(Note: The entry and exit points of the project were actually reversed from what is shown in this document. The drill entered the street in Alameda near the Grand Street boat launch and exited on Coast Guard Island. There may have been other changes in the project. Here's the related document apparently signed by Alameda Power's management.
Here's the language straight off the document's Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program: " The goal of the plan is to effectively control, manage, and report any surface release of drilling fluids associated with HDD operations of the project. With implementation of mitigation measures HW-1 and HW-2, potential water quality impacts due to project construction would be less than significant.")
Here's the language straight off the document's Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program: " The goal of the plan is to effectively control, manage, and report any surface release of drilling fluids associated with HDD operations of the project. With implementation of mitigation measures HW-1 and HW-2, potential water quality impacts due to project construction would be less than significant.")
ALAMEDA TO COAST GUARD
ISLAND HDPE CONDUIT
CROSSING, ALAMEDA COUNTY
INITIAL STUDY / DRAFT
MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
Prepared for
Alameda Municipal Power
2000 Grand Street,
Alameda CA 94501
July 2013
Prepared by
URS Corporation
1333 Broadway, Suite 800
Oakland, CA 94612-1924
Table of Contents
Public Draft iiiMitigated Negative Declaration................................................................................................................. vii
Section 1 ONE Project Description ......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Introduction and Project Location ........................................................... 1-1
1.2 Purpose and Objectives ............................................................................ 1-3
1.3 Project Description ................................................................................... 1-3
1.4 Consistency With General Plan, Zoning, and Applicable Land Use
Controls .................................................................................................... 1-8
1.5 Required Permits and Approvals ............................................................. 1-8
Section 2 TWO Study Checklist ............................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Initial Study and Environmental Checklist Form .................................... 2-1
Section 3 THREE Environmental Checklist Discussion ......................................................................... 2.1-1
3.1 Aesthetics .............................................................................................. 3.1-1
3.1.1 Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.1-1
3.1.2 Checklist Discussion ................................................................. 3.1-2
3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...................................................... 3.2-1
3.2.1 Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.2-1
3.2.2 Checklist Discussion ................................................................. 3.2-2
3.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................ 3.3-1
3.3.1 Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.3-1
3.3.2 Checklist Discussion ................................................................. 3.3-3
3.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................ 3.4-1
3.4.1 Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.4-1
3.4.2 Checklist Discussion ................................................................. 3.4-3
3.5 Cultural Resources ................................................................................ 3.5-1
3.5.1 Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.5-1
3.5.2 Checklist Discussion ................................................................. 3.5-3
3.6 Geology and Soils ................................................................................. 3.6-1
3.6.1 Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.6-2
3.6.2 Checklist Discussion ................................................................. 3.6-3
3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................... 3.7-1
3.7.1 Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.7-1
3.7.2 Checklist Discussion ................................................................. 3.7-2
3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................ 3.8-1
3.8.1 Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.8-2
3.8.2 Checklist Discussion ................................................................. 3.8-2
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................... 3.9-1
3.9.1 Environmental Setting .............................................................. 3.9-2
3.9.2 Checklist Discussion ................................................................. 3.9-2
3.10 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................... 3.10-6
3.10.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................ 3.10-6
Table of Contents
Public Draft iv
3.10.2 Checklist Discussion ............................................................... 3.10-7
3.11 Mineral Resources .............................................................................. 3.11-1
3.11.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................ 3.11-1
3.11.2 Checklist Discussion ............................................................... 3.11-1
3.12 Noise ................................................................................................... 3.12-1
3.12.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................ 3.12-1
3.12.2 Checklist Discussion ............................................................... 3.12-2
3.13 Population and Housing ...................................................................... 3.13-1
3.13.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................ 3.13-1
3.13.2 Checklist Discussion ............................................................... 3.13-2
3.14 Public Services .................................................................................... 3.14-1
3.14.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................ 3.14-1
3.14.2 Checklist Discussion ............................................................... 3.14-2
3.15 Recreation ........................................................................................... 3.15-1
3.15.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................ 3.15-1
3.15.2 Checklist Discussion ............................................................... 3.15-1
3.16 Transportation and Traffic .................................................................. 3.16-1
3.16.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................ 3.16-1
3.16.2 Checklist Discussion ............................................................... 3.16-3
3.17 Utilities and Service Systems.............................................................. 3.17-1
3.17.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................ 3.17-1
3.17.2 Checklist Discussion ............................................................... 3.17-2
3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................... 3.18-1
3.18.1 Checklist Discussion ............................................................... 3.18-1
Section 4 FOUR List of Preparers ............................................................................................................. 4-1
Section 5 FIVE References and Agencies/Persons Consulted ............................................................ 5-1
Tables
Table 1-1. Daily Activities for Typical HDD Operation
Table 1-2. Permits and Approvals
Table 3.3-1. Equipment List
Table 3.3-2. Criteria Pollutant Construction Emissions
Table 3.7-1. Equipment List
Table 3.7-2. GHG Emissions
Table 3.12-1: Reaction Of People And Damage To Buildings From Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Vibration Levels
Table 3.12-2: Vibration Source Levels For Construction Equipment
Table 3.13-1. Population and Housing Indicators
Table 3.16-1. Intersection Level of Service
Table of Contents
Public Draft v
Table 3.16-2. Average Daily Traffic (ADT). Mid-Week Weekdays, July 2012
Figures
Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map
Figure 1-2. Project Features
Figure 3.5-1. Coast Guard Island Historic District (Koval and Lawerence-Dietz 1992).
Figure 3.8-1. Hazardous Material Sites in Project Vicinity
Appendices
Appendix A Project Engineering Layouts
Table of Contents
Public Draft vi
Acronyms
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
AMP Alameda Municipal Power
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BMP Best Management Practice
CA MUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
CARB California Air Resources Board
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CGI Coast Guard Island
CO carbon monoxide
dBA A-weighted decibel (a noise measurement unit)
EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utilities District
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
HDD Horizontal Directional Drill
HDPE High Density Polyethylene
LOS Level of Service
MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOx oxides of nitrogen
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
O3 ozone
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Pb lead
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter
PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter
ppm part(s) per million
SO2 sulfur dioxide
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Draft vii
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Prepared in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Pursuant to Division 13, Public Resources Code
Project Proponent: Alameda Municipal Power
200 Grant Street
Alameda, California 94501
Project Title: Alameda to Coast Guard Island HDD Crossing
Alameda County
Project Location: The proposed project has one entry location located on Coast Guard Island
at the baseball field located between Campbell Boulevard and Spencer
Road, and an exit location in the City of Alameda located near the
intersection of Buena Vista Avenue and Grand Street. The project location
is shown in Figure 1-1 of the attached Initial Study.
Lead Agency: Alameda Municipal Power
Description:
Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) proposes to install a utility line conduit crossing between
Alameda Island and Coast Guard Island to provide additional electrical capacity to Coast Guard
Island. The conduit crossing, consisting of three, six-inch high density polyethylene pipes, would
be installed beneath the Oakland Estuary using Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) methods.
One conduit would be for a 12.47 kilovolt (kV) electrical line to add additional backup electrical
capacity to Coast Guard Island. The other conduits would be for future installations of electrical
and communication lines (e.g., fiber optics).
Determination:
An Initial Study has been prepared by AMP, a department of the City of Alameda. On the basis
of this study it has been determined that the proposed project would not have a significant effect
upon the environment.
The proposed project would have no impact or less-than-significant impacts on Aesthetics,
Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Green House
Gas Emissions, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing,
Public Services, Recreation, Transportation and Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Draft viii
Mitigation Measures:
The proposed project would employ project design and construction practices as well as
mitigation measures to minimize or avoid potential impacts to the environment.
The following measures shall be incorporated into the proposed project to avoid potentially
significant impacts to cultural resources in the project area.
CR-1 Unanticipated Archeological Resources: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 (f),
“provisions for historical or unique archaeological resources accidentally discovered
during construction” shall be instituted. Therefore, in the event that any prehistoric or
historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities,
all work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and AMP shall consult with a
qualified archaeologist or paleontologist to assess the significance of the find. If any find
is determined to be significant, representatives of the proponent and the qualified
archaeologist shall meet to determine the appropriate course of action. All significant
cultural materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum
curation, and a report prepared by the qualified archaeologist according to current
professional standards.
CR-2 Unanticipated Paleontological Resources: The project proponent shall notify a
qualified paleontologist of unanticipated discoveries, made by either the cultural
resources monitor or construction personnel and subsequently document the discovery as
needed. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of a breas, true, and/or trace fossil
during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or
diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist
shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed
before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find.
CR-3 Discovery of Human Remains: In the unlikely event of the discovery of human remains,
CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 (e)(1) shall be followed, which is as follows:
(1) There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area
reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:
(A) The Coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered shall be
contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and
(B) If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American:
1. The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) within 24 hours.
2. The NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most
likely descendant from the deceased Native American.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Public Draft ix
The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person
responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate
dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 5097.98.
The following measures shall be incorporated into the proposed project to avoid potentially
significant impacts from hazards and hazardous materials in the project area.
HH-1 – Unknown and Undocumented Contamination
If hazardous materials are encountered during construction or accidentally released as a result of
construction activities the following procedures shall be implemented:
Work shall stop in the vicinity of any discovered contamination or release
The scope and immediacy of the problem shall be identified
Coordination with the responsible agencies shall take place (Department of Toxic
Substances Control, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, or the USEPA)
The necessary investigation and remediation activities shall be conducted to resolve the
situation before continuing construction work
The following measures shall be implemented if unknown or undocumented contamination is
discovered during construction to avoid potentially significant impacts to hydrology and water
resources in the project area.
HW-1 – Decant Water Measures
No decant water from excavation or drilling slurries shall be discharged to receiving waters.
Decant water shall be pumped to a storage tank and tested on-site and depending on its quality
shall be routed to East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) sanitary sewers for treatment
and discharge or hauled to an appropriately permitted landfill for disposal in accordance with
applicable regulations.
HW-2 – Prepare and Implement Frac-Out Contingency Plan
The construction contractor shall prepare a response plan, prior to construction, to address
potential drilling mud releases. If a fluid leak does occur, the contractor shall stop work and
assess the situation. This Plan shall include requirements for establishing and implementing the
following:
1. Establishment of an on-site materials list to manage and control drilling fluid surface
releases, relevant to the project size and environmental issues associated with the project
2. Construction protection measures
3. Biological monitoring program
4. Containment and control methods for frac-outs
5. Notification processes and contacts (Agency Notification)
6. Evaluation Plan/Abandonment Contingency Plan
7. Hazardous Materials Spill Contingency Plan
SECTION ONE Project Description
Public Draft 1-1
1. Section 1 ONE Project Description
1.1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT LOCATION
Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) is responsible for providing electrical service to the City of
Alameda, California, including Coast Guard Island (CGI). Currently, CGI is served by a single
circuit 12kV submarine cable traversing the Oakland Estuary (Estuary) between Alameda Island
and CGI. AMP requires additional conduit installations to support increased electrical capacity to
CGI. AMP proposes to install conduit to house a new 12.47 kV circuit and future electrical and
communications circuits under the Estuary, from the City of Alameda to CGI, by means of a
horizontal directional drill (HDD) crossing. The proposed project has two construction locations:
an entry portal on CGI and an exit portal in the City of Alameda (Figure 1-1).
Coast Guard Island
CGI would be the entry location for the HDD. CGI is a 68-acre artificial island located in the
Estuary between the cities of Oakland and Alameda (Figure 1-1). Originally known as
Government Island, the island was created in 1913 by the dredging project that extended the
Oakland Estuary to San Leandro Bay. Coast Guard presence on the island began in 1926. CGI is
federal land that is jurisdictionally within the Alameda city limits. CGI is heavily developed and
hosts a variety of Coast Guard facilities, commands, and supporting infrastructure. US Coast
Guard (USCG) National Security Cutters are home-ported on the south side of CGI within the
Oakland Estuary.
To meet these functions, a number of facilities are present on the island, including administrative
support buildings, living quarters, medical/dental facilities, storage buildings, athletic fields, a
swimming pool, utility service facilities, a training center, parking areas, and other related
structures. The City of Alameda has no planning power on CGI but maintains close ties with
CGI, including the provision of utility services.
The primary access point to CGI is Dennison Street, and it accommodates all incoming and
outgoing vehicular traffic.
City of Alameda
The exit point of the HDD would be on Alameda Island. The exit point is located near the
northern end of Grand Street in the Northern Waterfront area of the City of Alameda, as
designated by the City of Alameda General Plan, and is zoned as mixed use planned
development and general industry. There are a variety of land uses in the project vicinity,
including marina, light industrial, trucking, warehouse commercial, recreation and residential.
Vacant and undeveloped land and commercial recreation/marina are the second and third largest
land uses, respectively. Public/institutional, residential and parks and open space land uses
comprise a much smaller area.
The primary east-west traffic access to the Northern Waterfront area is provided by Buena Vista
Avenue, Atlantic Avenue, and Clement Avenue. The primary north-south traffic routes are
Sherman Street and Grand Street.
!
!
Entry Location
Exit Location
HDD Crossing
City of Alameda
Oakland Estuary
Coast
Guard
Island
Grand St
Rose Abbors | L:\Projects\Alameda_Municipal_Power_Coast_Guard_Island\Maps\MXD\Figure_1-1_Vicinity_Map.mxd
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
Basemap: Esri 2013
Project Area
Vallejo
San Jose
San
Francisco
Oakland
80
780
280
238
880
680
580
101
Figure 1-1
Vicinity Map
Alameda Municipal Power
Alameda to Coast Guard Island HDPE Conduit Crossing
SECTIONONE Project Description
Public Draft 1-3
Oakland Estuary
The Estuary is a channel that extends about three miles westward from the location of the HDD
to the open waters of San Francisco Bay, and about 2.5 miles east to San Leandro Bay. The
Estuary has a typical width of about 1,000 feet, but widens around Coast Guard Island. It is used by freight ships and commercial ferries as well as sailboats, motor yachts, and other pleasure craft. At the proposed project location, the Estuary’s shoreline is almost entirely urbanized with industrial, residential and commercial uses.
1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The project consists of the installation of a new high density polyethylene (HDPE) conduit
between Alameda's Main Island and US Coast Guard Island, as part of AMP’s ongoing
operations. The conduit will eventually house a new 12.47 kV trunk feeder and other utilities
such as fiber optic cable. The purposes and objectives of the proposed project are:
Provide operational redundancy and desired maintenance capacity for the system
Minimize down time and reduce the potential for routine and emergency-related service
interruptions
Improve customer service and reduce operation and maintenance costs
Beneficiaries of the proposed project are those who will be directly or indirectly employed as
a result of the project, and the customers of Alameda Municipal Power, who will receive a
more reliable electrical distribution system.
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of installing HDPE conduits beneath the Estuary using HDD
methods to drill from an entry point on CGI to an exit point across the Estuary on Alameda
Island. The HDD would occur under the Estuary at a minimum depth of 60 feet below the
proposed dredging limits. The directional boring would allow for the installation of a bundle of
three 6-inch conduits. One conduit would house cables for the 12.47 kV electrical circuit, a
second conduit would be left empty for the installation of a future electrical circuit, and a third
conduit would also be left empty for the installation of future communications cable(s) such as
fiber optics.
The project has several construction layout, or staging locations: an entry location on CGI, an
exit location in the City of Alameda, and a temporary conduit bundle fabrication and lay-down
area along Clement Avenue. (Figure 1-2). The project area is generally defined at the area
surrounding the entry location on CGI, the path of the HDD beneath the estuary, the area
surrounding the exit location on Grand Street in Alameda, and the conduit bundle fabrication and
laydown area from Grand Street and along Clement Avenue where construction activities would
take place.
The HDD entry location on CGI would be located on an athletic field, located between Campbell
Boulevard to the north and Spencer Road to the south. The boring entry location would be
located on the east side of the athletic field, approximately 125 feet from Campbell Boulevard on
CGI. This area would be approximately 150 feet by 100 feet to accommodate the drilling rig, a
!
