VdB = Root mean square vertical vibration velocity in decibels (re 1 micro-inch/second)

Source: FTA 2006
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

133

California Department of Transportation

Caltrans’ Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects 

(Protocol) specifies the policies, procedures, and practices to be used by agencies that sponsor new 

construction or reconstruction of federal or Federal-aid highway projects in California. The Protocol 

defines a noise increase as substantial when the predicted noise levels with Project implementation 

exceed existing noise levels by 12 dBA or more. The Protocol also states that a sound level is considered 

to approach an Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) level when the sound level is within 1 dB of the NAC 

identified in 23 CFR 772 (e.g., 66 dBA is considered to approach the NAC of 67 dBA, but 65 dBA is not).

The Technical Noise Supplement to the Protocol provides detailed technical guidance for the evaluation 

of highway traffic noise. This includes field noise monitoring methods, noise modeling methods, and 

report preparation guidance. The Caltrans-recommended guidance is applicable to traffic noise levels 

associated with the relocation of Rosecrans Avenue.

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR 772 provides procedures for preparing operational and construction noise studies and evaluating 

noise abatement considered for federal and Federal-aid highway projects. Under 23 CFR 772.7, projects 

are categorized as Type I, Type II, or Type III projects.

FHWA defines a Type I project as a proposed federal or federal-aid highway project for the construction 

of a highway on a new location or the physical alteration of an existing highway which significantly changes 

either the horizontal or vertical alignment of the highway. The following projects are also considered to 

be Type I projects:

• The addition of a through-traffic lane(s). This includes the addition of a through-traffic lane that 

functions as a high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane, high-occupancy toll (HOT) lane, bus lane, or 

truck climbing lane, 

• The addition of an auxiliary lane, except for when the auxiliary lane is a turn lane,

• The addition or relocation of interchange lanes or ramps added to a quadrant to complete an 

existing partial interchange,

• Restriping existing pavement for the purpose of adding a through traffic lane or an auxiliary lane,

and

• The addition of a new or substantial alteration of a weigh station, rest stop, ride-share lot, or toll 

plaza.

If a project is determined to be a Type I project under this definition, the entire project area as defined in 

the environmental document is a Type I project.

A Type II project is a noise barrier retrofit project that involves no changes to highway capacity or 

alignment. A Type III project is a project that does not meet the classifications of a Type I or Type II project. 

Type III projects do not require a noise analysis.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

134

Under 23 CFR 772.11, noise abatement must be considered for Type I projects if the project is predicted 

to result in a traffic noise impact. In such cases, 23 CFR 772 requires that the project sponsor “consider” 

noise abatement before adoption of the final NEPA document. This process involves identification of noise 

abatement measures that are reasonable, feasible, and likely to be incorporated into the project, and of 

noise impacts for which no apparent solution is available.

Traffic noise impacts, as defined in 23 CFR 772.5, occur when the predicted noise level in the design-year 

approaches or exceeds the NAC specified in 23 CFR 772, or a predicted noise level substantially exceeds 

the existing noise level (a “substantial” noise increase). 23 CFR 772 does not specifically define the terms 

“substantial increase” or “approach;” these criteria are defined in the Protocol, as described below. 

Table 3-21. Activity Categories and Noise Abatement Criteria summarizes the NAC corresponding to 

various land use activity categories. Activity categories and related traffic noise impacts are determined 

based on the actual or permitted land use in each area. No NAC have been identified for Activity Category 

F or G land uses. The FHWA-recommended guidance is applicable to traffic noise levels associated with 

the relocation of Rosecrans Avenue.

Table 3-21. Activity Categories and Noise Abatement Criteria

Activity 

Category

Activity 

Leq(h)1

Evaluation 

Location Description of Activities

A 57 Exterior

Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance 

and serve an important public need and where the preservation of 

those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its 

intended purpose.

B2 67 Exterior Residential. Includes residential hotels and motels that function as 

apartment dwellings.

C2 67 Exterior

Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, 

cemeteries, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, 

parks, picnic areas, places of worship, playgrounds, public meeting 

rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, 

recording studios, recreation areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools, 

television studios, trails, and trail crossings.

D 52 Interior

Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, 

places of worship, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit

institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, schools, 

and television studios.

E 72 Exterior Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed 

lands, properties, or activities not included in A–D or F.

F None None

Includes a variety of land uses that are not sensitive to noise, such 

as agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial, 

logging, maintenance facilities, manufacturing, mining, rail yards, 

retail facilities, shipyards, utilities (water resources, water 

treatment, electrical), and warehousing.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

135

Activity 

Category

Activity 

Leq(h)1

Evaluation 

Location Description of Activities

G None None Undeveloped lands that are not permitted.

Note: The Leq(h) activity criteria values are for impact determination only and are not design standards for noise abatement 

measures. All values are A-weighted decibels (dBA). Includes undeveloped lands permitted for this activity category.

Source: 23 CFR 772

City of Santa Fe Springs Code of Ordinances

The City of Santa Fe Springs Code of Ordinances, Chapter 155, Zoning, Sections 155.421 through 155.424 

provide the basis for the control of unnecessary, excessive and annoying noises from non-transportation 

noise sources. The City’s noise ordinance does not identify noise standards specific to construction 

activities. However, the ordinance does restrict noise-generating construction activities that occur within 

500 feet of residential uses to between the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 

City of Santa Fe Springs General Plan

The City of Santa Fe Springs General Plan Noise Element identifies standards and criteria to be applied to 

ensure the compatibility of proposed land uses with the existing and projected future noise environment. 

The general plan also identifies exterior and interior transportation noise exposure standards. The City’s 

transportation noise exposure standards apply to various land use designations, based on the sensitivity 

of the receiving land use to the noise environment. These standards are applied to new development 

projects for which the City has discretionary approval.

3.14.2 Affected Environment

Continuous sound can be described by frequency (pitch) and amplitude (loudness). A low-frequency 

sound is perceived as low in pitch. The amplitude of pressure waves generated by a sound source 

determines the loudness of that source. Decibels (dB) is a logarithmic scale that is used to describe sound 

pressure level. The threshold of hearing for young people is about 0 dBA. Laboratory measurements of 

amplitude correlate a 10 dB increase with a perceived doubling of loudness and establish a 3 dB change 

in amplitude as the minimum audible difference perceptible to the average person. A-weighted decibels 

(dBA) describe the relative loudness of sounds in air as perceived by the human ear.

The existing noise environment in the project area is influenced by vehicle traffic on area roadways, as 

well as freight and passenger railroad operations along the BNSF railroad tracks. These are the major 

sources of noise in the project area.

Ambient noise levels associated with vehicle traffic along area roadways were characterized based on 

short- and long-term noise measurements conducted in the project area. These short-term and long-term 

noise measurements were used, in part, for calibration of the traffic noise modeling conducted for the

Project and for assessment of cumulative traffic/rail noise exposure levels at the nearest primarily 

affected noise-sensitive receivers. According to the short-term noise measurements, average-hourly 

daytime noise levels along area roadways generally ranged from approximately 60 to 70 dBA Leq. Ambient 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

136

noise levels vary depending on various factors, including distance from nearby transportation sources and 

time of day.

Long-term measurements were conducted along Rosecrans Avenue, east of Marquardt Avenue, and along 

Marquardt Avenue, north of Rosecrans Avenue. These measurement locations are identified as LT-1 and 

LT-2, respectively. Based on the long-term noise measurements conducted, average-hourly traffic noise 

levels measured at the LT-1 monitoring location ranged from a nighttime low of 60 dBA Leq to a daytime 

high of 71 dBA Leq during the 5:00 p.m. hour. Average-hourly traffic noise levels measured at the LT-2 

monitoring location ranged from a nighttime low of 48 dBA Leq to a daytime high of 61 dBA Leq during the 

5:00 p.m. hour. Measured average-daily traffic noise levels at these locations were roughly equivalent to 

the corresponding p.m. peak-hour traffic noise levels.

The project area is generally flat, and existing developed land uses are at elevations that are roughly 

equivalent to the adjacent roadways. Land uses within the project area are a mix of light industrial and 

manufacturing land uses. No existing light industrial and manufacturing land uses were determined to be 

noise-sensitive. 

The nearest noise-sensitive land uses are residential land uses, which are approximately 400 feet north of 

Rosecrans Avenue and to the east of Marquardt Avenue. Existing residential land uses primarily affected 

by existing transportation noise sources, including the BNSF railroad tracks, are adjacent to and east of 

Marquardt Avenue and to the north of Rosecrans Avenue (see 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

137

Figure 3-2. Zoning Map). These existing residential uses are partially shielded from Marquardt Avenue by 

a 4-foot tall barrier constructed of masonry block and intervening buildings. 