!
Entry Location
Exit Location
HDD Crossing
Temporary
Conduit
Bundle Layout
Marina
Park
Pennzoil
Conduit Bundle
Pullback Route
Chipman
Relocations
Warehouse
Rose Abbors | \\1575VS-GISDATA\gisdata\Projects\Alameda_Municipal_Power_Coast_Guard_Island\Maps\MXD\Figure_1-2_Project_Features.mxd
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
Basemap: Esri 2013
Figure 1-2
Project Features
Alameda Municipal Power
Alameda to Coast Guard Island HDPE Conduit Crossing
SECTION ONE Project Description
Public Draft 1-5
drill entry (and fluid collection) pit, and construction materials and equipment. To achieve the
depths required, the drill would need to begin in the east corner of the baseball field’s outfield on
CGI. The entry point set-up area would extend 150-feet northeast to Campbell Boulevard. The
set-up area would also extend west-northwest 100-feet into the baseball field’s outfield.
The HDD exit location would be located in the City of Alameda, on the 2000 block of Grand
Street, between Fortmann Way to the south and the Estuary to the north. The exit location would
be approximately 200 feet away from the high water point and would bordered by a housing
development on the west, and a parking lot serving a public boat ramp on the east. The exit
location construction area would be approximately 100-feet by 50-feet to accommodate a drill
exit (and fluid collection) pit. A conduit bundle layout area long enough for the conduit to be
constructed in one segment would also be required near the exit location. Design layouts are
provided in Appendix A.
HDD Channel Crossing
The submarine crossing would be constructed over a period of approximately 28 working days
(with 5 work days per week) or approximately 5 ½ weeks total time. The contractor would
directionally drill an arched bore hole in sediment beneath the Estuary. To accomplish this, a
pilot hole is drilled from the entry location, beginning at a prescribed angle from horizontal and
continues under and across the Estuary to the exit location on Grand Street. A pit would be
excavated at the entry and exit locations to accommodate the drill. The entry pit would be sized
by the drilling contractor to appropriately contain all drilling fluids and cuttings generated during
drilling. Once the pilot hole is complete, the hole would be enlarged to a suitable diameter for the
conduit bundle. This is accomplished by “pre-reaming” the hole to successively larger diameters.
The end of Grand Street (north of Fortmann Way) and the public boat ramp may be closed
intermittently during the 5 ½ week construction period, based on drilling and conduit bundle
layout needs. Pedestrian access would be maintained through the construction period and bicycle
traffic would be re-routed when necessary. Access to Fortmann Way and the adjacent housing
development would be maintained during construction.
The drill path would be monitored by an electronic package housed in the pilot drill string near
the cutting head. The electronic package detects the relationship of the drill string to the earth’s
magnetic field, gravitational field and its inclination. This data is transmitted back to the surface where calculations are made as to the location of the cutting head so that the boring can be made precisely to the exit location on the opposite side of the Estuary. An alternative method is a steering tool that uses a sensor placed directly behind the drill bit and a wire-line coil temporarily placed along the bottom of the Estuary near the drill path. The wire-line coil’s position is surveyed and when pulsed with DC current it creates an electromagnetic field of known orientation. The borehole position is determined by sensing the orientation and strength of the magnetic field at the sensor behind the drill bit. Since the wire would be placed on the bottom, it would not interfere with boat or ship traffic in the Estuary.
Directional drilling requires the use of a bentonite clay drilling slurry (“drilling mud”) to
lubricate the drill cutting head and borehole as it is drilled. Bentonite is an inert and non-toxic
substance. The drilling mud is pumped into the borehole under pressure. If cracks or fissures
exist in the substrate, there is the possibility that drilling mud can move through the cracks and exit at the surface, in this case the bottom of the Estuary. This is known as frac-out. Because bentonite clay occurs naturally, frac-out would result in the additional sediment being discharged
SECTIONONE Project Description
Public Draft 1-6
into the water body. The potential for frac-out is small and is minimized during the borehole
design phase by accounting for local geology. Precautions are taken during the drilling process to monitor for the occurrence of frac-out and a contingency plan would be in place in the event that frac-out occurs.
During drilling, excess slurry would drain into the entry pit and at completion of the bore a small
amount may drain into the exit pit. This excess slurry would be removed via tanker truck and
disposed of at an appropriately permitted landfill. Water from the borehole may also enter the
entry pit and would be pumped into tanks and disposed of in accordance with State and County
regulations (see Section 3.0 Hydrology and Water Quality).
Conduit Bundle Fabrication and Pullback
The conduit bundle would be prefabricated at the exit point, on the Alameda side of bore, prior
to pulling it through the bore hole. The approximately 1,570 foot conduit bundle would be
fabricated from 20-foot or longer sections of HDPE pipe that would be laid out along Clement
Avenue, west of Grand Street (Figure 1-2). As the sections are fused together prior to
installation, the bundle would run along the northern gutter of Clement Avenue and to the north
of the Chipman Relocations warehouse facility. The conduit bundle would take approximately 1-
3 weeks to construct. No streets would be closed along the conduit bundle layout, though parking
along the northern portion of Clement Avenue would be unavailable during the approximately 1-
3 week conduit string fabrication period. The small parking lot to Grand Marina Park would be
closed during this period as well, but the park itself would be accessible by pedestrians.
Vehicular traffic to the Alameda Yacht Club would be maintained by raising the pipe during the
layout period or by routing it on the Chipman Relocations warehouse facility property (see
Figure 1-2).
Once the boring is complete, the conduit bundle would be pulled through it. This process is
expected to take 8-10 hours and would continue until complete without interruption. The conduit
would be pulled from its location on Clement Avenue, through the Pennzoil facility and curved
to align with Grand Street (Figure 1-2). Due to temporary construction activity, access along
Grand Street would be limited, while access to the public boat ramp at the end of Grand Street
would be temporarily unavailable. However, access to Grand Street and Fortmann Way would be
maintained at all times to residents and emergency vehicles, by raising the conduit bundle, and
maintaining an arch that vehicles can pass under.
Construction Personnel, Access, and Equipment
Construction of the bore hole and conduit installation would require a 6 to 8 person drilling crew
and a 10 to 12 person support crew, generally working one 10 to 12-hour shift per day. Crews
would work at both the entry and exit locations, although the specific split of crew between the
two locations is not established at this time. It is unlikely that the entire crew would be either at
the entry or exit locations at one time. Workers would arrive via surface streets (e.g., Dennison
Avenue to CGI, the only street access to CGI, or via Buena Vista to Grand Street in Alameda)
and use City of Alameda truck routes when transporting equipment or construction material
residue. Workers would park on surface streets, or in the lot adjacent to the Grand Street boat
ramp in the City of Alameda. There are a number of designated parking areas on CGI.
SECTIONONE Project Description
Public Draft 1-7
AMP would require their contractor to prepare a Traffic Control Plan (TCP) prior to construction
to meet the encroachment permit requirements of the City of Alameda or Alameda County,
depending on jurisdiction. The TCP would include measures to ensure minimum disruptions to
traffic and access during construction such as:
Limiting the construction work zone in the project area to a width that, at a minimum,
maintains alternate one-way traffic flow past the construction zone.
Using flaggers to direct traffic, as needed.
Identifying areas where construction traffic and construction activities would be limited to
non-peak hours to reduce traffic flow restrictions or delays.
Limiting construction traffic to defined construction work hours.
Preparing a truck routing plan for the project area to minimize impacts from construction
truck traffic during equipment or material delivery and/or disposal. City of Alameda truck
routes would be used when transporting equipment or construction material residue, as
necessary.
Maintaining access for emergency vehicles at all times. The emergency service providers
will be notified of the timing, location, and duration of construction activities throughout the
construction period.
Installing signage at appropriate locations to notify cyclists and motorists of detours or
potential bike lane and vehicle lane closures. Reflective signage would be placed on
barricades with flashers for night safety near the project area.
Designing construction signage to meet the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD) standards.
Establishing construction crew parking areas to minimize impacts on street parking.
Equipment that would be used during construction would include drill rigs, cranes, excavators
(for initial construction of the entry and exit pits), and trucks for material hauling. Other
equipment would include the machinery for joining the pieces of the HDPE conduit, signal
boards, and welders.
Project Schedule
The proposed project would take place over a 28 working day period during late 2013 or in 2014.
Work would take place during daytime hours, and night time work (early evening) would be
conducted only if necessary for project implementation, such as during the conduit pullback
operation. A breakdown of typical HDD operations is presented in Table 1-1.
SECTIONONE Project Description
Public Draft 1-8
Table 1-1. Daily Activities for Typical HDD Operation
Day 1-2 The drilling equipment is setup at the entry location.
Day 1-10 Product casing is laid out and prepared on exit side of the drilling operation.
Day 3 Excavation and setup of entry position and the anticipated exit position is located.
Day 4-8 The pilot hole is drilled beginning at the prescribed angle and under and across the obstacle
along the designed profile at the entry location. Expected drilling rate of approximately 40
feet/hour for the pilot hole.
Day 9 The drilling equipment is reset for back ream and pullback of product pipe at the entry
location.
Day 10-14 The drilled hole is enlarged and the product pipe (casing) is pulled into the enlarged borehole.
Expected drilling rate of approximately 40 feet/hour for the back ream and casing installation.
Day 15 The area around the exit hole is excavated and the casing lowered to design depth and
configuration.
Day 16 The drilling equipment is disassembled and demobilized at the entry location.
Day 17-18 The area around the entry hole is excavated and the casing lowered to the design depth and
configuration. The equipment for the conduit installation is setup at the entry location.
Day 19-20 The installation of the bore spacers and conduit string pullback.
Day 21-28 Installation of the land-side ducts and connections
1.4 CONSISTENCY WITH GENERAL PLAN, ZONING, AND APPLICABLE LAND USE
CONTROLS
The project area is subject to the City of Alameda General Plan and the City of Alameda Zoning
Ordinance. CGI is under Federal authority and thus does not fall under the purview of the City of
Alameda General Plan.
The City of Alameda General Plan land use designation for the project area is General Industrial
and Mixed Use, which allows for the proposed project activities. The proposed project area is
part of the Northern Waterfront Specific Plan, which allows for residential, office and industry
uses. The proposed project would not require the modification of land use or zoning
designations.
1.5 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Major permits or approvals that would likely be required for the proposed project are shown in
Table 1-2. The agencies below may rely on the contents of this Initial Study in making
discretionary decisions on the proposed project.
SECTIONONE Project Description
Public Draft 1-9
Table 1-2. Permits and Approvals
Agency Permit, Approval or Consultation
Alameda Municipal Power Environmental Review
Project Approval
City of Alameda Encroachment Permits
Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB)
Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification
State Water Resources Control Board National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General
Construction Permit
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10 permit for construction in Corps
jurisdiction
San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission
Region Wide Permit - 2
SECTIONONE Project Description
Public Draft 1-10
This page intentionally left blank
SECTIONTWO Study Checklist
Public Draft 2-1
2. Section 2 TWO Study Checklist
2.1 INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Project Title: Alameda to Coast Guard Island HDD Crossing
Lead Agency’s Name
and Address:
Alameda Municipal Power
2000 Grand Street, Alameda CA 94501
Lead Agency Contact: Juan M. Ulloa, Project Manager, (510) 748 -3996
Project Location: The project area is located on CGI between Campbell Boulevard and Spencer Road and
in the City of Alameda on Grand Avenue, between Fortmann Way and the Oakland
Estuary, in Alameda County, California (see Figure 1-1).
General Plan Land Use
Designation:
General Industrial
Zoning: M-2 (General Industrial)
Description: See Project Description, Section 1.2
Agencies Whose Approval Is Required: BCDC, Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Surrounding Land Uses: Residential, Industrial
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agricultural and Forestry
Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous
Materials Hydrology/Water Quality
Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population/Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation/Traffic Utilities /Service Systems Mandatory Findings of
Significance
SECTIONTWO Study Checklist
Public Draft 2-2
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or
“potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing
further is required.
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.1-1
3. Section 3 THREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
3.1 AESTHETICS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-
Than-
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
3.1.1 Environmental Setting
The study area for the analysis of aesthetic resources encompasses zones with views of the
project area. In general, the study area includes a variety of land uses, including residential and
light industrial development near the project area and the Oakland Estuary with views toward
CGI and Alameda.
Coast Guard Island
CGI is in an existing marine industrial environment in which the Coast Guard has been a
presence since 1926. The area consists of Coast Guard shore facilities and buildings. There are
no designated scenic resources in the vicinity. Structures, such as buildings and moored Coast
Guard Cutters and vegetation generally interrupt continuous long-range views in the area. The
City of Alameda can be seen to the south, but these views can be obstructed when ships are
moored at the pier. The East Bay can be seen to the north, but these views are obstructed by
buildings and highway structures.
Main viewers of the area are users of the softball field and occupants of the adjacent commercial
and business facilities, as well as recreational users of the Estuary and nearby shore areas.
Nonetheless, the expectations of viewers in the area are influenced by its long history as an area
with a predominant industrial use and the densely developed urban environment.
City of Alameda
The viewshed on Grand Street of the project area is composed of waterfront views. Boat docks
and urban structures dominate the visual character along the viewshed. The main viewers of the
project area are the occupants of the adjacent housing development, offices and industrial
buildings bordered by Grand Street, and CGI at the north end. The City of Oakland is also visible
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.1-2
but these views are interrupted by CGI Facilities. There are no designated scenic resources in the
project area.
3.1.2 Checklist Discussion
Checklist Item a:
No scenic vistas exist within the project area. The project area is within a highly developed built
environment. The visual setting of the project area is dominated by urban structures, and views
within the project area are limited. Additionally, the project is the installation of an underground
conduit, which would not be visible to users of the project area on either CGI or the City of
Alameda. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on scenic vistas.
Checklist Item b:
There are no California State Scenic Highways in the viewshed of the project area, nor is the
project area eligible for such designation. Additionally, there are no areas in the viewshed of the
project area recognized as Alameda County scenic routes. Therefore, the proposed project would
have no impact on these scenic resources.
Checklist Item c:
Sensitive receptors in the project area include adjacent single-family and multifamily residences
on Grand Street in the City of Alameda, and users of the softball park on CGI. The existing
viewshed is characterized by marina and light industry views. Views along the corridor would
not be altered due to the underground nature of the proposed project.
Construction activities would temporarily reduce the aesthetic qualities of the site in the project
area by introducing construction equipment, materials and work crews into the viewshed.
General construction activities may include excavation, earth movement, conduit assembly and
drill boring. However, these construction activities would be short-term in duration and impacts
to the viewshed would be temporary in nature. Additionally, the project is the installation of an
underground conduit, which would not be visible upon completion of the installation.
Therefore, the proposed project would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings and would have a less than significant impact on the existing visual
character of the project area.
Checklist Item d:
The project is an underground conduit and would not require any new permanent sources of
night lighting that would impact light and glare in the area. Construction activities would
generally take place during the day.
If nighttime work would be required, it would be of short duration and temporary, and would
only be on an as needed basis. For example, pullback of the conduit bundle through the borehole
must be completed without interruption. Pullback of the conduit bundle would start in the
morning but may continue into the early evening hours which, depending on the timing of the
construction period, could be after sunset. Any nighttime lighting needed would be positioned to
minimize impacts to sensitive receptors by directing the light downward toward the work area,
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.1-3
away from residences and using shielded lamps. Therefore, the project would have a less than
significant impact on light and glare in the area.
Mitigation
No mitigation required.
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.2-1
3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined
in Public Resources Code Section
12220(g)), timberland (as defined by
Public Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland production
(as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
3.2.1 Environmental Setting
The study area for agricultural and forest resources encompasses the area of ground disturbance
for construction impacts.
Coast Guard Island
The proposed project would be located in an urban area of Alameda County on CGI. The project
area is located within a baseball field; the surrounding area includes parking lots, office buildings
and other non-agricultural or forest land uses.
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.2-2
City of Alameda
The proposed project would be located in an urban area of Alameda County within the City of
Alameda. The area consists of parking lots, boating docks, and multifamily residential and other
non-agricultural or non-forest land uses.
3.2.2 Checklist Discussion
Checklist Items a, b, c, d, and e:
The proposed project would not affect any farmland or areas zoned for agricultural uses or
timberland production and forest. The proposed project area at the entry and exit locations is
completely developed. There are no Prime Farmlands, Unique Farmlands, Farmlands of
Statewide importance or Forest or Timberland Production lands on or near the proposed project
area, as indicated in the 2010 Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program map for Alameda County. In addition, the nature of the proposed project would not
cause a change in the existing environment that would result in the conversion of farmland or
forest land to non-agricultural or forest use because no farmland or forest land exists in the area.
The Williamson Act is a program that allows land used for farming or ranching to be taxed at a
rate based on the actual use of the land for agricultural purposes as opposed to its unrestricted
market value. The site of the proposed project is not under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore,
the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson
Act contract.
The project would have no impact on agricultural and forestry resources in the project area.
Mitigation
No mitigation required
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.3-1
3.3 AIR QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is nonattainment
under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
3.3.1 Environmental Setting
The proposed project is located in the San Francisco Bay Air Basin and the study area for air
quality resources encompasses the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. This air basin is monitored,
evaluated, and controlled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), California Air
Resources Board (CARB), Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and the
Association of Bay Area Governments. The USEPA, CARB, and BAAQMD develop rules
and/or regulations to attain the goals or directives imposed by the federal Clean Air Act of 1970
and the California Clean Air Act of 1988. Federal and state air quality standards have been
established by the USEPA and CARB for six ambient air pollutants, commonly referred to as
“criteria” air pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur
dioxide (SO2), particulate matter that is less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), particulate
matter that is less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). Generally, a project’s
effects to O3 ambient concentrations are evaluated by assessing the emissions of O3 precursors:
reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX). These criteria pollutants have been
regulated for more than two decades.
The USEPA and CARB have established which air basins in California are in attainment or nonattainment
of ambient air quality standards for the various criteria pollutants. Ambient air quality
standards have been designated to protect public health and the environment. A non-attainment
designation of an air pollutant means that ambient pollutant concentrations of the air basin
exceed the federal or state ambient air quality standards for that pollutant. The federal and state
air quality regulations require that the local governing air district prepare and implement plans to
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.3-2
get the ambient criteria pollutant concentrations below the ambient air quality standards.
Therefore, local regulations for activities that would have emissions of criteria pollutants are
generally stricter for the pollutants for which an area is in non-attainment. Of the federal ambient
air quality standards, Alameda County is in non-attainment for PM2.5 and marginal nonattainment
for 8 hour O3 (EPA, 2012). Of the state ambient air quality standards, Alameda County is in non-attainment for O3, PM2.5, and PM10 (CARB, 2012). Air basins that are in nonattainment for criteria pollutants are required to develop plans to achieve attainment.
The BAAQMD and other agencies prepare clean air plans in response to the State and Federal
Clean Air Acts. Alameda County also has General Plan policies that encourage development that
reduces air quality impacts. In addition, BAAQMD has developed CEQA Guidelines
(BAAQMD 1999) to assist local agencies in evaluating and mitigation air quality impacts.
The latest Clean Air Plan, which was adopted in September 2010, is called the Bay Area 2010
Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2010). This plan includes a comprehensive strategy to reduce
emissions from stationary, area, and mobile sources. The plan objective is to reduce emissions
and decrease ambient concentrations of harmful pollutants; safeguard public health by reducing
exposure to air pollutants that pose the greatest health risk, with an emphasis on protecting the
communities most heavily impacted by air pollution; and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to
protect the climate. The plan also serves as an update to the most recent ozone plan to comply
with state air quality planning requirements as codified in the California Health & Safety Code.
The plan is a multi-pollutant plan to provide integrated and comprehensive planning to respond
to air quality and climate protection challenges. The plan addressed four categories of pollutants:
Ground-level ozone and its key precursors, ROG and NOx;
Particulate matter;
Air toxics; and
Greenhouse gases.
The clean air planning efforts for ozone will also reduce PM10 and PM2.5, since a substantial
amount of this air pollutant comes from combustion emissions such as vehicle exhaust. In
addition, BAAQMD adopts and enforces rules to reduce particulate matter emissions and
develops public outreach programs to educate the public to reduce PM10 and PM2.5 emissions
(e.g., Spare the Air Program). In 2003, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 656 (SB 656) that
required further action by CARB and air districts to reduce public exposure to PM10 and PM2.5.
Efforts identified by BAAQMD in response to SB 656 are primarily targeting reductions in wood
smoke emissions and adoption of new rules to further reduce nitrogen oxides (NOx) and
particulate matter from internal combustion engines and reduce particulate matter from
commercial charbroiling activities.
The project area is located within the Northern Alameda Western Contra Costa Counties Region
in the BAAQMD sub region. In this area, marine air intrusion through the Golden Gate, across
San Francisco, and through the San Bruno Gap is a dominant weather factor throughout the year.
The Oakland-Berkeley Hills causes a bifurcation of westerly flow in the vicinity of Oakland,
with southerly winds observed over the San Francisco Bay north of the Golden Gate and
northwesterlies over the bay to the south of the Golden Gate. Air pollution in the area is
generally minor due to frequent good ventilation and less influx of high pollutant concentrations
from upwind sources.
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.3-3
3.3.2 Checklist Discussion
Potential air quality impacts from the proposed project would result from vehicular traffic and
equipment usage only during construction. The air quality impacts associated with the proposed
project would be short-term in duration and, therefore, temporary impacts. In 1999, the
BAAQMD published the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of
Projects and Plans (BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines). The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines is an
advisory document that provides local jurisdictions with procedures for addressing air quality in
environmental documents. The guide provides methods for assessing air quality impacts,
thresholds of significance adopted by the air district, and recommendations of mitigation
measures.
BAAQMD published new CEQA guidelines in June 2010 and updated them in May 2011. In
March 2012, an Alameda County Superior Court judge suspended the revised thresholds of
significance for air quality and greenhouse gas impacts promulgated in the BAAQMD’s June
2010 CEQA guidelines until such time as the agency conducts CEQA review of the thresholds.
The District has appealed this ruling, with the outcome yet to be determined. Despite this ruling,
AMP has decided that there is sufficient substantial evidence supporting the criteria air pollutant
and odor emissions thresholds consistent with those approved by the BAAQMD in the 2010
CEQA thresholds and guidelines. Therefore, this analysis is based on the adopted 2010
BAAQMD Guidelines.
With regard to air quality impacts related to project construction, the BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines attaches greatest importance to emissions of PM10, PM2.5, and ozone precursors (NOx
and VOCs) that can result from a variety of construction activities, including construction
equipment operation, transfer of drilling soils for material transport, vehicle travel on paved and
unpaved surfaces, and vehicle operation. The 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines have mass emission
thresholds for criteria pollutants from construction.
Checklist Items a, b, and c:
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (2010) has mass emissions thresholds for criteria air
pollutants and their precursors associated with construction equipment exhaust. These are shown
in Table 3.3.2. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (2010) encourage adoption of best
management practices to control fugitive dust associated with construction. Sources of air
pollution emissions that comply with all applicable BAAQMD regulations and are below the
applicable mass emission thresholds would not be considered to have significant impacts.
Construction-related emissions are short-term in duration but can often create adverse
concentrations of PM10, PM2.5, and ozone precursors. Therefore, construction emissions were
estimated for these criteria pollutants. Emissions were estimated using the California Emission
Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2011.1.1. CalEEMod is a statewide land use project
emissions model designed as a uniform platform to quantify potential criteria pollutant and
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with construction and operation from a variety of
land uses, such as residential and commercial facilities. CalEEMod utilizes basic land use
information to estimate default construction equipment and mobile source trips and lengths. This
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.3-4
model incorporates both CARB’s OFFROAD 2007 and EMFAC2007 models. The following
conservative inputs1 into the model were utilized:
Location is Alameda County
Project year is 2013
Climate Zone is 4
Land Use was user-defined industrial with size metric 1.
Although construction phases could take up to 12 hours, we conservatively estimated
construction phasing as such:
- Drilling with 24 hour shift2 and lasting for 20 work days and drilling support with 8 hour
shift and lasting for 28 work days.
- Total construction time would be approximately 5 ½ weeks.
Off-road equipment is shown in Table 3.3-1.
Trips associated with material hauled off-site: 30 roundtrips.
Trips associated with materials brought on-site: 25 roundtrips.
The default trip lengths for worker (12.4 miles), vendor (7.3 miles) and hauling (20 miles)
was used.
The daily trips associated with workers were 16 roundtrips for drilling crew and 12
roundtrips for drilling support crew.
Default horsepower and load factors (ratio of the average engine load compared to the
maximum rated load) for construction equipment were utilized
Table 3.3-1. Equipment List
Phase Name Equipment Type Units Hours/Day Horsepower Load Factor
Drilling
Bore/Drill Rigs 1 24 750 0.75
Bore/Drill Rigs 1 24 475 0.75
Cranes 2 24 208 0.43
Drilling
support
Excavators 2 6 157 0.57
Off-Highway Trucks 5 8 381 0.57
Signal Boards 4 12 6 0.82
Welders 1 4 46 0.45
Sources: CalEEMod, In-Use Off-Road Diesel Model
1 Inputs are based on information received from POWER Engineers on December 3, 2012 and February 13, 2013.
2 A 24-hour shift was used for the air quality calculations as a worst-case. 24-hour shifts for drilling are not
expected.
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.3-5
The emissions for construction of the proposed project are shown in Table 3.3-2.
Table 3.3-2. Criteria Pollutant Construction Emissions
Criteria
Pollutant
Total Construction
Emissions (tons)
BAAQMD CEQA
Threshold (tons)
VOC 0.32 10
NOx 2.75 10
CO 1.20 NA
SO2 < 0.01 NA
PM10 0.13 15
PM2.5 0.10 10
Notes:
The thresholds represented are the values based on the recently vacated thresholds
from 2010. These are consistent with values used in BAAQMD permitting programs
and represent values that will result in a less than significant impact.
Previous versions of BAAQMD thresholds did not require quantification of
construction emissions and encouraged best management practices.
Source: BAAQMD. 2010. California Air Quality Guidelines
There would not be any operational mass emissions associated with this project; therefore, no
emissions were estimated for operation.
The mass emissions generated during construction are less than the mass emission thresholds.
Therefore, based on the small mass emissions generated during construction, the short duration
of the proposed project and the number of personnel and equipment, the proposed project is
expected to have a less than significant impact on air quality.
The BAAQMD recommends implementation of standard best management practices to control
fugitive dust at construction sites. These best management practices would be implemented as
part of the project design control measures. These control measures would be implemented
during project construction to minimize the short term impact of fugitive dust emissions from the
project:
Several control measures would be implemented to minimize the short term impact of the
project:
Water all exposed soils of the active construction areas to minimize fugitive dust.
Cover loads of soil, sand, and other loose materials to minimize fugitive dust.
Apply water to non-paved construction areas.
Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt,
sand, etc.)
Because these control measures would be implemented as part of the project, fugitive dust
emissions from construction activities would be less than significant.
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.3-6
Since the emissions are less than the mass emission significance thresholds, the proposed project
would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an air quality violation,
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, or
conflict or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
Checklist Item d:
The proposed project would be located adjacent to or near some sensitive receptors such as
residential areas, athletic fields, and offices. Sensitive receptors could be exposed to air
pollutants from equipment emissions from construction.
The proposed project would generate diesel particulate matter from construction equipment and
construction worker vehicles. The emissions associated with construction would be temporary
and short in duration. Therefore, sensitive receptors adjacent to or near the proposed project
would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations and it can be assumed that impacts
related to health risks from diesel particulate matter would be less than significant. Potential
impacts would be less than significant.
Checklist Item e:
Odors would be considered significant if the project would result in a frequent exposure of
members of the public to objectionable odors, which is typically defined as five or more
confirmed complaints per year averaged over three years. According to BAAQMD, typical uses
that may result in significant odor impacts include wastewater treatment plant, sanitary landfill,
transfer station, composting facility, petroleum refinery, asphalt batch plant, chemical
manufacturing, fiberglass manufacturing, painting/coating operations, rendering plant, and coffee
roasters. The proposed project does not include the types of activities or industries that
BAAQMD has considered to create odors. Construction of the project would result in short-term
emissions and some dust generation. None of the activities would result in generation of odors,
nor would construction related odor impacts occur. The project would not include activities or
the use of materials that would generate noxious odors, thus the project would have no impact
with respect to odors.
Mitigation
No mitigation required
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.4-1
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
3.4.1 Environmental Setting
The study area for the analysis of biological resources encompasses the area of construction
disturbance and all nearby areas where sensitive species are known to occur, including the
Estuary.
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.4-2
The upland portions of the study area are entirely developed, and include residential buildings,
marinas, port structures, and parks. The estuarine habitats within the study area are heavily
modified by shoreline development, channel management, and boat traffic; and include subtidal,
intertidal, and marine areas, as described below.
A reconnaissance survey and review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)
were conducted. No special status plants or animals or habitat supporting special status plants or
animals occur at the HDD entry and exit locations or conduit bundle layout area. The HDD entry
and exit locations on CGI and the City of Alameda do not contain special aquatic sites such as
tidal, seasonal, or isolated wetlands. The Oakland Estuary is considered a jurisdictional Water of
the US.
Coast Guard Island
CGI is a man-made island that is heavily disturbed and developed with little natural vegetation or
habitat for flora or fauna. Introduced plants and shrubs as well as non-native weeds do provide
some habitat for human-tolerant animal species such as raccoons, squirrels, rats, and birds. There
are no sensitive plant communities known to exist in the project area.
The project area is part of the Pacific flyway that supports thousands of migrating birds. Past
field surveys identified the house sparrow (Passer domenstias), great egret (Ardea alba), western
gull (Larus occidentalis), least tern (Stemum antillarum), Forster’s tern (Stema forsteri), and the
double-breasted cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) on CGI (USCG 2005b).
Significant quantities or areas of marine vegetation do not occur in the wharf area of CGI or in
the immediate adjacent waters. Limited amounts of brown algae (Sargassum muticum) occur
along the intertidal zone at the base of shoreline riprap and some sea lettuce (Ulva sp.), and green
algae can be found attached to mussels on the riprap.
The proposed project takes places on a developed baseball field on CGI with no suitable habitat
for migratory birds. Additionally, the proposed project is not within any marine habitat and is not
within 100 feet of the high water mark.
City of Alameda
The area within the project limits is an urban environment with residential, commercial and
industrial land uses. Ornamental plantings have been installed around and near many of buildings
and residences. The project area is not designated critical habitat for any species.
In the Northern Waterfront area of the City of Alameda and in the open waters of the Estuary
adjacent to CGI the following birds have the potential to occur: western grebe (Aechmophorus
occidentalis), pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps), double-crested cormorant
(Phalacrocorax auritus), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), lesser scaup (Aythya
affinis), American wigeon (Anas americana), American coot (Fulica americana), ring-billed gull
(Larus delawarensis), western gull (Larus occidentalis), mew gull (Larus canus), and California
gull (Larus californicus) (City of Alameda, 2006).
The project area contains no open space that could be considered wildlife habitat and contains no
wetlands or riparian habitats. The proposed project takes place within paved and developed areas
on Alameda Island with no appropriate habitat for migratory birds.
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.4-3
Oakland Estuary
The estuarine habitats within the project study area are heavily modified by shoreline
development, channel management, and boat traffic; and include subtidal, intertidal, and marine
areas (USACE 2011).