Ambient noise levels at residences further east of Marquardt Avenue, are largely shielded from nearby 

transportation noise, but more sensitive to noise generated by nearby industrial/manufacturing land uses, 

which are adjacent to and south of the residences. A 7-foot tall barrier constructed of masonry block 

extends along the southern boundary of these residential land uses.

The BNSF railroad tracks are used for both freight transport and public transportation. Train noise levels 

are predominantly generated by the locomotive engines, the interaction of the wheels with the track, and 

the sounding of warning horns. In accordance with federal regulations, locomotive horns are to be 

sounded for 15 to 20 seconds before entering all public grade crossings and within one-quarter mile of 

the grade crossing. Warning bells at grade crossings also contribute to increased noise levels.

Existing train noise levels were calculated in accordance with FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact 

Assessment guidance using FTA’s Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet, version 7/3/2007. Train noise 

levels were quantified assuming a total of 112 trains daily, including 55 freight trains and 57 passenger 

trains, traveling at an average speed of 50 mph. Predicted train noise levels included the sounding of 

warning horns would be 84 dBA Ldn at 50 feet. Without the sounding of warning horns, predicted train 

noise levels would be 77 dBA Ldn at 50 feet. Assuming an average signal duration of 90 seconds per event, 

noise levels for the crossing signal would be approximately 69 dBA Ldn at 50 feet. Train noise levels at 

nearby land uses vary depending on various factors, including distance from the source and shielding 

provided by intervening structures.

3.14.3 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative

Implementation of the No Build Alternative would not require construction or changes to the existing 

setting of the project area. Therefore, the No Build Alternative would not directly result in impacts from 

noise or groundborne vibration in the project area. Under future no-build conditions, predicted traffic 

noise levels at these same land uses would increase by approximately 1 dBA compared to existing and 

would range from 43 to 57 dBA Leq. The sounding of train horns would be maintained.

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road (Build Alternative)

Long-term Noise Impacts

Roadway traffic noise levels were predicted using the FHWA Traffic Noise Model Version 2.5 (TNM 2.5).

TNM 2.5 is a computer model based on two FHWA reports: FHWA-PD-96-009 and FHWA-PD-96-010 

(FHWA 1998a, 1998b). Predicted existing traffic noise levels at the nearest residential land uses would 

range from 42 to 56 dBA Leq. With implementation of the proposed build alternative, predicted future 

noise levels at these residential land uses would increase by approximately 4 dBA, or less compared to 

existing conditions and would range from 46 to 59 dBA Leq. This increase is largely due to increase exposure 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

138

resulting from the higher roadway elevation. The existing residential land uses are considered an Activity 

Category B land use, having an exterior noise abatement criteria (NAC) of 67 dBA Leq(h). Predicted traffic 

noise levels would not exceed the NAC, nor would Project implementation result in a substantial increase 

in traffic noise levels, which is defined by Caltrans as an increase of 12A dB, or greater. Noise abatement 

is not required for these land uses.

As previously noted, land uses located within the project area consist predominantly of a mix of industrial 

and manufacturing land uses. No noise-sensitive industrial or manufacturing land uses or areas of 

frequent exterior use (e.g., outdoor cafes, parks) were identified in the project area. Without 

implementation of the Project, existing and predicted future no-build traffic noise levels at nearby 

industrial and manufacturing land uses would range from approximately 42 to 71 dBA Leq. With 

implementation of the proposed Build Alternative, predicted traffic noise levels at these land uses would 

range from approximately 57 to 72 dBA Leq. Industrial and manufacturing land uses are considered Activity 

Category F land uses. No NACs are identified for Activity Category F land uses. Predicted noise levels at 

Activity Category F land uses were quantified for reporting purposes. Noise abatement would not be 

required for these land uses.

A screening assessment was conducted, in accordance with FTA’s guidance manual, Transit Noise and 

Vibration Impact Assessment, to identify noise-sensitive receivers near the Project that could be 

potentially impacted by rail noise. Based on the screening calculation conducted, land uses located within 

approximately 2,000 feet from the centerline of the BNSF railway could be potentially impacted by rail 

noise. Noise-sensitive land uses in this area consist of residential land uses, the nearest of which are 

generally located approximately 400 feet north of Rosecrans Avenue, adjacent to and east of Marquardt 

Avenue. Of these residential land uses, the nearest is approximately 565 feet from the BNSF railway and 

approximately 586 feet from the grade crossing signal device. As previously discussed, residential land 

uses are considered Category 2 land uses.

Rail noise levels at the nearest residential land uses were quantified in accordance with FTA’s Transit Noise 

and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006). In comparison to existing conditions, the Project would result in 

an approximately 3-dB reduction in cumulative noise exposure at the nearest residential land uses (see 

Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not found.). However, the Project will not 

change noise from train operations, because the Project would not impact the existing rail line or train 

operations (e.g., train speeds, number of trains operating, number of locomotives). Project rail noise levels 

associated with the Project would be 57 dBA Leq and cumulative noise exposure levels, taking into account 

projected future background noise levels, would total 61 dBA Leq. Predicted rail noise levels at other 

residential land uses located at further distance from the rail corridor would be less. In comparison to 

existing and future no-build conditions, the Project would result in overall reductions in cumulative noise 

exposure of approximately 3 dBA and 4 dBA, respectively. The estimated reductions in cumulative noise 

exposure would be largely a result of decreased train horn soundings on approach to the existing grade 

crossing, which would be removed with Project implementation. In comparison to FTA’s noise assessment 

criteria (see Figure 3-12. Allowable Increase in Cumulative Noise Exposure for Category 1 and 2 Land 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

139

Uses), the Project would have “no impact.” Additionally, implementation of the Project would result in 

an overall reduction in cumulative noise exposure at the nearby residential land uses.

Table 3-22. Predicted Rail Noise Levels at Nearest Residential Land Uses

Noise Level (dBA Ldn)

Type of 

Impact4 Existing

Future NoBuild 

Alternative

Future Build 

Alternative3

Change 

Compared 

to Existing 

Change 

Compared 

to Future 

No-Build

Rail Noise Level1 64 64 57

Ambient Noise Level2 56 57 59

Cumulative Noise 

Exposure 64 65 61 -3 -4 None

1. Noise levels were calculated using the FTA Noise Impact Assessment Spreadsheet, version 7.3.2007. Assumes 55 freight 

trains distributed equally over a 24-hour period, and 57 passenger trains, including 50 trains during the daytime hours 

and 7 trains during the nighttime hours, based on current train schedules. Average train speed of 50 mph was assumed 

based on observed measurement data. Signal crossing warning bell noise level is based on total daily train events and an 

average signal duration of 90 seconds per event.

2. Ambient background noise levels were based on modeled traffic noise levels at this receiver location.

3. Based on the cumulative contribution of projected rail and ambient background noise levels.

4. Excludes sounding of train horns and signal crossing warning bell.

5. Impact is determined based on a comparison of project noise levels in comparison to total noise exposure.

Source: AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting, LLC, 2017b

Long-term Groundborne Vibration Impacts

On-road vehicles are typically not considered to be substantial sources of ground vibration that would 

result in structural damage or increased levels of annoyance to nearby land uses. As a result, long-term 

operational activities associated with the proposed Project would not involve the use of any equipment 

or processes that would result in potentially adverse levels of ground vibration. No long-term vibration 

impacts would occur with implementation of the Project.

Short-term Construction Noise Impacts

Noise resulting from Project construction would be temporary and would vary depending on the nature 

of the construction activities performed. Noise generated during construction is typically associated with 

the operation of off-road equipment, including excavation equipment, material handlers, and portable 

generators. Noise levels associated with individual construction equipment used for typical construction 

projects can reach levels of up to approximately 90 dBA maximum sound level (Lmax). Noise from localized 

point sources, such as construction sites, typically decreases by approximately six dBA with each doubling 

of distance from source to receptor. 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

140

Given this noise attenuation rate and typical construction equipment noise levels and usage rates, 

average-hourly noise levels for construction equipment would range from approximately 73 to 83 dBA 

equivalent sound level (Leq) at 50 feet. If the two loudest pieces of equipment were to operate 

simultaneously in any given area, predicted average-hourly noise levels at receptors within approximately 

50 feet could reach levels of approximately 86 dBA Leq. Based on this noise level, the predicted 80 dBA Leq

construction noise contour could extend up to approximately 100 feet. The predicted 70 dBA Leq

construction noise contour could extend up to approximately 335 feet.