Within the project study area, common subtidal invertebrate species include mollusks (e.g., Mya
arenaria, Gemma, Musculista senhousia, and Venerupis phillipinarum), amphipods, and
polychaete worms. Fish species include shiner perch (Cymatogaster aggregate) and Pacific
staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus) (USACE 2011) as well as the brown smoothhound
(Mustlus henlei), topsmelt (Atherinops affinis), leopard shark (Triakis semifasciata), Pacific
herring (Clupea harengus pallasi), and northern anchovy (Engraulisi). Marine birds likely to
occur in the area include California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), western gull (Larus
occidentalis), surf scooter (Melanitta perspicillata), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax
auritus), and wintering species such as western grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis). Marine
mammal species that feed over soft bottom substrates may be occasionally present within the
area, including harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) and harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena).
California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) also occasionally feed on species associated with
soft bottom habitat (USACE 2011).
In the Bay, eelgrass (Zostera marina) is an important subtidal plant species that provides
breeding, foraging, and escape habitat for a wide variety of invertebrates, fishes, and some
waterfowl. A limiting factor in eelgrass growth in the Bay is low light intensity due to turbidity;
this factor restricts eelgrass to a zone of +1 to +6 feet MLLW (USACE, 2011). According to
eelgrass surveys conducted in 2003 (USACE, 2011), the closest eelgrass stands area is located
near the western end of Coast Guard Island. No eelgrass beds are present within the project area.
Intertidal estuarine habitat in the study area is dominated by manmade structures including
wharfs, marinas, sea walls, and banks protected by rip-rap. The bay mussel (Mytilus edulis) is the
area’s most visible benthic animal and occurs along the lower edge of riprap around Coast Guard
Island and along portions of the Oakland Inner Harbor, which is outside of the study area. The
introduced eastern ribbed mussel (Geukensia demissa) also occurs infrequently in the area
(USACE 2011). The recently introduced European green crab (Carcinus maenas) and the shore
crab (Hemigrapsus spp.) occur along portions of the shoreline riprap. Other organisms such as
barnacles, gammarid amphipods (beach hoppers), and isopods (sow bugs) also occur in and
around Coast Guard Island at lower tidal elevations. Growths of sea lettuce (Ulva sp.) and brown
algae (Fucus sp.) are present in low densities. Where mud and sand substrates are present in the
intertidal zone, the clam Macoma balthica is abundant (USACE, 2011).
3.4.2 Checklist Discussion
Checklist Item a:
Both the HDD entry and exit locations are in developed areas with no natural habitat to support
sensitive species. Based on a reconnaissance survey, no candidate, sensitive, or special status
species protected under the state or federal Endangered Species Act are known to occur within
these proposed construction sites. Therefore, no impacts to listed species are expected at these
locations due to lack of habitat to support special status species.
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.4-4
Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 United States
Code 703–711). Migratory birds are known to exist and pass through the San Francisco Bay
Area. The proposed project would not remove mature trees that could be used for roosting or
nesting by migratory birds. Therefore, the proposed project would not impact migratory birds.
Therefore, the project would have no impact on habitat for special status species.
Checklist Items b and c:
No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities are located within the project area. No
federally protected wetlands occur within the project area and the HDD boring would avoid
natural habitats, thus there would be no impact to wetlands.
Checklist Item d:
The proposed project is an underground conduit that would not require any new permanent
structure that could disrupt the movement of wildlife in the project area. The proposed project
would not result in any the placement of any permanent or temporary structures in the Estuary.
The proposed project would have no impact on the movements of migratory or resident wildlife
or fish species.
Checklist Item e:
Alameda County has policies and ordinances that protect trees. Chapter 12.11 of Title 12 of the
Alameda County General Ordinance Code contains regulations for trees in County rights-of-way.
The proposed project would not conflict with this local ordinance as no tree removal is proposed.
Therefore, the project would have no impact on or conflict with local biological or tree
protection ordinances.
Checklist Item f:
There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans covering the project area. Thus
the proposed project would have no impact on or conflict with habitat conservation plans in the
area.
Mitigation
No mitigation required
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.5-1
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in Section 15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
3.5.1 Environmental Setting
The study area for the analysis of cultural resources encompasses the project area and a
surrounding 0.5-mile radius.
The East Bay region, and the Bay Area at large, has been populated by humans for up to 10,000
years. A local Native American tribelet known as the Ohlone had established a large and thriving
population that likely peaked around AD 500. Europeans first settled in the general area in 1776,
and the Spanish government quickly established a set of pueblos, presidios, and a chain of
missions in what is now California. Up to and following Mexican independence from Spain in
1821, mission operations and cattle ranching predominated life in the area. In 1848, California
joined the United States, and the area was soon awash with immigrants due to the gold rush. The
project area developed slowly until World War II, when an influx of new residents resulted in the
urbanization seen today.
The environmental conditions at the project area are urbanized or have been developed for
business use. Coast Guard Island (CGI) is almost entirely made of artificial fill. However, prior
to urban development this area would have been indicative of tidal marsh and flats, as well as
open bay channels.
Coast Guard Island
The urbanized surface and near-surface of CGI has been extensively disturbed by the placement
of up to 15-feet of artificial fill (URS 2012). No known archaeological resources are present.
A portion of CGI containing mostly brick buildings constructed in the 1930s and during World
War II has been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) as an historic district that has fourteen contributing resources. The district was found
eligible for its association with events to broad patterns of history as a federal government
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.5-2
complex used by several federal agencies and its association with characteristics of a type,
period, or method of construction as an excellent example of Art Deco/Moderne. The district’s
period of significance appears to be 1932-1939 (Koval and Lawerence-Dietz 1992). Four
Buildings, the Coast Guard Distribution Center (Building 13), US Forest Service Garage
Building (Building 22), and Fire Hose Houses (Buildings 27 and 29), were all constructed in
1933 and are contributing resources to the historic district (USCG, 2005a). Figure 3.5-1 indicates
the area of the historic district on CGI.
Figure 3.5-1. Coast Guard Island Historic District (Koval and Lawerence-Dietz 1992).
The proposed project is located within the area representing this historic district. The proposed
conduit would extend from the 1932 Athletic Field on Coast Guard Island to Grand Marina in the
City of Alameda.
Approximate
HDD entry
point
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.5-3
City of Alameda
The City of Alameda, incorporated in 1884, is an island community located in the heart of
Northern California's San Francisco Bay. Alameda is home to CGI and Alameda Point (formerly
Naval Air Station Alameda) which at 2,800 acres, comprises one-third of the city's area, and is
being redeveloped as an important source of new businesses, jobs, housing, recreational
facilities, community and cultural services.
Archival Background
A cultural resources records search of the project area and a surrounding 0.5-mile radius was
conducted on November 30, 2012, at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the
California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University in Rohnert Park
to assess previous cultural resources studies conducted in the area (project NWIC File Number
04-267). The NWIC noted that much of the project area had been previously surveyed. Previous
studies within the 0.5-mile radius record search area include Chavez (1977), Lerner (1988), Roop
(1996), Archaeological Resource Management (1999), Koval and Lawrence-Dietz (1992),
Nelson et al. (2000), Roop (1997), Chattan (2001), Busby (2002), Illroy et al. (2000), Sikes et al
(2006), Price (2007a), Price (2007b), Bauer and Price (2007), and National Park Service (1994).
The NWIC record search identified three previously recorded prehistoric sites, two historic
structures, and a culturally significant tree have been recorded within 0.5 mile of the project
study area. No cultural resources have been previously recorded within the project area.
Prehistoric site numbers P-01-000032/CA-ALA–11 and P-01-01-011001, and two historic, P-01-
001783/CA-ALA–623H and P-01-011358, all are outside of the project area. A historic building,
the Kieckheffer Warehouse, is the closest historic resource to the project area and is located
within about a quarter-mile of the project area. The Kieckheffer Warehouse was inventoried in
1998 and evaluated as ineligible for inclusion to the National Register, and was demolished
sometime afterwards. Two prehistoric shell mound sites, CA-ALA-11 recorded by Nelson
(1910) and P-01-011001, located around 14th Avenue and East 12th Street in Oakland, and both
are approximately 500-feet north of Coast Guard Island. A review of the California Inventory of
Historic Resources (State of California 1976) indicates three historic resources are outside the
project area, and would not be affected from the project. A historic resource study (S-022301) by
Ana B. Koval and Patricia Lawrence-Dietz, Support Center Alameda HABS Survey, Coast
Guard Island, Alameda, California was written in February 24, 1992. The Support Center
Alameda is located in the project area. Fourteen buildings were studied to assess the integrity of
the buildings on the island, which date between 1932 and 1933.
3.5.2 Checklist Discussion
All cultural resources work conducted for the proposed project is consistent with compliance
procedures set forth in CEQA Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4. In considering impact significance
under CEQA, the significance of the resource itself must first be determined. CEQA uses the
term “historic resource” for significant cultural resources.
At the state level, consideration of significance as an “…important archaeological resource” is
measured by cultural resource provisions considered under CEQA Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4
and the draft criteria regarding resource eligibility to the California Register of Historic
Resources (CRHR).
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.5-4
Generally, under CEQA an historical resource (including built-environment historic and
prehistoric archaeological resources) is considered significant if it meets the criteria for listing on
the CRHR. These criteria are set forth in CEQA Section 15064.5 and are defined as any resource
that:
A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
B. Is associated with lives of persons important in our past;
C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses
high artistic values; or
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important on prehistory or history.
The definition of “historical resource” includes archaeological resources listed in or formally
determined eligible for listing in the CRHR and by reference, the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP), California Historical Landmarks, Points of Historical Interest, and local
registers.
CEQA requires a lead agency to identify and examine environmental effects that may result in
significant adverse effects. This project poses no significant effect to historic resources.
Checklist Items a and b:
As discussed in the archival section above, the records search indicated that no historical
resources or unique archaeological resources have been previously recorded within the project
area. While the area surrounding the drilling entry location has buildings that contribute to the
Coast Guard Island Historic District, the project would have no direct or indirect impacts to the
buildings. Project construction would excavate the top few feet for an entry pit and directionally
drill below the surface; these activities would not physically disturb any building, nor install any
above-ground features. Consequently, no mechanism to cause impacts to historical (built
environment) resources is proposed. In terms of archaeological resources, the urbanized surface
and near-surface has been extensively disturbed—up to 15-feet of artificial fill in the case of the
Coast Guard Island entry location (URS 2012). At the exit location, no historic resources were
identified, and only one historic resource, the Kieckheffer Warehouse, which has been
demolished, was identified in its vicinity. As a result, no intact archaeological resources are
expected to exist at the project area, specifically the entry pit area.
As with any project where soil disturbance is proposed, there is a risk that undiscovered
subsurface archaeological resources could be encountered during project construction. The
potential for encountering and disturbing known or unknown cultural resources would be a
significant impact, but would be minimized to a less than significant level with the
implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1.
Checklist Item c:
Given the nature of the project and the fact the disturbance would be conducted in areas that
have been previously disturbed by urbanization, no impact to paleontological resources is
expected. This notwithstanding, significant fossil discoveries can be made even in areas
designated as having low potential, and may result from the excavation activities related to the
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.5-5
proposed project. Disturbance of unknown or undocumented paleontological resources would be
a significant impact, but would be reduced to a less than significant level with the incorporation
of Mitigation Measure CR-2.
Checklist Item d:
Human remains are unlikely to be encountered during project construction for the reasons stated
under Checklist Item b above; however, discovery of human remains is common at other project
sites in Alameda County. Human remains are known to be present in prehistoric sites along San
Lorenzo Creek. For this reason, it would be important to identify if the discovered remains are of
Native American descent. In the unlikely event that human remains are encountered, this would
be considered a significant impact that would be reduced to a less than significant level by
implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-3.
Mitigation
Implementation of the following mitigation measures, as necessary, would reduce potential
cultural resources impacts to a less than significant level.
CR-1 Unanticipated Archeological Resources: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 (f),
“provisions for historical or unique archaeological resources accidentally discovered
during construction” shall be instituted. Therefore, in the event that any prehistoric or
historic subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities,
all work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and AMP shall consult with a
qualified archaeologist or paleontologist to assess the significance of the find. If any find
is determined to be significant, representatives of the proponent and the qualified
archaeologist would meet to determine the appropriate course of action. All significant
cultural materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum
curation, and a report prepared by the qualified archaeologist according to current
professional standards.
CR-2 Unanticipated Paleontological Resources: The project proponent shall notify a
qualified paleontologist of unanticipated discoveries, made by either the cultural
resources monitor or construction personnel and subsequently document the discovery as
needed. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of a breas, true, and/or trace fossil
during construction, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or
diverted until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist. The paleontologist
shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed
before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find.
CR-3 Discovery of Human Remains: In the unlikely event of the discovery of human remains,
CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 (e)(1) shall be followed, which is as follows:
1) There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area
reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:
(A) The Coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered must be
contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required,
and
(B) If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American:
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.5-6
1. The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) within 24 hours.
2. The NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most
likely descended from the deceased Native American.
The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or
the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or
disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated
grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.6-1
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv. Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.6-2
3.6.1 Environmental Setting
The study area for the analysis of geology and soils encompasses the area of ground disturbance
of construction impacts. Regional geology and seismicity settings are describe as a basis of
discussion of project area impacts.
Regional Geology
The regional geology of the San Francisco Bay Area consists primarily of three different
geologic provinces: the Salinian block, Franciscan complex, and the Great Valley sequence,
which overlies the Coast Range Ophiolite sequence. The Salinian block is located west of the
San Andreas Fault. It is composed primarily of granitic plutonic rocks, which are similar to those
found in the Sierra Nevada and are believed to be rocks of the Sierra Nevada Batholith that have
been displaced along the San Andreas fault. Between the San Andreas fault on the west and the
Hayward fault on the east, is the Mesozoic Franciscan complex. The Franciscan rocks represent
pieces of former oceanic crust that have accreted to North America by subduction and collision.
These rocks are primarily deep marine sandstone and shale. However, chert, greenstone,
serpentinite, basalt, blueschist, and limestone are also found within the assemblage.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey geologic map of the Oakland metropolitan area
(Graymer 2000), the ground surface at the ends of the proposed HDD alignment is covered by
artificial fill and native dune sands. The dune sand is described as fine-grained, very well sorted,
well-drained, eolian deposits. Soft marine-deposited clay, locally known as "Bay Mud" is also
present at the site.
Regional Seismicity
The proposed HDD conduit crossing is located within the Coast Ranges province in one of the
most seismically active regions in California. The majority of earthquakes are associated with the
strike-slip faults of the San Andreas system. The trend of most of the faults in this portion of the
California Coast Ranges is northwest-southeast. The major active faults near the project area are
the Hayward, Concord-Green Valley, Greenville, Calaveras, and San Andreas.
Ground Rupture: The project is approximately 10 miles from the San Andreas Fault and about
4 miles from the Hayward fault. There are no known active or potentially active faults
underlying the project area and the area is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies
zone. The project area is not known to be subject to fault rupture. Historically, ground surface
ruptures closely follow the trace of geologically young faults. Although the Calaveras fault is
located within a mile of the site, the site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by
the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972.
Ground Shaking: The Hayward and San Andreas faults have respectively a 31% and 21%
probability to generate an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.7 or greater within the next 30 years
(WGCEP, 2007). In addition to these local faults, earthquakes on more distant seismic sources,
including the Rodgers Creek and the Mount Diablo faults may also result in significant levels of
seismic shaking in the project vicinity.
The project area is located to the west of the Hayward Fault and is approximately 4 miles away
at its closest point. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), if a
magnitude 6.7 earthquake occurred on the North or South Hayward Faults, it is estimated that the
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.6-3
project area would experience level X (violent) to IX (violent) shaking intensity in accordance
with the Modified Mercali Scale (ABAG 2007).