The nearest noise-sensitive land uses are residential land uses, which are approximately 400 feet north of 

Rosecrans Avenue and east of Marquardt Avenue. The nearest construction activities, including roadway 

construction activities along Marquardt Avenue and Anson Avenue, would be completed at distances of 

approximately 375 feet from the nearest residences. The highest construction noise levels at the nearest 

residence would be approximately 69 dBA Leq or less. Predicted noise levels associated with construction 

of the proposed overpass, which would be approximately 475 feet from the nearest residences, would be 

approximately 67 dBA Leq. 

Construction-generated noise levels would not be projected to exceed FTA’s 8-hour daytime or nighttime 

criteria of 80 dBA Leq and 70 dBA Leq, respectively. Predicted construction noise levels at nearby industrial 

and manufacturing land uses would not be expected to exceed FTA’s noise level criteria. Therefore, no 

construction noise impacts are anticipated.

Short-term Construction Groundborne Vibration Impacts

Based on the levels shown, groundborne vibration levels associated with construction equipment often 

associated with road development projects would generate ground vibration levels of approximately 0.21 

in/sec ppv (94 VdB) or less at 25 feet. The highest vibration levels would be associated with the use of 

vibratory rollers. However, vibration levels associated with vibratory rollers would not be generated for 

an extended time at any one location, and this equipment would typically be operated further than 25 

feet away from nearby buildings. As previously noted, the nearest residential land uses would be 

approximately 375 feet from the nearest roadway improvements. Assuming a ground vibration level of 

0.21 in/sec ppv at 25 feet, the highest construction-generated vibration levels at the nearest residential 

land use would be approximately 0.01 in/sec ppv (56 VdB) or less.

Construction-generated vibration levels at nearby land uses would not be expected to exceed FTA’s 

recommended groundborne vibration criteria of 0.5 in/sec ppv (102 VdB) for structural damage or 0.2 

in/sec ppv (94 VdB) for human annoyance. In addition, construction of the proposed overpass would not 

require the use of equipment or process that would generate higher levels of groundborne vibration, such 

as pile driving. Therefore, no construction vibration impacts are anticipated.

3.14.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures

The Project would not result in impacts on noise or groundborne vibration; therefore, no avoidance, 

minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

141

3.15 Cumulative Impacts

For a list of current and future development projects in the cities of Santa Fe Springs, La Mirada, and 

Norwalk, please see Table 3-1. Current and Future Development Projects in the Cities of Santa Fe Springs, 

La Mirada, and Norwalk. This section presents an analysis of the cumulative impacts of implementing the 

Project alternatives in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. 

3.15.1 Regulatory Setting

National Environmental Policy Act

The combined, incremental effects of human activity, referred to as cumulative impacts, pose a serious 

threat to the environment. While they may be insignificant by themselves, cumulative impacts accumulate 

over time, from one or more sources, and can result in the degradation of important resources. The 

assessment of cumulative impacts in NEPA documents is required by CEQ regulations, 40 CFR Parts 1500 

- 1508. CEQ's regulations explicitly state that cumulative impacts must be evaluated along with the direct 

effects and indirect effects of each alternative. By mandating the consideration of cumulative impacts, 

the regulations ensure that the range of actions that is considered in NEPA documents includes not only 

the project proposal but also all actions that could contribute to cumulative impacts.

3.15.2 Existing and Future Land Use

Affected Environment

The study area for this cumulative impact analysis includes the cities of Santa Fe Springs, La Mirada, and 

Norwalk. Please refer to Section 3.2.2 for additional discussion on the affected environment.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative would not result in any changes to existing or future land uses or zoning. 

Therefore, the No Build Alternative would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts.

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road

The central portion of the study area in Santa Fe Springs is dominated by commercial and industrial 

buildings. Residential neighborhoods are the primary land uses in the eastern portion of the study area in 

La Mirada, as well as in the western portion of the study area in Norwalk. These developed land uses are 

consistent with existing land use designations included in the general plans for these jurisdictions.

Other projects in the cumulative study area have been, and would continue to be, conducted in 

accordance with the general plans for these jurisdictions, which would limit the nature and type of 

development within the study area so that development is compatible with existing and planned, future 

uses. Therefore, with compliance with general plans, impacts on existing and future land uses from other 

projects in the cumulative study area would be avoided or minimized to the greatest extent feasible.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

142

As discussed in Section 3.2, the Project would result in full acquisition of eight properties, including six 

industrial properties and two commercial properties, and the businesses on those properties would be 

relocated and replaced with an overpass. As noted under Section 3.5, adequate vacancy of suitable 

industrial and commercial properties exists to accommodate the eight relocated businesses. Therefore, 

the Project would not result in changes in existing or future land use outside of the project area. Therefore, 

the Project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on existing and future land uses.

Avoidance and Minimization

The Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts on existing and future land uses, and 

therefore, would not require avoidance, minimization, or mitigation.

3.15.3 Consistency with Regional Local Plans and Programs

Affected Environment

The study area for this cumulative impact analysis is the same as the study area shown in Figure 3-1.

Community Impacts Study Area. Please refer to Section 3.3.2 for discussion on the affected environment.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative would not implement actions and goals identified in Section 3.3.3. Other projects 

in the study area include residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, and habitat restoration 

projects that would implement the plans and programs identified in this document. Therefore, the No 

Build Alternative could impede progress in the study area attributable to the identified plans and 

programs.

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road

Cambridge Springs, LLC is a company specializing in construction materials and equipment that recently 

constructed an industrial building at 13341 Cambridge Street, approximately 0.7 mile to the northwest of 

the project area. The building would replace an existing industrial building on the site, and the site would 

remain consistent with existing plans applicable to the parcel. As noted above, the Project would be 

consistent with state, regional, and local plans and programs. Implementation of Project improvements 

would facilitate the actions and goals outlined in Table 3-2. Consistency with State, Regional, and Local 

Plans and Programs in unison with other current and future development projects in the study area.

Therefore, the Project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on consistency with 

regional local plans and programs.

Avoidance and Minimization

The Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts on consistency with regional local plans 

and programs, and therefore, would not require avoidance, minimization, or mitigation.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

143

3.15.4 Community Character and Cohesion

Affected Environment

The study area for this cumulative impact analysis is the same as the study area shown in Figure 3-1.

Community Impacts Study Area. Please refer to Section 3.4.2 for discussion on the affected environment.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative would not result in any changes to community character and cohesion. 

Therefore, the No Build Alternative would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on

community character and cohesion.

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road

The project area is in an industrial area of Santa Fe Springs that is developed with industrial and some 

commercial businesses. There is a residential neighborhood to the northeast, approximately 500 feet.

Cambridge Springs, LLC recently constructed an industrial building in the study area. The project includes 

demolition and redevelopment of an existing industrial lot and would not result in a change of the existing 

character. The building, and any future development, would be developed according to applicable general 

plans and zoning ordinances that help direct development decisions to meet the needs and goals of the 

community. 

The Project would result in full acquisition of eight properties, including six industrial properties and two 

commercial properties, requiring that these businesses be relocated and replaced nearby (see Section 

3.5.3). Research has indicated that appropriate relocation sites exist in the study area, and displaced 

businesses would be able to continue operation within the community. The overpass would be a new 

vertical element that would be visible to nearby viewers and could alter the community character of the 

study area. However, the overpass would not be visible from residences north of the project area, because 

the overpass would not be substantially taller than the surrounding buildings, and most views of the 

overpass would be blocked by the surrounding buildings (see Section 3.9.3). In addition, the new overpass

would blend in with the industrial setting of the project area.

The Project, as well as past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would be developed in 

accordance with applicable general plans and zoning ordinances in the study area. Additionally, the 

projects would support the existing community setting. Identified projects would not result in impacts to 

community character and cohesion. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to cumulatively 

considerable impacts on community character and cohesion.

Avoidance and Minimization

The Project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts on community character and cohesion, 

and therefore, would not require avoidance, minimization, or mitigation.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

144

3.15.5 Relocations and Real Property Acquisition

Affected Environment

The study area for this cumulative impact analysis is the same as the study area shown in Figure 3-1.

Community Impacts Study Area. Please refer to Section 3.5.2 for discussion on the affected environment.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative would not result in property acquisition. Therefore, the No Build Alternative

would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on relocations and real property acquisitions.