Seismic Related Ground Failure: Liquefaction, lateral spreading, and differential settlement
can occur as a result of ground shaking during earthquakes. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where
soil deposits temporarily lose shear strength and act as a liquid rather than a solid. The soil type
most susceptible to liquefaction is loose, cohesionless, granular soil below the water table and
within about 50 feet of the ground surface. Liquefaction can result in a loss of foundation support
and settlement of overlying structures, ground subsidence and translation due to lateral
spreading, lurch cracking, and differential settlement of affected deposits. Lateral spreading
occurs when a soil layer liquefies at depth and causes horizontal movement or displacement of
the overlying mass on sloping ground or towards a free face such as a stream bank or excavation.
Landslides: Landslides occur when material on an inclined face slides downward. Topography
in the project area is generally gently sloping to flat and not susceptible to landslides. Shorelines
in the project area are steeply inclined, but are protected with stabilizing rock riprap.
Soils
Soils in the project area are generally fill materials and do not contain soils classified as topsoil.
Soils in the project area may be moderately to highly expansive, based on geotechnical borings
conducted for project design, but generally pose few limitations for development.
3.6.2 Checklist Discussion
Checklist Item a:
The proposed project is, as is all of the Bay Area, in a seismically active region and has a
reasonably high potential of experiencing significant strong earthquake shaking in the future
(ABAG 2007).
Item ai: The site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972; therefore, conditions necessary for ground rupture do not
exist in the project area. No impact would occur.
Item aii: The project area is located to the west of the Hayward Fault. Violent shaking could
occur in the event of an earthquake on the Hayward fault. Seismically induced ground shaking is
not expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the conduit installation as it is flexible and
would be designed to meet applicable local building codes. Therefore, this impact is considered
less than significant.
Item aiii: Geotechnical testing in the area for the proposed project indicated that conditions for
liquefaction and lateral spreading exist, however the conduit is not expected to be subject to
adverse effects from liquefaction and lateral spreading. The conduit is flexible, would be
designed to avoid liquefiable soils to the extent possible, and would meet any applicable building
codes. This impact would be less than significant.
Item aiv: Topography in the project area is gently sloping to flat. Steep slopes occur along the
Estuary shorelines, however the shorelines are stabilized with rock riprap and no work would be
conducted near the shorelines. Therefore, the potential for landslides does not exist at the drill
entry or exit locations. No impact from landslides would occur.
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.6-4
Checklist Item b:
Construction would not change the local topography and would not result in an increased
potential of erosion. Material excavated from the HDD entry and exit pits would be replaced
when installation of the conduit is complete and the surfaces would be restored to pre-project
conditions. Near surface soils in the area consist of non-native fill material and are not
considered topsoil. No impact would occur.
Checklist item c:
The geology of the project area is generally not considered unstable and the project would not
alter the stability of soils in the area. Portions of the conduit installation would occur in Bay
Mud, which is compressible and can settle over time. Project engineering design would take into
account these local geologic conditions and appropriate design features would limit the potential
for damage. Seismically induced liquefaction is addressed in Item aiii above. This impact is
considered less than significant.
Checklist Item d:
Surface soils in the project area are potentially moderately to highly expansive, based on
geotechnical borings conducted during the project design phase. Standard design and
construction techniques would be employed to minimize or avoid impacts due to weak or
expansive soils. This impact is considered less than significant.
Checklist Item e:
No septic tanks or alternative sewer systems are proposed as part of the project, therefore there
would be no impact on septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems.
Mitigation
No mitigation required.
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.7-1
3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emission, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
3.7.1 Environmental Setting
The study area for greenhouse gas emissions encompasses the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often called greenhouse gases. This layer of gases
function much the same as glass in a greenhouse in that they both prevent the escape of heat,
which is why this effect is known as the “greenhouse effect.” Some greenhouse gases such as
carbon dioxide occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and
human activities. Other greenhouse gases (e.g., fluorinated gases) are created and emitted solely
through human activities. The principal greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere because of
human activities are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), which are
believed to be most responsible for global warming.
There is widespread international scientific agreement that human caused increases in GHG have
and will continue to contribute to global warming, although there is much uncertainty concerning
the magnitude and rate of the warming. Some of the potential effects of global warming may
include: loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone
days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (California Air Resources Board [CARB],
2008a).
In 2006, California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill
No. 32; California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500, et seq., or AB 32),
which requires the CARB to design and implement emission limits, regulations, and other
measures, such that statewide GHG emissions are reduced to 1990 levels by 2020 (representing
an approximate 25 percent reduction in emissions). The California Air Resources Board (CARB)
has established several regulations aimed at guiding the state to meet this target. These strategies
are outlined in the Scoping Plan and include various measures across numerous source categories
aimed at reducing GHG emissions. Through this plan and subsequent enactment of regulations,
the state is on the path toward meeting the goals of Assembly Bill 32.
CARB has enacted numerous regulations to address the goals of AB 32 in reducing statewide
GHG emissions. These strategies include a cap and trade program for industrial sources and
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.7-2
improvements in vehicle fuel economy. This includes the low carbon fuel standard which
requires the carbon intensity of fuels to decrease in the state. This impacts the fuel used by
vehicles used to commute to work and off-road equipment used in construction. The state has
also implemented several regulations that require the carbon intensity of electricity to improve
over time through the incorporation of renewable energy sources and limiting the emissions from
new electricity producing sources.
3.7.2 Checklist Discussion
Checklist Items a and b:
The construction of the project would directly generate greenhouse gas emissions. These were
quantified similar to the methods used to estimate criteria air pollutants in the air quality section
(Section 3.3) using CalEEMod. CalEEMod is a statewide land use project emissions model
designed as a uniform platform to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions associated with construction and operation from a variety of land uses, such as
residential and commercial facilities. CalEEMod utilizes basic land use information to estimate
default construction equipment and mobile source trips and lengths. This model incorporates
CARB’s OFFROAD 2007 and EMFAC2007 models. The following conservative inputs3 into the
model were utilized:
Location is Alameda County
Project year is 2013
Climate Zone is 4
Land Use was user-defined industrial with size metric 1.
Although construction phases could take up to 12 hours, we conservatively estimated
construction phasing as such:
- Drilling with 24 hour shift4 and lasting for 20 work days and drilling support with 8 hour
shift and lasting for 28 work days.
- Total construction time would be approximately 5 ½ weeks.
Off-road equipment is shown in Table 3.7-1.
Trips associated with material hauled off-site:30 roundtrips.
Trips associated with materials brought on-site: 25 roundtrips.
The default trip lengths for worker (12.4 miles), vendor (7.3 miles) and hauling (20 miles)
was used.
The daily trips associated with workers were 16 roundtrips for drilling crew and 12
roundtrips for drilling support crew.
3 Inputs are based on information received from POWER Engineers on December 3, 2012 and February 13, 2013.
4 A 24-hour shift was used for the GHG calculations as a worst-case. 24-hour shifts for drilling are not expected.
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.7-3
Default horsepowers and load factors (ratio of the average engine load compared to the
maximum rated load) for construction equipment were utilized.
Table 3.7-1. Equipment List
Phase Name Equipment Type Units Hours/Day Horsepower Load Factor
Drilling
Bore/Drill Rigs 1 24 750 0.75
Bore/Drill Rigs 1 24 475 0.75
Cranes 2 24 208 0.43
Drilling
support
Excavators 2 6 157 0.57
Off-Highway Trucks 5 8 381 0.57
Signal Boards 4 12 6 0.82
Welders 1 4 46 0.45
The emissions for construction of the proposed project are shown in Table 3.7-2.
Table 3.7-2. GHG Emissions
CO2e 470.48 Metric Tons
Notes:
There is no numeric threshold of GHG emissions from
construction. However, these emissions are less than the
recently vacated operational bright line threshold of 1,100
metric tons.
Sources: BAAQMD.2010. California Environmental
Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.
Project construction activities would cause the release of a small amount of GHG emissions
related to exhaust emissions from on-road haul trucks, worker commute vehicles, and off-road
construction equipment. However, because of the small footprint and duration of the proposed
construction, the project would cause only a negligible release of GHG emissions. Furthermore
there would be no operational emissions associated with the project.
While the BAAQMD has not adopted GHG thresholds of significance, the level of GHG
emissions produced during construction is a small percentage of the overall GHG emissions that
occur in the district. Also the sources of emissions are regulated by existing regulations that
would reduce the GHG emissions associated with these sources in the future, such as
improvements in fuel efficiency and the low carbon fuel standard. Given that the level of GHG
emissions is demonstrably low, the proposed project would not conflict with state plans adopted
for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The proposed project would have a less than significant impact on GHG emissions.
Mitigation
No mitigation required
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.8-1
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included
on a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.8-2
3.8.1 Environmental Setting
The study area for the analysis of hazards and hazardous materials encompasses the area of
disturbance for construction impacts, as well as schools within a 0.25 miles radius and potential
hazardous materials contamination sites within a 0.5 mile radius of the project area.
Hazardous material contamination near the project area appears to be limited to specific existing
and previous land uses. Database searches were performed using Geotracker and Envirostor to
identify potential contamination in the project area. A list of known sites of potential
environmental concern is discussed under Checklist Item D below.
Coast Guard Island
CGI activities are conducted in accordance with a variety of applicable regulations, including
U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, Coast Guard
instructions, and local facility policies and procedures. These regulations and the associated
protocols, equipment, and training that implement them ensure that Coast Guard operations and
shore activities are conducted in a safe environment.
Current activities on CGI use small quantities of hazardous materials and generate small amounts
of wastes associated with logistical support and maintenance operations. CGI is a controlled
access Federal facility. In order to ensure a secure environment on CGI and in and around CGI
facilities including the pier area, only duty personnel, service retirees, and approved visitors are
permitted to access the island.
City of Alameda
In 1871 most of the project area consisted of a salt marsh, with open water. The area was
gradually filled and the Alaska Packers Association (APA) developed portions of the Northern
Waterfront area with a variety of industrial uses. By 1910, APA had constructed at least 15
buildings and a lumber mill and storage yard was in operation on the northwest corner of Grand
Avenue and Clement Street, near the project area. By 1939 the entire area was developed and
used for various industrial uses from warehouse, to above and below ground storage tanks. The
storage tanks were mainly used to store edible oils such as tallow, molasses and vegetable oils.
The area northeast of Grand Street and Clement Avenue was used as a salvage yard until about
1965. The site is currently occupied by Alameda Municipal Power at 2000 Grand Street. Other
historical land uses in the project area associated with the use of hazardous materials included
Pennzoil tank facilities on Grand Avenue, a City Corporation and street maintenance yard and a
seaplane service area.
3.8.2 Checklist Discussion
Checklist Item a:
The project would involve the routine transport, storage, use, and disposal of small quantities of
hazardous materials such as construction equipment fuels and lubricants, hydraulic fluid and
solvents used during construction. The storage and handling of these materials must be managed
in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, which include developing project-specific
hazardous materials management and spill control plans, storing incompatible hazardous
materials separately, using secondary containment for hazardous materials storage, requiring the
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.8-3
contractor to use trained personnel for hazardous materials handling, keeping spill clean-up kits
available on-site, and designating appropriate sites within the construction area as refueling
stations for construction vehicles.
Routine transport, storage, use or disposal of hazardous materials, during construction would not
create substantial hazards to the public or the environment, and impacts would be less than
significant.
Checklist Item b:
No project-related processes or operations would create reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of large amounts of hazardous materials into the
environment. Hazardous materials used during construction, such as fuel for construction
equipment and vehicles, would be managed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations
as described in Checklist Item a. It should be noted that the bentonite drilling mud used during
drilling is not a hazardous material and is in fact inert. Minor spills of this material or a frac-out
during drilling would not expose persons or the environment to a hazardous substance.
Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Checklist Item c:
There are no schools within 0.25 miles of the project area; therefore, the project would have no
impact on existing schools.
Checklist Item d:
Documented Contamination. The project area is not located on a site included in a list of
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Section
65962.5 (known as the Cortese List). The chance of encountering contaminated soils on either
side of the project area is very low.
A search of the Geotracker and Envirostor environmental databases was conducted. The records
review showed that there are several contaminated sites located within a 0.5 mile radius from the
project area. The three sites outlined below did not have any recorded hazardous materials
releases but were listed either because they have documented underground storage tanks (nonleaking)
or activities at the location include the routine and regulated handling of small quantities
of hazardous materials such as chemicals or solvents used by dry cleaners or auto repair shops.
None of the sites are within the immediate vicinity of the HDD entry or exit locations
(Figure 3.8-1). The location and status of each site is described below.
Encinal Terminals – Inactive as of 5/19/2005. The 6.4 acre site is located in a
manufacturing industrial area and is occupied by a shipping container business. The site is
not on the national priorities list and according information in the state Geotracker database,
this case was closed as of August 9, 2011.
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
!
!
Entry Location
Exit Location
HDD Crossing
City of Alameda
Oakland Estuary
Coast
Guard
Island
Grand St
NIR Repair - Oakland
Encinal Terminals
Encinal Marina, LTD
Port of Oakland
Embarcadero Cove
USCG
Building 44
Rose Abbors | L:\Projects\Alameda_Municipal_Power_Coast_Guard_Island\Maps\MXD\Figure_3-8-1_Hazardous_Material.mxd
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
Basemap: Esri 2013
Project Area
Vallejo
San Jose
San
Francisco
Oakland
80
780
280
238
880
680
580
101
Figure 3.8-1
Hazardous Material Sites in Project Vicinity
Alameda Municipal Power
Alameda to Coast Guard Island HDPE Conduit Crossing
! Location_pts
#* Hazardous material site
PL_Duct_20130716
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.8-5
NIR Repair Oakland – Inactive as of 7/1/2005. This 3 acre site has been in use since 1942.
Possible hazards at the site consisted of several above- and below-ground storage tanks,
variously used to store petroleum products, such as diesel, fuel oil, and waste oil. The tanks
were removed when the port was demolished in 1998; therefore the probability of
contamination to the proposed project soils is very low. In 1942, the U.S. entered into a
contract for ship repair facilities with Hurley Marine Works, Inc., which leased 19.4 acres of
land from the Port of Oakland beginning in 1940 to form the NIR Repair Facility. In 1944,
Amendment No. 4 to the Hurley contract provided for an expansion of the property to
establish the NIR, which was comprised of approximately 3.4 acres of the Hurley property in
Alameda County. The property was used by the 12th Naval District, Alameda for
shipbuilding and ship repair during WWII. The NIR consisted of a warehouse and locker
building, service shops and an office building, a powerhouse, plate shop, paint shop, and
cafeteria. A Government-owned 2,800 ton Auxiliary Floating Drydock Light was moored at
the NIR during WWII. Beginning in 1955 through the mid-1960s, the Martinolich Ship
Repair Company leased the AFDL from the Government at the Hurley facility. The exact
date of disposal is not known, but in 1951 the site was occupied by Crowley Maritime
Corporation until 1991. The Port of Oakland razed the buildings comprising the NIR in 1998
in a renovation of the industrial waterfront.
Port of Oakland - Embarcadero Cove, Dennison and Embarcadero Streets. The 1.3 acre site
was leased to industrial tenants, including oil companies and formulators of pesticides and
wood preservative since the early 1900’s. The site is not on the national priorities list and it
has a certified/operation & maintenance status as of 3/28/1997.
It is unlikely that contamination would be encountered at these sites. Therefore, the proposed
project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment by releasing
hazardous material from these three sites or any other known hazardous materials site. This
impact would be less than significant.
In addition to the above sites, two leaking underground storage tank (LUST) cases occur near the
project area as reported in the Geotracker and Envirostor databases:
USCG Building 44 - This site is located at 44 Spencer Road on CGI, along the shore
southwest of McCullough Drive (Figure 3.8-1). Contaminants include waste oil and
hydraulic fluids. The site contained an underground tank used to collect bilge water and oily
waste from the USCG ships. The tank has been removed and, as of 2009, the site was being
characterized. As of January 16, 2013 the site was eligible for closure.
Encinal Marina Ltd - This site is located at 2099 Grand Avenue in Alameda. According to
the Geotracker database mapping, the site is near the exit pit location (Figure 3.8-1).
According to information in the Geotracker database, this site is reported to be contaminated
with gasoline and diesel. As of 2009, the site was under investigation.
Unknown and Undocumented Contamination. During construction, there is the possibility of
encountering unknown and undocumented hazardous materials in the soils or groundwater. The
potential effects of excavating contaminated soils, if encountered, would be minimized in part by
legally required safety and hazardous waste handling, storage, and transportation precautions. If
stained or odorous soils are encountered during excavation of the entry or exit pits, they would
be stockpiled separately; samples would be collected and analyzed; and the soils would be
characterized to determine proper re-use or disposal requirements. If unknown contaminated
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.8-6
soils were encountered, the application of regulatory cleanup standards and implementation of
mitigation measure HH-1 would serve to protect human health and the environment during site
excavation/remediation, thus minimizing excavation/remediation impacts and resulting in a less
than significant impact.
Checklist Items e and f:
The project is not located within an area subject to an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a
public or private airstrip. The project would not involve construction of any above ground
structures or use of construction equipment that would result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Checklist Item g:
Because no streets would be closed, the project would not interfere with emergency response or
evacuation plans, therefore, there would be no impact on emergency response times.
Checklist Item h:
No wildlands are located within the project area; therefore the project would have no impact on
wildland fires.
Mitigation
Implementation of the following mitigation measures, as necessary, would reduce potential
hazards and hazardous materials impacts to a less than significant level.
HH-1 – Unknown and Undocumented Contamination
If hazardous materials are encountered during construction or accidentally released as a result of
construction activities the following procedures shall be implemented:
Work shall stop in the vicinity of any discovered contamination or release
The scope and immediacy of the problem shall be identified
Coordination with the responsible agencies shall take place (Department of Toxic Substances
Control, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, or the USEPA)
The necessary investigation and remediation activities shall be conducted to resolve the
situation before continuing construction work
The following measures shall be implemented if unknown or undocumented contamination is
discovered during construction to avoid potentially significant impacts to hydrology and water
resources in the project area.
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.9-1
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby
wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion or siltation onor
off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase
the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding onor
off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.9-2
3.9.1 Environmental Setting
The study area for the analysis of hydrology and water quality resources encompasses the area of
ground disturbance for construction impacts and nearby receiving waters.
The project area climate is characterized by warm, dry summers and cool, wet winters. The
average monthly rainfall is approximately 18 inches of precipitation per year (Western Regional
Climate Center, 2008). About 95 percent of the precipitation occurs during the months of
December through March (WRCC, 2008.). September has the highest average monthly
maximum temperature at 73.5 degrees Fahrenheit, and January has the lowest average monthly
minimum temperature at 41.4 degrees Fahrenheit (WRCC, 2008)
CGI is located between the Oakland Inner Harbor and the Brooklyn Basin Tidal Canal. Due to
the long history of industrial activities in the shore areas of the Oakland Inner Harbor and
Brooklyn Basin – activities that long predate the passage of the Clean Water Act and other key
water quality protection regulations – much of the waters and sediments in these areas are at least
modestly affected by industrial contaminants, including heavy metals, PCBs, and hydrocarbons.
In more recent years, the amount of paved area in close proximity to the shoreline on both CGI
and in the City of Alameda has resulted in a variety of additional contaminants – such as
roadway runoff of oils and fuels – impacting the Oakland Inner Harbor and Brooklyn Basin.
These waterbodies connect directly to the waters of San Francisco Bay, which is designated by
the EPA under Clean Water Act Section 303(d) as an impaired water body, indicating that it does
not meet water quality standards. Water quality testing has indicated that PCB concentrations in
the area of CGI exceed some water quality objective thresholds (USCG, 2005a).
3.9.2 Checklist Discussion
Checklist Item a:
Excavation of entry and exit pits could require dewatering. Discharge of decant water to local
surface waters could potentially result in violations of water quality standards. Implementation of
mitigation measure HW-1 during construction activities would eliminate exceedances of water
quality standards and the impact would be less than significant.
The construction procedure for HDD tunneling requires the use of special lubricating drilling
fluids (drilling mud). The drilling mud is a naturally based product: bentonite clay and water.
Management of the drilling mud is an important consideration. The project would have systems
to collect and recycle the drilling mud. During the drilling process, the drilling mud is injected at
the drill head to lubricate the void. As drilling progresses, the fluid mixes with the native
materials (rock, sand, etc.). The muddy mixture is pumped back to the exit pit where it is
cleaned, separated and reused. Drilling mud wastes would be pumped to tanks or drums and
hauled off-site and disposed of at an appropriately permitted landfill.
During the drilling process, there is a small potential for unexpected release of drilling mud
through a fracture in the Estuary floor (frac-out). Discharge of bentonite drilling mud could
cause a localized increased turbidity in the event of a frac-out. Bentonite, a fine clay material, is
non-toxic and commonly used in farming practices, but benthic invertebrates, aquatic plants and
fish and their eggs can be smothered by the fine particles if bentonite is discharged into
waterways in sufficient quantities. The implementation of a Frac-Out Contingency Plan
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.9-3
(mitigation measure HW-2) would address inadvertent releases of drilling fluids into terrestrial
or aquatic environments associated with the project. The goal of the plan is to effectively control,
manage, and report any surface release of drilling fluids associated with HDD operations of the
project.
With implementation of mitigation measures HW-1 and HW-2, potential water quality impacts
due to project construction would be less than significant.
Checklist Item b:
The proposed project is located in a developed urban neighborhood and the proposed project area
primarily consists of impervious surfaces like roadways. The proposed project area does not
represent an area of significant groundwater recharge. There would not be any increase in
impervious areas as a result of the project, and thus the amount of groundwater recharge would
not be significantly affected. Neither construction nor operation of the proposed project would
require use of groundwater, although some minor pumping of shallow groundwater could occur
during construction de-watering.
The project would not use groundwater resources or substantially deplete groundwater supplies.
Thus, there would be no impact.
Checklist Item c:
The topography of the project area both on CGI and the City of Alameda is relatively level. No
slopes would be disturbed as part of the project, and no new slopes would be created. Storm
drainage patterns would not be disturbed. The project would not increase the potential for
erosion or siltation.
The construction procedure for HDD tunneling would require excavation of entry and exit
points. Both of the pits would require a minimal amount of excavation and would generate
excavated materials near the Bay shoreline. The materials would be stored on site, and would be
used to backfill the pits once drilling is complete. Although, rainfall could cause the materials to
migrate to the Oakland Estuary waters, adherence to BMPs, as outlined in Checklist Item e,
would reduce erosion and siltation to less than significant levels.
BMPs for the project could include, but would not be limited to, straw bale barriers, fiber rolls,
storm drain inlet protection, and a stabilized construction entrance. Thus, there would be a less
than significant impact on water quality at the site.
Checklist Item d:
The project would not alter any watercourses, drainage on the site, or result in the creation of any
impervious surfaces. Therefore, the project would not increase storm water runoff. The project
area would be returned to pre-construction conditions; therefore, the rate or amount of runoff
would not increase in a manner that could result in flooding. Construction locations would be
restored to pre-project conditions; therefore the project would have no impact on existing
drainage patterns.
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.9-4
Checklist Item e:
The proposed improvements would not increase the amount of runoff at the project area because
there would be no change in impervious area. The project would not result in additional sources
of polluted runoff. BMPs would be implemented during the drilling and conduit installation
operation. BMPs to control sediment laden stormwater runoff would be implemented by the
contractor and could include, but would not be limited to, straw bale barriers, fiber rolls,
covering stockpiled soils from the entry and exit pits, and storm drain inlet protection. The
contractor would be required to develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention plan
(SWPPP) which would outline specific BMPs that would be implemented.
Once conduit installation is complete, the HDD entry and exit pit locations would be restored to
pre-project conditions, in this case restoring the grass at the baseball field on CGI and repaving
any pavement removed at the exit point in Alameda. Thus, there would be a less than significant
impact on storm water drainage systems.
Checklist Item f:
Erosion control and other storm water pollution control measures would be implements as part of
the project. BMPs are described above under Checklist Item e. The potential for frac-out of
drilling mud into the water column is discussed under Checklist Item a and mitigation measures
are outlined below. The project would add no new sources of pollutants and would not otherwise
substantially degrade water quality; therefore the project would have no impact on water quality.
Checklist Item g:
No housing is proposed as part of the project; therefore the project would have no impact on
flood hazard zones and housing.
Checklist Items h and i:
The Coast Guard has previously determined that CGI is located within the 100-year based
floodplain (USCG, 1996). Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) excludes Federal property and therefore this determination is
based on prior analysis by the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard estimates the base flood elevation
at CGI to be approximately 9.7 feet above MLLW and not in a 100-year floodplain.
The project area in the City of Alameda is not within the 100-year floodplain (FEMA, 2012).
The proposed project does not include any new above-ground development and therefore it
would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding. The project would have no impact on flood flows.
Checklist Item j:
Although, San Francisco Bay is protected from tsunamis by the oblique opening to the bay at the
Golden Gate Bridge, the project area is within a tsunami inundation area (ABAG, 2007).
Tsunami-generated waves have the potential to inundate low-lying coastal areas and cause
extensive erosion and/or deposition of sediment in the project area. However, the project would
be an underground conduit; therefore it would not be exposed to inundation by tsunami or seiche
waters.
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.9-5
The project area is not at risk from mudslides because it is located in a relatively level developed
area, away from the slopes of any major hills. Therefore, there would be no impact to the project
from tsunamis, seiches or mudflows.
Mitigation
Implementation of the following mitigation measures, as necessary, would reduce potential
hydrology and water resources impacts to a less than significant level:
HW-1 – Decant Water Measures
No decant water from excavation or drilling slurries shall be discharged to receiving waters.
Decant water shall be pumped to a storage tank and tested on-site and depending on its quality
shall be routed to East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) sanitary sewers for treatment
and discharge or hauled to an appropriately permitted landfill for disposal in accordance with
applicable regulations.
HW-2 – Prepare and Implement Frac-Out Contingency Plan
The construction contractor shall prepare a response plan, prior to construction, to address
potential drilling mud releases. If a fluid leak does occur, the contractor shall stop work and
assess the situation. This Plan shall include requirements for establishing and implementing the
following:
1. Establishment of an on-site materials list to manage and control drilling fluid surface
releases, relevant to the project size and environmental issues associated with the project
2. Construction protection measures
3. Biological monitoring program
4. Containment and control methods for frac-outs
5. Notification processes and contacts (Agency Notification)
6. Evaluation Plan/Abandonment Contingency Plan
7. Hazardous Materials Spill Contingency Plan
The Frac-Out Contingency Plan shall be approved by AMP prior to the beginning of construction
and shall be implemented in the event of a frac-out during construction.
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.10-6
3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Physically divide an established
community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
3.10.1 Environmental Setting
The study area for the analysis of land use and planning encompasses the area of construction
disturbance and nearby land uses that would be potentially affected by construction or operation
of the proposed project.
Coast Guard Island
CGI is federal land that is jurisdictionally within Alameda city limits. CGI is heavily developed
and hosts a variety of Coast Guard facilities, commands, and supporting infrastructure. To meet
these functions, a number of support facilities are present on the island, including administrative
support buildings, living quarters, medical/dental facilities, storage buildings, athletic fields, a
swimming pool, utility service facilities, a training center, parking areas, and other related
structures.
Land use in the areas nearby to CGI is primarily port related and light industrial, with a few
business offices and restaurants. The planning goals for CGI are to focus industrial and cutter
support operations to the south side of CGI.
City of Alameda
The proposed project area is located in the Northern Waterfront General Plan area. The dominant
land use in the area is General Industry. The proposed project area is zoned as General Industry.
Land uses near the project areas are general industrial, mixed-use planned development,
residential and open space. Existing land uses include offices and facilities of Pacific Yacht
Imports and the Marina Cove Residential subdivision, which totals about 42 acres and 48
housing units. The Marina Cove development would ultimately consist of 172 residential lots (83
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.10-7
units were built in Phase I in 2002-2003 and 89 units for Phase II were proposed in 2012 and not
yet constructed) and a 2.1 acre public shoreline park and public trails adjacent to the waterfront.
As part of the Marina Cove residential project, a portion of it being adjacent to the project area,
the zoning designation of the Marina Cove subdivision was reclassified from General Industry
(M-2) to Neighborhood Residential, Planned Development Combining District (R-4-PD).
3.10.2 Checklist Discussion
Checklist Item a:
The proposed project would not involve construction of above ground structures. Installation of
the underground conduit would not divide an established community. Thus, there would be no
impact on a physical community.
Checklist Item b
The proposed project is an underground conduit and does not propose any structures or activities
that would conflict with any local regulations, land use plans or any plans adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. Thus, the proposed project would be
consistent with local land use plans, policies, and regulations. Thus, there would be no impact on
land use plans.
Checklist Item c:
The proposed project runs through an established urban area. No habitat or natural community
conservation area has been designated for the project area, thus, the proposed project would not
conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
Thus, there would be no impact on habitat conservation plans or natural community plans.
Mitigation
No mitigation required
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.11-1
3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
3.11.1 Environmental Setting
The study area for the analysis of mineral resources encompasses the area of ground disturbance
during construction. No unique geologic features or significant mineral resources have been
identified in the project area. The area is not identified as a substantial source of aggregate
minerals (Stinson et al. 1987).
3.11.2 Checklist Discussion
Checklist Items a and b:
The proposed project would have no impacts on mineral resources. The proposed project would
not result in a loss of availability of a known mineral resource. No locally important or
regionally valuable mineral resources are known to exist in the project area. In addition, no area
within the vicinity of the proposed project has been delineated as a mineral recovery site on a
local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. Thus, there would be no impact on
mineral resources in the project area.
Mitigation
No mitigation required
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.12-1
3.12 NOISE
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
3.12.1 Environmental Setting
The study area for the analysis of noise resources encompasses the area of disturbance for
construction impacts and nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
The Noise Element of the Alameda County General Plan and the City of Alameda Noise
Ordinance establish policies and guidelines to protect noise-sensitive receptors from excessive
noise pollution and to encourage noise-compatible land use near noise sources. The General Plan
references the USEPA yearly average equivalent outdoor sound level maximum standard for
residences and the Regional Airport Systems Study community equivalent level maximum noise
exposure for residential and educational land uses. The City of Alameda noise ordinance
establishes hours for construction exempt from quantitative noise limits. The noise ordinance
provisions do not apply to noise sources associated with construction, provided the activities take
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.12-2
place between the hours of 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, Monday through Friday, or 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. on Saturdays, or where the City grants an exception.
The City’s General Plan identifies noise-sensitive uses to include hospitals, nursing homes,
churches, schools, libraries, assembly halls, and other recreational and residential uses. Existing
sensitive receptors near the project area include the Marina Cove housing development and
nearby boating facilities.
Coast Guard Island
Noise levels on and around CGI are typical of urban and industrial port areas, with truck and
automobile traffic, boat traffic, and associated port operations and activities. This typically urban
noise environment is characterized by somewhat higher ambient noise levels than for rural
settings. Major sources of noise in the area are Interstate I-880 to the north, Oakland
International Airport to the southeast, periodic helicopter traffic, and industrial activities.
City of Alameda
Noise levels on and around the City of Alameda are typical of urban areas, with truck,
automobile, boat traffic and associated marina operations and activities. Aircraft and surface
traffic are the main noise sources in the area. Aircraft noise in Alameda results from the
Metropolitan Oakland Airport and San Francisco International Airport, while highest surface
street noise levels occur on Grand Street, Clement Avenue, Buena Vista Avenue, Entrance Road
and Sherman Street.