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road

Another project planned in the study area includes the I-5 Freeway Corridor. All future, present, and past

federal projects in the cumulative study area have been conducted in accordance with the general plans 

for the study area, and in compliance with the Uniform Act. With compliance with general plans and the 

Uniform Act, federal projects requiring relocations would be required to ensure that adequate vacancies 

of suitable replacement properties are available without affecting existing/future land uses. The planned 

Cambridge Springs, LLC industrial building is a private redevelopment project that is not subject to the 

Uniform Act, but did not require property acquisition.

The Project would result in eight full property acquisitions, including six industrial properties and two 

commercial properties that would be replaced with transportation facility. The Project would require 

relocation of the acquired properties. Adequate vacancy of suitable industrial and commercial properties 

exists in Santa Fe Springs to accommodate relocated businesses without resulting in changes in land use 

outside of the project area (see Section 3.5). Also, through implementation of Avoidance and Minimization 

Measure R-1 in Section 3.5.4, the Project would not result in adverse impacts related to Relocations and 

Real Property Acquisition in the project area. Therefore, projects in the study area would not contribute 

to cumulatively considerable impacts on relocations and real property acquisitions.

Avoidance and Minimization

Through implementation of previously identified measure R-1 in Section 3.5.4 the Project would not

contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on relocations and real property acquisitions and no 

further avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures would be required.

3.15.6 Environmental Justice

Affected Environment

The study area for this cumulative impact analysis is the same as the study area shown in Figure 3-4.

Environmental Justice Populations. Please refer to Section 3.6.2 for discussion on the affected 

environment.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

145

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative would not result in actions that could result in disproportionately high or adverse 

impacts. Therefore, the No Build Alternative would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts

on environmental justice populations.

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road

The study area includes 24 Census block groups, only two of which do not include an environmental justice 

population. Other projects in the study area include the I-5 Freeway Corridor project and the Cambridge 

Springs, LLC development project (see Section 3.15.3). Both projects are in Census block groups that were 

identified as environmental justice populations, as shown in Figure 3-4. Environmental Justice 

Populations. 

As discussed in Section 3.6.3, the Project is not anticipated to result in disproportionately high or adverse 

impacts. The Project would increase the safety of the Rosecrans/Marquardt/BNSF intersection for 

community members in the study area. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to cumulatively 

considerable impacts on environmental justice populations.

Avoidance and Minimization

The Project would not result in disproportionately high or adverse impacts on environmental justice 

populations. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to environmental 

justice, and avoidance, minimization, and mitigation would not be required. 

3.15.7 Utilities/Emergency Services

Affected Environment

The study area for this cumulative impacts analysis is the same as the study area shown in Figure 3-1.

Community Impacts Study Area. The cumulative study area is provided service by the same utilities and 

emergency service providers as discussed in Section 3.7.1. Please refer to Section 3.7.1 for discussion on 

the affected environment.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative would not result in changes to existing utility infrastructure or emergency service. 

Therefore, the No Build Alternative would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on utilities 

or emergency services.

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road

Other projects in the cumulative study area have been, and would continue to be, required to schedule 

and coordinate disruptions in utility service to ensure that they would not adversely affect the surrounding 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

146

community. In addition, other projects would require implementation of a traffic management plan and 

coordination with local emergency service providers to avoid or minimize impacts on emergency service 

response times.

Implementation of the Project would require disruption and relocation of existing utilities in the study 

area. Impacts to utility service would be avoided and minimized through measures U-1 (see Section 3.7.2). 

Additionally, Project construction would temporarily impact transportation facilities used by emergency 

service providers. However, Rosecrans Avenue would remain open during construction so that access 

would be maintained for emergency service providers during Project construction. In addition, impacts to 

emergency service response times would be avoided and minimized through measures U-2 (see Section 

3.7.2). Therefore, the Project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on 

utilities/emergency services.

Avoidance and Minimization

The Project would not result contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on utilities/emergency 

services. No avoidance, minimization, or mitigation would be required.

3.15.8 Traffic and Transportation/Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

Affected Environment

The study area for this cumulative impact analysis includes the cities of Santa Fe Springs, La Mirada, and 

Norwalk. Please refer to Section 3.2.2 for additional discussion on the affected environment.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative would not result in changes to existing transportation facilities or public 

transportation services. Therefore, the No Build Alternative would not contribute to cumulatively 

considerable impacts on traffic and transportation/pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road

All past and current transportation projects have been constructed through implementation of the 

applicable general plans, zoning ordinances, development plans, and FTIPs. Table 3-1. Current and Future 

Development Projects in the Cities of Santa Fe Springs, La Mirada, and Norwalk identifies current and 

future projects for the study area. The I-5 Freeway Corridor is a major freeway capacity increasing effort 

that would widen the I-5 freeway from six to 10 lanes and would improve the overall traffic circulation 

along the I-5 South Corridor, improve traffic flow on nearby frontage roads, enhance safety, accommodate 

future traffic demands increasing capacity, and revitalize the I-5 community (State of California, 2017). 

The project is currently under construction and is consistent with the regional FTIP. 

The Project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts on long-term or short-term traffic or 

transportation impacts, as identified in Section 3.15.8. The Project will improve safety for motor vehicles, 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

147

pedestrians, and bicyclists in the project area. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to cumulatively 

considerable impacts on traffic and transportation/pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation

The Project would not result contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on traffic, transportation, 

bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Therefore, no avoidance, minimization, or mitigation would be required.

3.15.9 Visual/Aesthetics

Affected Environment

The study area for this cumulative impacts analysis is the same as the study area shown in Figure 3-1.

Community Impacts Study Area. The study area is inclusive of portions of Santa Fe Springs, La Mirada, and 

Norwalk.

Santa Fe Springs’s regional location and proximity to major transportation corridors have been important 

factors contributing to the City’s predominately industrial visual setting (City of Santa Fe Springs, 1994). 

The industrial area includes warehouses, transportation facility, and the concrete-lined Coyote Creek

drainage channel and bikeway. The portion of La Mirada included in the study area is highly characterized 

by residential community, populated with single family homes and schools (see Figure 3-2). The area 

includes ample green space and facilities for community use. The eastern portion of Norwalk contains 

heavy manufacturing facilities, including factories and warehouses. The visual setting transitions to 

residential towards the western portion of Norwalk contained in the study area. Residential areas in the 

study area are considered populations of sensitive viewers. Since the study area is flat, the viewsheds 

from the study area are not very expansive.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative would not result in changes to existing visual or aesthetic resources. Therefore, 

the No Build Alternative would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on visual or aesthetic 

resources.

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road

Other projects in the cumulative study area have been, and would continue to be, conducted in 

accordance with the general plans and zoning ordinances for these jurisdictions, which would limit the 

nature and type of development within the study area so that development would not adversely affect 

existing visual character, and would not result in additional light or glare that would be incompatible with 

surrounding land uses. Therefore, with compliance with general plans and ordinances, adverse impacts

on visual character, and light and glare impacts from other projects in the cumulative study area would 

be avoided or minimized to the greatest extent feasible. 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

148

The Project would include construction of an overpass to replace the existing at-grade railroad crossing, 

which would result in a new vertical element and additional light and glare that would be visible to nearby 

viewers. However, the Project would not be visible to sensitive viewers residing in the residential 

community to the northeast of the Project (see Section 3.9.3). Additionally, residential viewers in the 

southwest of the study area would not be impacted by visual changes of the Project due since views of 

the project area are obstructed by surrounding industrial buildings. Because the new overpass and 

additional light/glare would not be highly visible from residences, and would blend in with the surrounding 

industrial landscape, the Project would not substantially contribute to cumulative impacts on visual 

character, or cumulative impacts from light/glare.

Avoidance and Minimization

The Project would not result contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on visual and aesthetic 

resources. Therefore, no avoidance, minimization, or mitigation would be required.

3.15.10 Cultural Resources

Affected Environment

The APE, as illustrated in Figure 3-9. Area of Potential Effects, is considered the cumulative study area for 

cultural resources. This is the same study area as described in Section 3.10.2. Please refer to Section 3.10.2 

for additional discussion on the affected environment.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative would not result in changes to the study area. Therefore, the No Build Alternative

would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on cultural resources.