3.12.2 Checklist Discussion
Checklist Item a:
While the project would increase noise levels during drilling and installation of the conduit, the
impact would be temporary and it would not lead to a permanent increase in noise levels after
construction is complete. Construction hours would generally be limited in accordance with the
Alameda County Noise Ordinance. To reduce construction noise to the extent possible, the
following Best Management Practices would be implemented:
Noise-generating construction activities, including truck traffic coming to and from the site
for any purpose, shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. during weekdays and
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday, as specified in the Noise Ordinance.
All noise-producing project equipment and vehicles using internal combustion engines shall be
equipped with mufflers, air-inlet silencers where appropriate, and any other shrouds, shields, or
other noise-reducing features in good operating condition that meet or exceed original factory
specification. Mobile or fixed "package" equipment shall be equipped with shrouds and noise
control features that are readily available for that type of equipment.
Contractor shall be responsible for maintaining equipment in best possible working
condition.
Mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas shall be located as far as practicable
from noise-sensitive receivers.
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.12-3
Locate construction equipment as far as possible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
The use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells shall be for
safety warning purposes only. No project-related public address or music system shall be
audible at any adjacent noise-sensitive receptor.
The contractor shall notify adjacent property owner, property managers, and business owners
of adjacent parcels of the construction schedule in writing and in advance of the work. The
notification shall include the name and phone number of a project representative or site
supervisor.
The on-site construction supervisor shall have the responsibility and authority to receive and
resolve noise complaints. A clear appeal process to the Owner shall be established prior to
construction commencement that shall allow for resolution of noise problems that cannot be
immediately solved by the site supervisor
The short-term impacts would be less than significant.
Checklist Items b:
Construction activities can cause ground-borne vibration that varies in intensity depending on
several factors. The uses of pile driving and vibratory compaction equipment typically generate
the highest construction related ground-borne vibration levels. However, installation of the
conduit would include activities such as excavation and drilling. These activities would not
generate substantial ground-borne vibrations.
The two primary concerns with construction-induced vibration are the potential to damage a
structure and the potential to interfere with the enjoyment of life. Studies have shown that the
threshold of perception for average persons is in the range of 0.008 to 0.012 in/sec peak particle
velocity (PPV). Human perception to vibration varies with the individual and is a function of
physical setting and the type of vibration. Persons exposed to elevated ambient vibration levels
such as people in an urban environment may tolerate a higher vibration level. Table 3.12-1
shows guidelines that are used by the California Department of Transportation.
Table 3.12-1: Reaction Of People And Damage To Buildings From
Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Vibration Levels
Velocity Level,
PPV (in/sec) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings
0.01 Barely perceptible No effect
0.04 Distinctly perceptible Vibration unlikely to cause damage of any type to
any structure
0.08 Distinctly perceptible to strongly
perceptible
Recommended upper level of the vibration to which
ruins and ancient monuments should be subjected
0.1 Strongly perceptible Virtually no risk of damage to normal buildings
0.3 Strongly perceptible to severe
Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to
older residential dwellings (cosmetic, such as
damage to plastered walls or ceilings)
0.5 Severe - Vibrations considered
unpleasant
Threshold at which there is a risk of damage to
newer residential structures
Source: Caltrans 2004
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.12-4
Table 3.12-2 presents typical vibration levels that could be expected from construction
equipment at distances of 25 feet and 50 feet. Project construction activities such as drilling and
the use of jackhammers may generate vibration in the immediate vicinity of the work.
Jackhammers typically generate vibration levels of 0.035 in/sec PPV and caisson drilling5
typically generates vibration levels of 0.089 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet. Vibration levels
would vary depending on soil conditions, construction methods, and equipment used. At a
distance of 50 feet, construction activities would be unlikely to generate vibration levels that
would be strongly perceptible. Drilling which would generate ground-born vibration would occur
from CGI. The buildings nearest the proposed drilling location are slightly more than 50 feet to
the southeast. Other buildings to the north of the drilling area are nearly 200 feet away and
vibrations and ground-borne vibration is likely to be imperceptible at that distance. Any groundborn
vibration generated during construction would not be strong enough to cause damage to
buildings. Ground-borne vibrations would be limited to the immediate construction areas and
would be less than significant.
Table 3.12-2: Vibration Source Levels For Construction Equipment
Equipment PPV at 25 ft. (in/sec) PPV at 50 ft. (in/sec)
Caisson drilling5 0.089 0.031
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.027
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.001
Source: Federal Transit Administration 2006.
Checklist Item c:
The proposed project is an underground conduit that would not generate discernible noise levels
after construction. After construction noise levels would return to pre-construction levels. Thus
the proposed project would have no impact on ambient noise levels.
Checklist Items d:
The installation of the underground conduit would require construction that would result in
temporary noise impacts to adjacent land uses. Construction of the bore hole would involve the
use of equipment such as a backhoe, generators, and gasoline powered drilling equipment.
Construction vehicles bringing materials to and from the site would generate intermittent noise.
Construction activities would take place approximately 30 to 100 feet from adjacent noisesensitive
land uses. Most of the construction noise would occur at the entry point on CGI, where
5 Caisson drilling typically refers to drilling large diameter vertical piles. The HDD would be a smaller bore and
may generate less vibration than caisson drilling, though data were not available specifically for HDD.
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.12-5
the drilling rig would be operating. The activity at the exit point in Alameda would generate
intermittent noise during construction of the exit pit, but noise levels would generally be lower
than at the drilling entry point. Equipment for pullback of the conduit into the bore hole would be
located on CGI and thus construction noise would be greater here than at the exit point during
the 10-12 hour pullback operation.
Noise levels during active construction periods would reach approximately 70 to 80 dBA
outdoors at approximately 50 feet from the entry location during drilling operations. Most
residences (for example, the Grand Marina development) are located near the exit location,
where activities would not generate substantial noise. The construction period would be
approximately 28 working days in duration (5 days a week). The impacts would be temporary
and short term therefore this impact is considered less than significant.
Checklist Items e and f:
The proposed project is not located within an area subject to an airport land use plan or within 2
miles of a public use airport. No private airstrips are located within the immediate vicinity of the
proposed project. Therefore, the project would have no impact on noise levels associated with air
traffic. Thus the project would have no impact on airport land use plans or landstrips.
Mitigation
Because the project would follow the City construction noise ordinance and BMPs would be
incorporated into the project, mitigation measures are not required.
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.13-1
3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
3.13.1 Environmental Setting
The study area for the analysis population and housing resources encompasses the City of
Alameda and surrounding regions. All background information about population and housing for
the proposed project was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau.
The proposed project area is located in the City of Alameda, Alameda County, within Census
Tract number 4273. The population makeup of the area is presented in the Table 3.13-1.
Table 3.13-1. Population and Housing Indicators
Indicator Alameda County City of Alameda
Census Tract
4237
Total Population 1,510,271 74,774 4,896
Nonwhite Persons 57% 49.2% 34.6%
Persons of Hispanic Origin 22.5% 11.0% 52.4%
Persons Aged 65 Years and
Over 6.4% 13.5% 17.3%
Poverty Status for
individuals, percent, 2006-
2010 11.4% 10.6% 12.1%
Median Home Values $590,900 $662,300 N/A
All data from U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.13-2
3.13.2 Checklist Discussion
Checklist Item a, b and c:
The nature of the project would not result in changes in the population or housing of the City of
Alameda or CGI. The proposed project would not displace any existing housing or residents. The
proposed project would not provide for or create any additional roads or road capacity. The
proposed project would not displace any people or necessitate any new construction. The project
area would continue to be used and designated as a road or military athletic field. Therefore, the
project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth. Thus the project would have
no impact on population and housing in the project area.
Mitigation
No mitigation required
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.14-1
3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project result in:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
3.14.1 Environmental Setting
The study area for the analysis of public services resources encompasses the City of Alameda
and surrounding areas, including the service area of local police and fire providers.
Fire Protection – The project area, which includes both CGI and the City of Alameda, is served
by the City of Alameda Fire Department (Department). The Department was formed in 1873 as a
volunteer fire department. Currently the Department has 117 staff, with a minimum of 25 people
on duty daily, and four fire stations. Their services include: fire suppression, advanced life
support, including ambulance transport services; fire prevention, and investigative services;
community disaster preparedness, including Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT);
hazardous materials response and mitigation; confined space rescue services and water rescue.
Police Protection – The project area currently falls under the jurisdiction of the City of Alameda
Police Department. The City of Alameda Police Station is located at 1555 Oak Street,
approximately 1 mile from the Northern Waterfront Area. The estimated response time for police
calls in the City is less than 3 minutes for Priority One Calls for service (immediate danger to life
or property) and less than 9 minutes for Priority two calls (no immediate danger). Police services
on CGI are provided by the US Coast Guard.
Schools – There are no schools within a 0.25 mile radius of the project area.
Parks – There is one park located within a quarter mile of the project area: the 2.1 acre Marina
Park. The Park is located on Clement Avenue.
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.14-2
Other Public Facilities – A public boat ramp is located at the end of Grand Street. Vehicular
access to the ramp would either be closed intermittently during the construction period or may be
temporarily closed for the duration of construction, due to activities at the HDD exit location. No
alterations to the ramp facilities would occur.
3.14.2 Checklist Discussion
Checklist Item a:
The proposed project is an underground conduit serving the Coast Guard facility. No growth in
population, housing, or business commercial use is anticipated as a result of the project.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the need to expand public services and
facilities. All local roads would remain open during construction and there would be no impact to
emergency response.
Vehicle access would be temporarily unavailable to Marina Park and the public boat ramp
located at the end of Grand Street. The layout and fabrication of the conduit bundle would occur
along Clement Avenue and would temporarily block the entrance to the small Marina Park
parking lot. The park however would remain accessible by foot traffic and there would be no
permanent impacts to park facilities or access. Pedestrian access would be available to the
facilities at all times. Impacts would be short term and temporary, therefore impacts would be
less than significant.
Mitigation
No mitigation required
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.15-1
3.15 RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
3.15.1 Environmental Setting
The study area for the analysis of recreational resources encompasses recreational resources
within a 0.5 mile radius of the project area.
Coast Guard Island
CGI itself is a limited access Federal government facility that is generally unavailable for public
recreation. Pleasure boating is the primary recreational activity that occurs around CGI, with
higher levels of activity on weekends and holidays. The closest public marina is the
Embarcadero Cove Marina, which is approximately 400 feet east of CGI at its closest point. The
San Francisco Bay Trail extends along the Oakland shoreline across the Brooklyn Basin from
CGI. Other recreational facilities present on CGI, such as baseball and soccer fields, and tennis
courts are limited to use by on-base staff only.
The City of Alameda
Three city parks are located near the project area: the 3.1 acre Neptune Park, which is classified
as a passive park with no facilities, approximately 0.5 miles west from the project area; the 2.1
acre Marina Park, located 0.25 miles west of the project area, and the 3.3 acre Little John Park,
located about 1.25 miles west of the project area. Near the project area, there is a boat launching
facility at the northern end of Grand Avenue that is used for public launching of boats.
3.15.2 Checklist Discussion
Checklist Item a:
The proposed project is an underground conduit and would not result in an increase in the
population or a change in the demographics in the vicinity of the project area that would result in
an increase in use of any parks or recreational facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact to
Neptune or Little John Parks. The small parking area at Marina Park would be inaccessible for
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.15-2
approximately 1-3 weeks, during fabrication and layout of the conduit bundle. The bundle would
be laid along the northern edge of Clement Avenue and would temporarily prevent vehicular
access to the lot. However, pedestrian access would be maintained at all times and Marina Park
would remain accessible.
Further, construction would require either intermittent temporary closure, or potentially closure
for the duration of construction, of the public boat ramp at the end of Grand Street. The ramp
would be closed to vehicular access as the conduit is installed in the borehole. Signage would be
used during the construction phase to notify the public of potential closures.
The HDD entry location on CGI is located within a softball field which is not open to the public.
Work at this location has been coordinated with the Coast Guard and timing would be outside of
the regular softball season, when the field is not in use. After installation of the conduit, the
outfield used during construction would be restored to its original condition.
The proposed project would not cause any physical deterioration of any park or recreation
facilities and would have less than significant temporary impacts on usage of existing
recreational facilities.
Checklist Item b:
The proposed project would not involve the construction or expansion of recreational facilities;
therefore the proposed project would have no impact on recreational facilities in this regard.
Mitigation
No mitigation required
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.16-1
3.16 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance or policy establishing measures
of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account
all modes of transportation including
mass transit and non-motorized travel and
relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,
and mass transit?
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic
levels or a change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities?
3.16.1 Environmental Setting
The study area for analysis of transportation and traffic resources encompasses the area of
construction disturbance and local streets that would be potentially impacted by construction of
the proposed project.
CGI is located in close proximity to a number of primary transportation routes, with easy access
to Interstate 880. Vehicular access to and from CGI is via Dennison Street in Oakland.
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.16-2
The City of Alameda is an island separated from the City of Oakland by the Estuary. Access to
the City of Alameda across the Estuary is provided by a one-way couplet of under-Estuary tubes
at Webster and Posey Streets (State Route 260), and draw bridges at Park Street/29th Avenue,
Tilden Way/Fruitvale Avenue, and High Street. Doolittle Drive/Otis Drive (State Route 61)
crosses San Leandro Channel, providing access from Bay Farm Island. Local access to the HDD
exit location on Grand Street in Alameda would be from Clement Avenue or Buena Vista
Avenue. Grand Street is a public street that has one travel lane in each direction and runs northsouth
between the Estuary and Shoreline Drive. Truck traffic is allowed on Grand Street, as it is
designated as a truck route by the City of Alameda.
Bus service in Alameda is provided by the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit),
which serves 13 cities and adjacent unincorporated areas in Alameda and Contra Costa counties.
Three AC Transit bus routes run within walking distance (about one-quarter mile) of the
proposed project: Line 51A, line 851 and line O.
An intermittent bike path/multi-use trail along the Estuary waterfront is located to the north of
Grand Street. Additionally, Grand Street serves as a bike route for the City of Alameda.
The City of Alameda Transportation Commission has established a minimum acceptable peakhour
operating level of service (LOS) for traffic of LOS D. If an intersection operates at LOS E
or worse (i.e. LOS F), a project impact would be considered significant if it causes a 3% or
greater increase in peak-hour traffic volume. According the Northern Waterfront General Plan
Amendment EIR, current LOS at Grand Street and Clement Avenue is LOS B; while at Grand
Street and Buena Vista Avenue, the intersection operates at LOS B.
Table 3.16-1 shows presents intersection LOS for existing conditions in the project area from a
traffic study conducted in September 2012 for the proposed Marina Cove II Residential
Development.
Table 3.16-1. Intersection Level of Service
Intersection Control
Existing Conditions
A.M. Peak
Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS
Clement Ave/Grand Street One-way stop 13.4 B 13.3 B
Buena Vista Avenue / Grand Street Signal 13.2 B 13.3 B
Source: City of Alameda, Northern Waterfront General Plan
The City of Alameda has designated the following roadways in the project vicinity as truck
routes:
Buena Vista Avenue between Sherman Street and Grand Street
Clement Avenue along its entire length, including the future extension segments between
Sherman Street/Atlantic Avenue and Grand Street
Atlantic Avenue west of Sherman Street (and the future Clement Avenue extension)
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.16-3
Grand Street between Buena Vista Avenue and Clement Avenue
For the Marina Cove Project, 72-hour traffic volume and vehicle classification counts were
collected on three of the existing roadway segments in the project vicinity. These routes are
currently designated as truck routes. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, collected during midweek
weekdays in July 2012, are summarized in Table 3.16-2.