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road

Cultural studies discussed in in Section 3.10.2 characterized the study area as an area containing existing 

and potential archeological, paleontological, and historical resources. Current and future projects in the 

study area include the Cambridge Springs, LLC development project and the I-5 Freeway Corridor widening 

project. The Cambridge Springs, LLC development project is a redevelopment project that replaced an 

existing, non-historical, industrial building on site. This project has already been constructed and does not 

have the potential to result in impacts to cultural resources. The I-5 Freeway Corridor project would be 

subject to NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA, which would implement measures to avoid and minimize 

any potential impacts to impacts on potential cultural resources in the study area.

The Project could result in direct impacts related to the disturbance of previously unidentified 

archaeological or paleontological resources during construction. Therefore, the Project has the potential 

to contribute to cumulative impacts on archaeological and paleontological resources. The Project would 

include implementation of Avoidance and Minimization Measures C-1 through C-7 in Section 3.10.4, which 

would avoid or substantially minimize adverse impacts. Therefore, with implementation of avoidance and 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

149

minimization measures, the Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts on archaeological or 

paleontological resources.

Avoidance and Minimization

The Project would not result contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on cultural resources. 

Therefore, no avoidance, minimization, or mitigation would be required.

3.15.11 Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff

Affected Environment

The study area for this cumulative impacts analysis is considered the Lower San Gabriel River Watershed. 

The watershed drains 689 square miles into a 58-mile long channel of the San Gabriel River, eventually 

emptying into the Pacific Ocean (John L. Hunter and Associates, Inc., 2015). The main tributaries of the 

river are Big and Little Dalton Wash, San Dimas Wash, Walnut Creek, San Jose Creek, Fullerton Creek, and 

Coyote Creek. 

Water quality in the study area has been impaired by several types of pollutants, including runoff from 

roadway operations. Various reaches of the Lower SGR Watershed are on the 2010 CWA Section 303(d) 

list of impaired water bodies due to metals (copper, lead, selenium, and zinc). Segments of the San Gabriel 

River and its tributaries are listed as exceeding water quality objectives for copper, lead, selenium, and 

zinc. Road infrastructure was identified as a major source of pollutant loads in the study area (John L. 

Hunter and Associates, Inc., 2015). Increasing vehicles on the roadways and imperviousness of the 

drainage basin contribute to increased pollutant load discharge.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative would not result in changes to the study area. Therefore, the No Build Alternative

would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on water quality and storm water runoff.

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road

Other projects in the cumulative study area have been, and would continue to be, required to comply 

with standard regulations and permits, which would ensure that construction BMPs are implemented 

during construction, and that projects are designed to accommodate and treat anticipated storm water 

flows. Receiving waters that are or become impaired and are listed on the 303d list, would be subject to 

a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) pollutant diet, or alternative program of similar nature. Therefore, 

with compliance with standard regulations and permits, impacts on water quality and storm water runoff 

from other projects in the cumulative study area would be avoided or minimized.

The Project would not increase impervious surface area or roadway capacity, and permeability of the 

project area would generally increase (see Table 3-9. Impervious Surface Area). During construction, there 

is potential that exposed soils, construction debris, and other pollutants could be carried in storm water 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

150

runoff and discharged into drainages near the project area. However, through implementation of 

Avoidance and Minimization Measures W-1 through W-3, potential pollutants would be avoided and 

minimized. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts on water quality and storm 

water runoff.

Avoidance and Minimization

The Project would not result contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on water quality or storm 

water runoff. Therefore, no avoidance, minimization, or mitigation would be required.

3.15.12 Hazardous Waste/Materials

Affected Environment

The study area for this cumulative impacts analysis is considered all land within Santa Fe Springs because 

the Santa Fe Springs Certified Unified Program is responsible for protecting the public and environment 

from hazardous wastes/materials in the project area through administrative requirements, permits, 

inspections, and enforcement. For additional discussion on affected environment please refer to Section 

3.12.2.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative would not result in changes to the study area. Therefore, the No Build Alternative

would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on hazardous waste or materials.

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road

Other projects in the cumulative study area have been, and would continue to be, conducted in 

accordance with applicable hazardous waste/materials regulations, which would require appropriate 

containment, handling, and disposal of these substances. Therefore, with compliance with standard 

regulations, adverse impacts related to hazardous wastes/materials from other projects in the cumulative 

study area would be avoided or minimized.

The Project would not result in any long-term impacts on hazardous waste or materials, nor would it result 

in long-term discharge of hazardous waste in the study area (see Section 3.12.3). The Project could result 

in exposure to hazardous waste/materials if substances are disturbed during construction of the Project. 

However, through implementation of Avoidance and Minimization Measures H-1 through H-8, the Project 

would not result in impacts on hazardous materials during Project construction. Therefore, with 

compliance with standard regulations, the Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to 

hazardous wastes/materials.

Avoidance and Minimization

The Project would not result contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on hazardous waste or 

materials. Therefore, no avoidance, minimization, or mitigation would be required.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

151

3.15.13 Air Quality

Affected Environment

The study area for this cumulative impacts analysis is considered the SCAB. This is the same study area as 

described in Section 3.13.2. Please refer to Section 3.13.2 for additional discussion on the affected 

environment.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative would not result in changes to existing air quality. Therefore, the No Build 

Alternative would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on air quality in the study area.

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road

The SCAQMD is responsible for improving air quality in the study area. Over the years, the SCAQMD has 

made positive strides in improving air quality, even with population growth (AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise 

Consulting, LLC, 2018). In addition, other projects in the cumulative study area have been, and would 

continue to be, required to comply with standard SCAQMD regulations and permits. Therefore, 

cumulative impacts on air quality from other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects 

are not expected.

The Project is not anticipated to result in adverse construction-related or operational air quality impacts 

in the study area (see Section 3.14.3). Annual construction emissions would fall below the general 

conformity threshold. Operational emissions would generally be greater through implementation of the 

Project compared to the No Build Alternative, however, emissions would still be expected to decrease 

from existing conditions (see 

Table 3-15. Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants). Emission decreases can generally be 

attributed to projected future improvements in vehicle emission standards and fleet turnover. Therefore, 

the Project would not substantially contribute to cumulative impacts related to air quality.

Avoidance and Minimization

The Project would not result contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on Air Quality. Therefore, 

no avoidance, minimization, or mitigation would be required.

3.15.14 Noise and Vibration

Affected Environment

The study area for this cumulative impacts analysis is generally considered the extent to which noise and 

groundborne vibrations generated from the project area can be heard or felt. The study area is the same 

as described in Section 3.14.2. Please refer to Section 3.14.2 for additional discussion on the affected 

environment.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

152

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1: No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative would not result in changes to the study area. Therefore, the No Build Alternative

would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on noise.

Alternative 2: Offset Overpass with Connector Road

Other current and future projects in the study area include the Cambridge Springs, LLC development 

project and the I-5 Freeway Corridor project. The Cambridge Springs, LLC development project is not 

anticipated to result in a long-term increase of noise levels or groundborne vibration since the project 

included replacement of an existing industrial building with a similar industrial building. The building has 

already been constructed, and would not contribute to potential cumulative noise or groundborne 

vibration impacts resulting from construction. The I-5 Freeway Corridor project would increase capacity 

on the I-5, which could result in additional long-term noise impacts from traffic. However, the I-5 Freeway 

Corridor project would be required to comply with local noise ordinances and FTA’s NACs. Compliance 

with standards would avoid, minimize, or mitigate noise below applicable noise thresholds. Construction 

of the I-5 project could result in a temporary increase of groundborne vibration in the study area, 

however, the project would comply with FTA’s vibration impact criteria and would be far enough from the 

Project that vibration levels from the two projects would not cumulatively impact a single impact area.

In comparison to existing and future no-build conditions, the Project would result in overall reductions in 

cumulative noise exposure of approximately 3 dBA and 4 dBA, respectively (see Section 3.14.3).

Additionally, the Project would not result in any additional long-term sources of groundborne vibrations. 

Due to the distance of nearest sensitive receptors, construction-generated noise levels would not be 

projected to exceed FTA’s 8-hour daytime or nighttime criteria and would not result in impacts on the 

project area. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to noise.

Avoidance and Minimization

The Project would not result contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts on noise or groundborne 

vibration. Therefore, no avoidance, minimization, or mitigation would be required.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

153

4.0 PUBLIC COMMENTS AND COORDINATION

4.1 Alternatives Analysis

Four alternatives were considered for the original project design. The alternatives are discussed in Section 

2.4 of this document. Other alternatives withdrawn from consideration include those that depressed the 

BNSF tracks (trench) under the roadways, those that shifted the alignment of Rosecrans Avenue to the 

north, and those that raised or lowered Marquardt Avenue. Ultimately, the Build Alternative, Offset 

Overpass with Connector Roads, was selected based on consideration of several criteria identified in an 

Alternatives Development Report completed for the Project.

Public comment and outreach was initiated to solicit public feedback regarding project alternatives and 

scope prior to initiating the NEPA process. In July 2015, Metro prepared a Public Participation Plan to 

engage the public’s participation in the alternatives analyses for the Project. In addition, two public 

meetings were held on September 30, 2015 at the La Mirada Resource Center. An additional meeting was 

held on October 17, 2017 at the La Mirada Resource Center as well. Postcards and flyers were distributed 

to the attendees, and mailed to affected stakeholders, including property owners, tenants, businesses,

and other interested parties, to further promote the public outreach meetings. 

In December 2015, Metro prepared a Public Outreach Summary Report for the two public outreach 

meetings. Based on feedback provided at the meetings, community members are generally in support of 

the Project. The majority of meeting attendees were owners and tenants of property that would be 

potentially acquired, and these attendees were seeking information regarding the acquisitions processes. 

Attendees were also interested in specific issues surrounding the routes presented under each alternative.

4.2 Public Review Period

During the public review period for the environmental document, public engagement activities will also 

be conducted to invite input from all members of the community on the environmental analysis. Mailers 

and other materials may be used to ensure that all members of the community have an opportunity to 

ask questions, and to comment on the Project and the environmental document. Public comments 

received during the public review period will be included in the final environmental document, and will 

be considered during the environmental review and Project development process. 
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

154

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 

Federal Rail Administration

Lyle Leitelt Community Planner

Stephanie Perez Environmental Protections Specialist

Metro

Jeanet Owens Senior Executive Officer – Program Management/Regional Rail

Dan Mahgerefteh Project Engineer

GPA Consulting

Richard Galvin Principal Planner

David Lewis Senior Environmental Planner

Jeanne Ogar Senior Environmental Planner

Danielle Thayer Environmental Planner
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

155

6.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST

6.1 Elected Officials

Board Member Mike Bonin

Los Angeles County 

Metropolitan Transportation Agency

1 Gateway Plaza

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Board Member James Butts

Los Angeles County 

Metropolitan Transportation Agency 

1 Gateway Plaza

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Mayor Pro Tem John Fasana

Los Angeles County 

Metropolitan Transportation Agency

1 Gateway Plaza

Los Angeles, CA 90012

First Vice Chair Eric Garcetti

Los Angeles County 

Metropolitan Transportation Agency

1 Gateway Plaza

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Board Member Robert Garcia

Los Angeles County 

Metropolitan Transportation Agency

1 Gateway Plaza

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Board Member Paul Krekorian

Los Angeles County 

Metropolitan Transportation Agency

1 Gateway Plaza

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Board Member Sheila Kuehl

Los Angeles County 

Metropolitan Transportation Agency

1 Gateway Plaza

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Board Member Ara Najarian

Los Angeles County Metropolitan 

Transportation Agency (Metro)

1 Gateway Plaza

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Chair Mark Ridley-Thomas

Los Angeles County Metropolitan 

Transportation Agency (Metro)

1 Gateway Plaza

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Board Member Hilda L. Solis

Los Angeles County 

Metropolitan Transportation Agency

1 Gateway Plaza

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Councilmember Richard J. Moore

City of Santa Fe Springs

11710 E. Telegraph Road

Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670

Mayor William K. Rounds

City of Santa Fe Springs

11710 E. Telegraph Road

Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

156

Mayor Pro-Tem Jay Sarno

City of Santa Fe Springs

11710 E. Telegraph Road

Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670

Councilmember Juanita A. Trujillo

City of Santa Fe Springs

11710 E. Telegraph Road

Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670

Vice Mayor Cheri Kelly

City of Norwalk

12700 Norwalk Blvd.

Norwalk, CA 90650

Mayor Mike Mendez

City of Norwalk

12700 Norwalk Blvd.

Norwalk, CA 90650

Councilmember Leonard Shryock

City of Norwalk

12700 Norwalk Blvd.

Norwalk, CA 90650

Councilmember Luigi Vernola

City of Norwalk

12700 Norwalk Blvd.

Norwalk, CA 90650

Assemblymember Ian Calderon

California State Assembly, District 57

13181 Crossroads Parkway North, Suite 160

Industry, CA 91746

District Director Jordan Brandman

California State Assembly, District 57

Office of Assemblymember Ian Calderone

13181 Crossroads Parkway North, Suite 160

Industry, CA 91746

Senior Field Representative Samantha Marquez

California State Assembly, District 57

Office of Assemblymember Ian Calderone

13181 Crossroads Parkway North, Suite 160

Industry, CA 91746

Communications Director Lerna Shirinian

California State Assembly, District 57

Office of Assemblymember Ian Calderone

13181 Crossroads Parkway North, Suite 160

Industry, CA 91746

Councilmember Josué Alvarado

City of South Whittier

13230 Penn Street

South Whittier, CA 90602

Councilmember Fernando Dutra

City of South Whittier

13230 Penn Street

South Whittier, CA 90602

Mayor Pro Tem Bob Henderson

City of South Whittier

13230 Penn Street

South Whittier, CA 90602

Mayor Joe Vinatieri

City of South Whittier

13230 Penn Street

South Whittier, CA 90602
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

157

Councilmember Cathy Warner

City of South Whittier

13230 Penn Street

South Whittier, CA 90602

Councilmember Paula Deal

City of La Mirada

13700 La Mirada Blvd.

La Mirada, CA 90638

Mayor Pro Tem Ed Eng

City of La Mirada

13700 La Mirada Blvd.

La Mirada, CA 90638

Councilmember Lawrence P. Mowles

City of La Mirada

13700 La Mirada Blvd.

La Mirada, CA 90638

Councilmember Andrew Sarega

City of La Mirada

13700 La Mirada Blvd.

La Mirada, CA 90638

Mayor De Ruse Steve

City of La Mirada

13700 La Mirada Blvd.

La Mirada, CA 90638

Pedro Aceituno

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723

Sal Alatorre

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723

Ivan Altamirano

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723

President AJ Austin

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723

Cinde Cassidy

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723

Gene Daniels

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723

William Davis

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

158

Vanessa Delgado

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723

Diane DuBois

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723

Raymond Dunton

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723

2nd Vice President Fernando Dutra

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723

Ed Eng

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723

Christian Hernandez

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723

Gil Hurtado

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723

Tony Lima

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723

Mike Mendez

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723

1st Vice President Jhonny Pineda

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723

Mark D. Radecki

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723

George Ray

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

159

Reynaldo Rodriguez

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723

Immediate Past President Ali Saleh

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723

Emma Sharif

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723

Brent Tercero

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723

Fernando Vasquez

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723

Ricardo Villareal

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723

Edward H. J. Wilson

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723

Jay Zamora

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723

Ex-Officio Member Drummond Doug

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16402 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90724

Robert Uranga

Gateway Cities Council of Governments 

Board of Directors

16402 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90724

Board Member Jacquelyn Dupont-Walker

Los Angeles County 

Metropolitan Transportation Agency

2 Gateway Plaza

Los Angeles, CA 90013

Chief of Staff Ana Guerrero

Office of Los Angeles City Mayor, Eric Garcetti

200 N. Spring St Room 303

Los Angeles, CA 90012
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

160

Board Member Janice Hahn

Los Angeles County 

Metropolitan Transportation Agency

3 Gateway Plaza

Los Angeles, CA 90014

Senator Tony Mendoza

California State Senate, District 32

Office of Senator Tony Mendoza

400 N. Montebello Blvd., Suite 100

Montebello, CA 90640

District Director Alma Marquez

California State Senate, District 32

Office of Senator Tony Mendoza

400 N. Montebello Blvd., Suite 100

Montebello, CA 90640

Chief Deputy Dorinne Jordan

Los Angeles County, District 2

Office of Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas

500 W Temple Street, Room 866

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Chief of Staff Kathryn Barger

Los Angeles County, District 5

Office of Supervisor Michael Antonovich

500 West Temple Street, Room 869

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Communications Director John Mann

California State Senate, District 32

Office of Senator Tony Mendoza

State Capitol, Room 5061

Sacramento, CA 95814

6.2 Federal Agencies

Kathleen Goforth 

Environmental Review Section Manager 

Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9, Pacific Southwest

600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1460

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Josue Yambo

Federal Highway Administration

CALSOUTH Office

888 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 750

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Leslie Rogers

Region 9 Administrator

Federal Transit Administration

Region 9 Office

90, 7th Street, Suite 15-300

San Francisco, CA 94103
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

161

6.3 State Agencies

Carrie Bowen 

Director

California Department of Transportation

District 7

100 S. Main Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Royce Gotcher

California Department of Transportation

Division of Rail

Division of Rail & Mass Transportation, MS #39, 

P.O. Box 942874

Sacramento, CA 94274

Rachel Kesting 

Southern California Public Information Officer

California High-Speed Rail Authority

700 N Alameda, Room 3-532

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Janice Neibel 

Board Secretary

California High-Speed Rail Authority Board of 

Directors

700 N Alameda, Room 3-532

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Melissa De la Pena

California High-Speed Rail Authority

700 N. Alameda, Room 3-532

Los Angeles, CA 90012
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

162

6.4 Local Agencies

Gabriel Bautista

City Planner

City of La Mirada

13700 La Mirada Blvd.

La Mirada, CA 90638

Alison Moore

Community Development Manager

City of La Mirada

13700 La Mirada Blvd.

La Mirada, CA 90638

Gary Sanui

Public Works Manager

City of La Mirada

13700 La Mirada Blvd.

La Mirada, CA 90638

Mark Stowell, P.E.

Public Works Director/City Engineer

City of La Mirada

13700 La Mirada Blvd.

La Mirada, CA 90638

Lori Thompson

Community Services Director

City of La Mirada

13700 La Mirada Blvd.

La Mirada, CA 90638

Jim Parker

Director of Transit

City of Norwalk Norwalk Transit System (NTS)

12650 E. Imperial Hwy.

Norwalk, CA 90650

Kurt Anderson

Director, Community Development

City of Norwalk

12700 Norwalk Blvd.

Norwalk, CA 90650

Maricela Balderas

Director of Community Services

City of Santa Fe Springs Community Services

11710 E. Telegraph Road

Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670

Wayne M. Morrell

Director of Planning

City of Santa Fe Springs

Planning and Development

11710 E. Telegraph Road

Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670

Noe Negrete

Public Works

City of Santa Fe Springs

11710 E. Telegraph Road

Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670

Cuong Nguyen

Senior Planner

City of Santa Fe Springs Planning and 

Development

11710 E. Telegraph Road

Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670

Richard Beltran

County of Los Angeles Chief Executive Office

500 West Temple St., Rm 754

Los Angeles, CA 90012
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

163

Rogelio Gamino

County of Los Angeles Chief Executive Office

500 West Temple St., Rm 754

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Chester Kano 

Department Facilities Planner

County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and 

Recreation

265 Cloverleaf Dr.

Baldwin Park, CA 91706

Norma E. Garcia

Deputy Director

County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and 

Recreation Planning and Development

510 S. Vermont Ave

Los Angeles, CA 90020

Kathline King

Chief of Planning

County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and 

Recreation Planning and Development

510 S. Vermont Ave.

Los Angeles, CA 90020

Frank Moreno

Section Head - Trails

County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and 

Recreation Planning and Development

510 S. Vermont Ave.

Los Angeles, CA 90020

Russ Guiney

Director

County of Los Angeles Department of Public 

Works

433 S. Vermont Ave

Los Angeles, CA 90020

Martin Aiyetiwa Environmental Programs 

Division Head

County of Los Angeles Department of Public 

Works

900 S. Fremont Ave

Alhambra, CA 91803

Coby Skye

Environmental Programs Division Engineer

County of Los Angeles 

Department of Public Works

900 S. Fremont Ave

Alhambra, CA 91803

Alejandrina Baldwin 

Principal Regional Planning Assistant

County of Los Angeles Department of Regional 

Planning

320 W. Temple St.

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Patricia Hachiya 

Supervising Regional Planner

County of Los Angeles Department of Regional 

Planning

320 W. Temple St.

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Supervising Regional Planner, Zoning Permits 

East Section Maria Masis, AICP

County of Los Angeles Department of Regional 

Planning

320 W. Temple St.

Los Angeles, CA 90012
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

164

Alice Wong 

Principal Planner

County of Los Angeles Department of Regional 

Planning

320 W. Temple St., Room 1360

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Anthony Richardson 

Zoning Enforcement East Section Planner

County of Los Angeles Department of Regional 

Planning

900 S. Fremont Ave

Alhambra, CA 91803

Jose Reynoso 

Environmental Health Specialist III

County of Los Angeles Public Health Solid Waste 

Management Program

750 S Park Avenue

Pomona, CA 91766

Karen Height

Gateway Cities Council of Governments

16401 Paramount Boulevard

Paramount, CA 90723

Truc Dever 

General Manager

Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control 

District

12545 Florence Ave.

Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670

Charles Boehmke 

Department Head - Solid Waste Management

Los Angeles County Sanitation District

1955 Workman Mill Rd.

Whittier, CA 90601

Sheriff John L. Scott

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

4700 Ramona Blvd

Monterey Park, CA 91754

Julie Moore 

Transportation and Planning Deputy

Office of Los Angeles County Supervisor Don 

Knabe, District 4

822 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 

West Temple Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Enrique Casas

Regional Water Quality Control Board Land 

Disposal Unit

320 West 4th Street, Suite 200

Los Angeles, CA 90013

Advisor Derrick Alatorre 

Assistant Deputy Executive Officer/Public 

South Coast Quality Management District

Legislative & Public Affairs

21865 Copley Drive

Diamond Bar, CA 91765

Naveen Berry 

Manager of Rules/Area Sources

South Coast Quality Management District

Planning, Rule Development & Area Studies

21865 Copley Drive

Diamond Bar, CA 91765

Joe Cassmassi 

Manager

South Coast Quality Management District

Planning, Rule Development & Area Studies

21865 Copley Drive

Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

165

Carol Gomez 

Manager of Transportation Programs

South Coast Quality Management District

Planning, Rule Development & Area Studies

21865 Copley Drive

Diamond Bar, CA 91765

6.5 Other Stakeholders

Matthew Keim

BNSF Railway

740 East Carnegie Drive

San Bernardino, CA 92408

Walter Smith

BNSF Railway

740 East Carnegie Drive

San Bernardino, CA 92408

LaDonna V. DiCAmillo 

Regional AVP, State Govt. Affairs

BNSF Railway

Community Issues for So. California

One World Trade Center, Ste. 1680

Long Beach, CA 90831

Trini Jimenez 

Director, State Govt. Affairs

BNSF Railway

Community Issues for So. California

One World Trade Center, Ste. 1680

Long Beach, CA 90831

Lisa Tanaka O'Malley

South Coast Quality Management District Local 

Government/Outreach & Education

21865 Copley Drive

Diamond Bar, CA 91765

Don P. Maddy 

Executive Director, State Govt. Affairs

BNSF Railway California

1215 K St., Ste. 1715,

Sacramento, CA 95814
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

166

7.0 REFERENCES 

AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting, LLC. (2017b). Noise Study Report, Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade 

Separation Project.

AMBIENT Air Quality & Noise Consulting, LLC. (2018). Air Quality and Climate Change Study Report, 

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project.

Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. (2016). Alternatives Development Report for Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade 

Separation Project. Orange: Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc.

California Coastal Commission. (2012). California Coastal Commission Program Overview. Retrieved 

March 12, 2015, from CA.Gov, California Coastal Commission: 

http://www.coastal.ca.gov/whoweare.html

California Department of Conservation. (2015, January). Los Angeles County Important Farmland 2012.

Retrieved March 23, 2016, from Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Website: 

ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2012/los12.pdf

California Department of Water Resources. (2004, February 27). South Coast Hydrologic Region Coastal 

Plain of Los Angeles Groundwater Basin. Retrieved from Californias Groundwater Bulletin 118: 

http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/bulletin118/basindescriptions/4-11.04.pdf

California High-Speed Rail Authority. (2016, May 1). Connecting and Transforming California 2016 

Business Plan. Retrieved from 

http://hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/business_plans/2016_BusinessPlan.pdf

City of La Mirada. (2003a, March 25). City of La Mirada General Plan. Retrieved February 25, 2016, from 

http://www.cityoflamirada.org/home/showdocument?id=914

City of La Mirada. (2003b). General Plan Land Use Map. Retrieved February 25, 2016, from 

http://www.cityoflamirada.org/home/showdocument?id=2630

City of La Mirada. (2012, November 21). Zoning Map. Retrieved February 25, 2016, from 

http://38.106.4.67/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=5677

City of La Mirada. (2015, Septemter 8). City of La Mirada, California, Code of Ordinances. Retrieved 

February 25, 2016, from 

http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/lamirada_ca/cityoflamiradacaliforniacode

ofordinances?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:lamirada_ca

City of La Mirada. (2016). Development Projects. Retrieved February 25, 2016, from 

http://www.cityoflamirada.org/business/development-projects

City of Norwalk. (2015, June). City of Norwalk General Plan Land Use Map. Retrieved February 25, 2016, 

from http://norwalk.org/home/showdocument?id=4432
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

167

City of Norwalk. (2015, June). Zoning Map. Retrieved February 25, 2016, from 

http://norwalk.org/home/showdocument?id=4430

City of Norwalk. (2016, January). Norwalk Municipal Code, Norwalk, California. Retrieved February 25, 

2016, from http://www.qcode.us/codes/norwalk/

City of Norwalk. (2016). Planning. Retrieved February 25, 2016, from http://www.norwalk.org/cityhall/departments/community-development/planning

City of Santa Fe Springs. (1994). The General Plan of the City of Santa Fe Springs. Retrieved February 22, 

2016, from http://www.santafesprings.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=4018

City of Santa Fe Springs. (2007a, May 8). General Plan Land Use Map. Retrieved February 22, 2016, from 

http://www.santafesprings.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2695

City of Santa Fe Springs. (2007b, May 8). Zoning Map. Retrieved February 22, 2016, from 

http://www.santafesprings.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=2696

City of Santa Fe Springs. (2015). City of Santa Fe Springs, California, Code of Ordinances. Retrieved 

February 22, 2016, from 

http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/santa/cityofsantafespringscaliforniacodeo

fordi?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:santafesprings_ca

City of Santa Fe Springs. (2015, June 20). Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, 

City of Santa Fe Springs, CA, July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015. Retrieved February 23, 2016, from 

http://santafesprings.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=8318

City of Santa Fe Springs. (2017). Planning and Development. Retrieved February 23, 2016, from 

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/Shortlist/index.html?appid=fee01e4f61384f57b1ea236e3d99002

a

Civil Works Engineers. (2016). Rosecrans Marquardt Grade Separation 65% Drainage Report. Los 

Angeles.

Cornerstone Technologies. (2016). Phase I Initial Site Assessment, Rosecrans Marquardt Grade 

Separation Project. Cornerstone Technologies.

County of Los Angeles Public Works. (2012, March). County of Los Angeles Bicycle Master Plan. Retrieved 

March 14, 2016, from County of Los Angeles Public Works Website:

https://dpw.lacounty.gov/pdd/bike/docs/bmp/FINAL%20Bicycle%20Master%20Plan.pdf

Earth Mechanics, Inc. (2015). Preliminary Geotechnical Report, Rosecrans-Marquardt Grade Separation 

Project. Santa Fe Springs.

GPA Consulting. (2016a). Community Impact Assessment, Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation 

Project. El Segundo: GPA Consulting.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

168

GPA Consulting. (2016b). Historic Properties Evaluation Report, Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation 

project. El Segundo: GPA Consulting.

GPA Consulting. (2016c). Natural Environmental Study (Minimal Impacts). El Segundo.

GPA Consulting. (2017). Rosecrans Marquardt Grade Separation Archaeological & Paleontological 

Resources Phase I Assessment.

Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Cooridnating Council. (2011, August 19). National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System. Retrieved February 2, 2016, from USA Wild and Scenic Rivers GIS Data: 

http://www.rivers.gov/mapping-gis.php

John L. Hunter and Associates, Inc. (2015, June 12). Lower San Gabriel River Watershed Management 

Program. Retrieved from California State Water Resources Control Board: 

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/stormwater/municipal/wa

tershed_management/san_gabriel/lower_sangabriel/LowerSGRiver_FinalWMP.pdf

Kimley-Horn. (2015).

LoopNet. (2018, February 20). Santa Fe Springs Industrial Properties For Lease. Retrieved May 16, 2016, 

from LoopNet, Connecting Commercial Real Estate: http://www.loopnet.com/California/SantaFe-Springs_Industrial-Properties-For-Lease/

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. (2015). Machine Count Traffic Volumes, 2011.

Retrieved from http://dpw.lacounty.gov/tnl/trafficcounts/?street=Rosecrans&cross=

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Tranportation Authority. (2016). Rosecrans Marquardt Grade 

Separation Traffic Anlysis Report.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. (2011, July 21). Green Construction Policy. 

Retrieved from Metro: 

http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/sustainability/images/Green_Construction_Policy.pdf

Military Traffic Management Command Transporation Engineering Agency. (1998, December). Strategic 

Rail Corridor Network and Defense Connector Lines. Newport News, VA.

President William J. Clinton. (1994, February 11). Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (Federal Register, 

Volume 59, Number 32). Retrieved January 29, 2016, from https://www.archives.gov/federalregister/executive-orders/pdf/12898.pdf

Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. (2016). Wastewater & Sewer Systems. Retrieved February 26, 

2016, from http://www.lacsd.org/wastewater/default.asp

Santa Fe Springs Water Utility Authority. (2014). 2014 Annual Water Quality Report, Consumer 

Confidence Report. Retrieved February 26, 2016, from

http://www.santafesprings.org/cityhall/public_works/water_utility_authority.asp
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

169

Southern California Association of Governments. (2008). 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan. Retrieved 

January 26, 2016, from 

http://www.scag.ca.gov/NewsAndMedia/Pages/RegionalComprehensivePlan.aspx 

Southern California Association of Governments. (2012). 2012-20135 Regional Transportation 

Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Retrieved January 26, 2016, from 

http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Documents/2012/final/f2012RTPSCS.pdf 

Southern California Association of Governments. (2012, April). 2012-2035 Regional Transportation 

Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Growth Forecast Appendix. Retrieved January 25, 2016, 

from http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Documents/2012/final/SR/2012fRTP_GrowthForecast.pdf

Southern California Association of Governments. (2015a, May). (Draft) Profile of the City of La Mirada.

Retrieved February 25, 2016, from 

http://www.scag.ca.gov/DataAndTools/Documents/Draft2015LP/LaMirada.pdf

Southern California Association of Governments. (2015b, May). (Draft) Profile of the City of Santa Fe 

Springs. Retrieved February 23, 2016, from 

http://www.scag.ca.gov/DataAndTools/Documents/Draft2015LP/SantaFeSprings.pdf

Southern California Association of Governments. (2015c, May). Profile of the City of Norwalk. Retrieved 

February 25, 2016, from https://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/Norwalk.pdf

Southern California Association of Governments. (2015d, January 29). 2015 Federal Transportation 

Improvement Program, Amendment #15-04, Los Angeles County, Comparison Report (in $000's).

Retrieved February 23, 2016, from http://ftip.scag.ca.gov/Documents/15-

04_LA_FinalComparisonReport.pdf

State of California. (2017, October). I-5 South Overview. Retrieved from My Interstate 5 LA: 

http://my5la.com/i-5-south/

The Governor's Office Of Planning and Research. (2016). Query the CEQAnet Database. Retrieved 

February 25, 2016

United States Census Bureau. (2012). 2012 Poverty Thresholds by Size of Family and Number of Children.

Retrieved February 1, 2016, from https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/

United States Census Bureau. (2015, December 2). State & County QuickFacts, Santa Fe Springs (city), 

California. Retrieved February 23, 2016, from 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0669154.html

United States Congress. (1964). Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title 42 USC Section 2000d. Retrieved 

January 29, 2016, from http://www.justice.gov/crt/title-vi-1964-civil-rights-act
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

170

United States Congress. (1969). National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, Title 42 USC 

Section 4331. Retrieved January 29, 2016, from http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/NEPA40CFR1500_1508.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2015, October 20). Environmental Justice, Basic 

Information. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from 

http://www3.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/basics/ejbackground.html

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2016, December 15). Creosote. Retrieved from 

https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/creosote

W.G. Zimmerman Engineering, Inc. (2017). Rosecrans Marquardt Grade Separation Traffic Analysis 

Report.
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

Appendix A. SHPO Correspondence, January 19, 2017
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

Appendix B. FRA Correspondence February 16, 2017
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

Appendix C. SHPO Concurrence November 22, 2017
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

Appendix D. CEQA Notice of Exemption
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

Appendix E. CPUC Nomination
Draft Environmental Assessment

Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project April 2018

Federal Railroad Administration

Appendix F. CPUC Nomination Approval