Table 3.16-2. Average Daily Traffic (ADT). Mid-Week Weekdays, July 2012
Location Cars & Light Trucks Heavy Duty Trucks Total ADT
Sherman Street north of
Buena Vista Avenue
Northbound 5,174 208 5,382
Southbound 4,577 157 4,734
Total 2-Way Volume 9,751 365 10,116
Buena Vista Avenue west
of Grand Street
Westbound 5,573 190 5,762
Eastbound 4,668 362 5,030
Total 2-Way Volume 10,241 552 10,793
Clement Avenue east of
Grand Street
Westbound 2,581 228 2,809
Eastbound 1,934 118 2,052
Total 2-Way Volume 4,515 346 4,861
Source: City of Alameda 2012, Marina Cove Subdivision II Initial Study
3.16.2 Checklist Discussion
Checklist Item a and b:
Operation of the proposed project would not generate significant traffic. The Transportation
Element of the City of Alameda General Plan establishes measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system and takes into account all modes of transportation
including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, and mass transit. The proposed project would not conflict with the Transportation
Element.
Construction would require 6-8 persons for the drilling crew and a 10-12 person support crew.
Personnel would be working on both CGI and in Alameda near the Grand Street exit point.
Although the specific split of crew between the two locations is not known, it is unlikely that the
entire crew would be either at the entry or exit locations at one time. If all crew members arrived
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.16-4
in separate vehicles, this would add total of about 16 to 20 one-way employee commute trips to
the local roadways, split between the two locations (CGI and Alameda). It is possible that at least
some crew members may arrive together in the same vehicle and the total number of trips to a
given location could be less. The additional number of vehicles in the project area during
construction would be negligible compared with the average daily traffic in the area (Table 3.16-
2) and would have no discernible effect on LOS on local streets and intersections.
Street parking or parking lots are available on both CGI and in the City of Alameda in the project
area. Construction crews would park either on Grand Street past Fortmann Way, or in the
parking lot adjacent to the Grand Street boat ramp in the City of Alameda. Several parking
options would be available on CGI on Campbell Boulevard adjacent to the HDD entry location,
as well as additional lots on Wakefield Drive. Approximately, 5-10 parking spaces would be
necessary at the entry and exit locations, based on the size of the work crews and the split of
work personnel between the entry and exit points.
Materials delivery (e.g., equipment, HPDE conduit etc.) would be intermittent and negligible in
terms of traffic volume. No street closures are planned. The proposed project would generate an
estimated 55 roundtrips for material hauling (materials brought to the site or hauled off site) over
the course of the 5 ½ week construction period. This represents an average of about two material
hauling trips per day, split between CGI and Alameda. About half of these trips would be for
hauling of drilling mud and wastewater to appropriate landfills outside of the project area with
the remaining half of the trips used for bringing materials, such as equipment and conduit to the
site. By comparison, the Marina Cove II Residential Development is expected to generate a net
increase of 27 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 57 trips during the p.m. peak hour, with less
than significant impacts on level of service in the project area. Further, traffic from the proposed
project would be temporary and would cease after the construction period. All vehicles related to
project construction would use the City of Alameda designated truck routes when travelling in
Alameda. During construction, there would be no substantial change in LOS on local roadways
or at intersections, due to the small number of construction vehicles proposed. Impacts would be
minor and temporary and would be considered less than significant. After construction is
complete there would be no residual impact on traffic.
A bike lane is located on the east side of Grand Street, near the HDD exit point. As such, during
construction bike access would be temporarily closed at this location. Bicyclists may use
Fortmann Way and Hibbard Street. Signage would be placed at Grand Street and Clement
Avenue, and Grand Street and Fortmann Way to notify cyclists of detours or potential bike lane
closures. All detour signs during construction would be designed to meet the California Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards. After construction, bike lane access
would be available and there would be no residual impact on biking facilities.
The proposed project would not impact pedestrian access on Grand Street. The sidewalk adjacent
to the housing development to the northwest of the proposed project would be open at all times,
while the sidewalk on the east side of the 2000 block of Grand Street would be temporarily
closed during construction. Sidewalk access would be maintained on the west side of the street
and detour signs where necessary would be posted. After construction, all sidewalks would be
open for pedestrian access and there would be no residual impact on pedestrian facilities.
Further, bus routes would not be impacted by the proposed schedule as there are no bus stops in
the immediate work area and street closures are not planned.
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.16-5
In summary, during construction, impacts to transportation and traffic would be minor and
temporary, therefore impacts would be considered less than significant. After construction is
complete there would be no residual impact on transportation and traffic. The impact to bike
lanes and pedestrian sidewalks would be minor and temporary, and would also be considered
less than significant.
Checklist Item c:
The proposed project would not change air traffic patterns and would therefore have no impact.
Checklist Item d:
The proposed project would not result in any new design features or incompatible uses. Although
work crews would use existing public roads to transport equipment to the project area,
transportation of this equipment would follow all traffic laws, would not require special
permission from local governments, and would not require use of warning or chase vehicles.
Further, all trucks transporting construction material to and from the work site would use
designated truck routes in the City of Alameda. The proposed project would not require the
permanent alteration of any roadways or generate vehicle uses incompatible with the existing
roadways; therefore it would have no impact on road hazards.
Checklist Item e:
Emergency access would not be impacted by the proposed project. No streets or intersections
would be closed. During the conduit pullback, when the conduit bundle is installed in the
borehole, the conduit string would be pulled through the Pennzoil facility across Grand Street
with a bend turning it north toward the Estuary. During this pullback process, the conduit would
be lifted using cranes to create an arch over Grand Street so that vehicles could pass under,
leaving Grand Street to Fortmann Way and the Grand Marina development accessible. Access
would be maintained, thus the project would have no impact.
Checklist Item f:
The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities. The proposed project temporarily impacts bike
facilities, as discussed in Checklist Item a. The impacts would be minor and temporary in nature,
thus the project would have a less than significant impact.
Mitigation
No mitigation required
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.17-1
3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
3.17.1 Environmental Setting
The study area for the analysis of utilities and service systems encompasses the City of Alameda.
Utilities and service systems include wastewater treatment plants, potable water treatment
facilities, storm water drainage system, water supply systems, and solid waste landfill.
Coast Guard Island
Potable water, sewage service, graywater service, electrical service, and telecommunications/
data links are available on CGI, and are provided by the City of Alameda, discussed below.
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.17-2
The City of Alameda
The EBMUD provides water supply to businesses, residences, schools, places of worship, and
other users adjacent to the proposed project. Alameda is served by EBMUD’s Special District
No.1 (SD-1), which treats domestic commercial and industrial wastewater for the cities of
Alameda, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, and Piedmont, and for the Stege Sanitary District.
Wastewater from SD-1 is treated at the EBMUD Main Wastewater Treatment Plant located at
the foot of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in the City of Oakland, which discharges
treated effluent into San Francisco Bay. The original collection system in the City of Alameda
was a combined storm/sewer system, where both storm water flows and sanitary sewer flows
were collected and combined into one collection system and then discharged directly into San
Francisco Bay. The two were separated in the 1940s.
Alameda Municipal Power is the main electricity provider to the City of Alameda.
3.17.2 Checklist Discussion
Checklist Item a:
As described in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, de-watering may be necessary during
the HDD Process. All wastewater from the HDD bore would be pumped to a tank and tested
prior to disposal at a landfill or to the EBMUD sanitary sewer if applicable and allowed by
EBMUD. After construction, the project would not result in any discharge of water therefore the
project would have no impact on wastewater treatment standards.
Checklist Items b, d and e:
Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, identifies measures intended to avoid and minimize
effects to water quality from project construction. De-watering may be necessary as part of the
HDD process, which would generate waste water. The amount generated would be negligible
and would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, nor require the construction of new
facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on
wastewater requirements and treatment. The proposed project would require only a minimal
amount of water for slurry and no new or expanded entitlements are required; therefore,
sufficient water supplies are available. Therefore, the project would have no impact on water
supplies.
Checklist Item c:
The proposed project is an underground conduit and would not result in the increase of
impervious surfaces that generate runoff and require new storm water drainage facilities or result
in the modification of existing storm water conveyance systems. Thus the proposed project
would have no impact on stormwater facilities.
Checklist Item f:
Construction, but not operation, of the proposed project would generate solid waste. During
construction, drill cuttings and excess HDD drilling mud would be disposed of at an appropriate
solid waste facility. The proposed project would not generate quantities of solid waste that would
exceed normal daily tonnage at area landfills. For example, as of March 2006, The Vasco
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.17-3
Landfill has a remaining capacity of 9.87 million cubic yards. The landfill is permitted to operate
until August 2019. Vasco Landfill has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project. The
project would not result in the need for new or expanded solid waste facilities and the impact
would be less than significant.
Checklist Item g:
Solid waste in the form of cuttings would be generated during construction. The cuttings would
be trucked off-site and disposed of at an approved solid waste facility according to state and local
regulations, therefore the proposed project would comply with federal, state and local statues and
regulations related to solid waste and the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation
No mitigation required
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.18-1
3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less-Than-
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
3.18.1 Checklist Discussion
Checklist Item a:
Based on the findings provided in this Initial Study, the proposed project would not substantially
degrade the quality of the environment. The project would not substantially reduce fish and
wildlife habitat or populations to below sustainable levels and would not eliminate or restrict the
range of any plant or animal community (see Section 3.4). The project would not eliminate
historic or prehistoric resources (see Section 3.5). The overall impacts of the project would be
less than significant.
Checklist Item b:
A cumulative effect is defined as the impact on the environment that results from the incremental
effect of the proposed project when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable
actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions
taking place over a period of time.
As discussed in this Initial Study, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts.
The potential for cumulative effects of the project in combination with other planned or
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.18-2
anticipated improvements is low. Since the project is (1) generally limited to construction effects
along Grand Street and on CGI, and/or (2) no significant impacts were identified that could be
considered in a cumulative assessment of effects, the following issue areas would not be
significantly affected, either from the project alone or cumulatively with other projects:
Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources,
Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use
and Planning, Noise, Mineral Resources, Noise, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation and
Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems.
In general, individual GHG emissions do not have a large impact on climate change. However,
once added with all other GHG emissions in the past and present, they combine to create a
perceptible change to climate. Because of the extended amount of time that GHGs remains in the
atmosphere, any amount of GHG emissions can be reasonably expected to contribute to future
climate change impacts. The amount of CO2 emissions from the proposed project, although
measurable, would be minor. On a global scale, the proposed project is expected to contribute a
negligible amount to global cumulative effects to climate change due to its temporary nature and
its urban location.
Therefore, the cumulative impact from the proposed project and the foreseeable local projects
would be considered less than significant.
Checklist Item c:
Based on the findings of this Initial Study, the project would not have a substantial impact on
human beings.
SECTIONTHREE Environmental Checklist Discussion
Public Draft 3.18-3
This page intentionally left blank
SECTIONFOUR List of Preparers
Public Draft 4-1
4. Section 4 FOUR List of Preparers
Alameda Municipal Power
Juan Ulloa – Project Manager
URS Corporation
Bill Martin – Project Manager
Graham Craig – Environmental Planner
Florentina Craciun – Environmental Planner
POWER Engineers
Les Hinzman – Lead Design Engineer
SECTIONFOUR List of Preparers
Public Draft 4-2
This page intentionally left blank
SECTIONFIVE References and Agencies/Persons Consulted
Public Draft 5-1
5. Section 5 FIVE References and Agencies/Persons Consulted Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2013. Earthquake and Hazards Information,
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Website:
http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/FaultZones/index.html. Accessed: March 7, 2013.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2013. Static Shaking Maps for Future
Earthquake Scenarios. 2003. Earthquake Hazard Map for South San
Francisco/Brisbane/San Bruno Scenario: South Hayward Segment of the Hayward-
Rodgers Creek Fault System. Website: http://quake.abag.ca.gov/shaking/maps/.
Accessed: March 5, 2013.
Association of Bay Area Governments, website: (http://www.abag.ca.gov), 2009.
BAAQMD. 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines; Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects
and Plans. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 1999.
BAAQMD 2010a, updated May 2010. CEQA: Air Quality Guidelines. Website:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/Draft_BA
AQMD_CEQA_Guidelines_May_2010_Final.ashx?la=en. Accessed: February 2013.
BAAQMD 2010b, adopted September 15, 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. Website:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/Plans/Clean-Air-Plans.aspx.
Accessed: February 2013.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2013. California Natural Diversity Data Base
(CNDDB), Program Rarefind 4. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento,
CA. Accessed April 10, 2013 at
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/myaccount/login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fcnddb%2fview%2fquery.as
px.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2004. Transportation- and Construction-
Induced Vibration Guidance Manual, Prepared by Jones and Stokes.
CalRecycle, Facility/Site Summary Details: Vasco Landfill, website:
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/01-AA-0010/Detail/accessed April
5, 2013.
California Geological Survey. 2010. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps for San Mateo
County. Website: http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ap_maps.htm. Accessed: March 7,
2013.
California Geological Survey. 2003. Shaking Hazard Assessment. Revised 2003. Probabilistic
Seismic Hazards Map. Website:
http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap/pshamain.html. Accessed: March
5, 2013.
CARB. 2011. In-Use Off-Road Equipment. Available at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/categories.htm#inuse_or_category
CARB. 2012. Area Designations Maps / State and National Available at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm
CARB. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan
City of Alameda. 1999. City of Alameda General Plan.
SECTIONFIVE References and Agencies/Persons Consulted
Public Draft 5-2
City of Alameda. 2006. Alameda Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment, Draft
Environmental Report. June 2006.
City of Alameda. 2012. Marine Cove II Subdivision, Initial Study Mitigated Negative
Declaration. Prepared by Douglas Herring and Associates. September.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2012. Mapping Information Platform. Website.
Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, United
States Department of Transportation, Office of Planning and Environment, May 2006.
Koval, Ana B., and Lawrence-Dietz, Patricia. 1992 Support Center Alameda HABS Survey,
Coast Guard Island, Alameda, California. Written on February 24, 1992 and submitted by
Dillingham Associates to the U.S. Coast Guard, Alameda.
Power Engineers, INC. 2012. Alameda Municipal Power: City of Alameda HDD Crossing, HDD
Design Overview.
State of California, Department of Conservation. 2010. Alameda County Important Farmland.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2011. California Emission Estimator Model
(CalEEMod). Available at www.caleemod.com URS. 2012.
Geotechnical Data Report HDPE Conduit Installation Across Alameda-Oakland
Estuary Alameda, CA. December 2012.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. May 2010. Fiscal Year 2011 Brooklyn Basin (Coast
Guard Island) Federal Navigational Channel - Operations And Maintenance Dredging,
Alameda County, California. Administrative Draft Environmental Assessment. URS
Corp. 2010.
United States Coast Guard. April 2007. Homeporting of Four National Security Cutters at Coast
Guard Island, Alameda, California Environmental Assessment.
United States Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1998.
Shaking Amplification Map of Alameda, Berkeley, Emeryville, Oakland, and Piedmont,
California: A Digital Database by Thomas L. Holzer, Michael J. Bennett, Thomas E.
Noce, Amy C. Padovani and John C. Tinsley, III.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil
Survey, Alameda County. Website: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed: October 9, 2012.
United States Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2003.
Seismic Hazard Zones Geologic Map of the Oakland East and part of Las Trampas Ridge
Quadrangles.
United States Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey (USGS). 200.
Geologic Map and Map Database of the Oakland Metropolitan Area, Alameda, Contra
Costa and San Francisco Counties.
Waste Management of Alameda County. 2013. http://www.wm.com/facility.jsp?zip=94611
Accessed April 5, 2013.
SECTION FIVE References and Agencies/Persons Consulted
Public Draft 5-3
Western Regional Climate Center, 2008. Oakland International Airport. Period of Record
Monthly Climate Summary (January 2000 to December 2008). Western Regional
Climate Center, Desert Research Institute, Reno, NV. Web site:
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/oak.ca.html. Accessed April 5, 2013.
Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities. 2007. Uniform California Earthquake
Rupture Forecast (UCERF) Version 2, USGS Open-File Report 2007-1437. Website:
http://www.scec.org/ucerf/. Accessed: March 7, 2013.
SECTIONFIVE References and Agencies/Persons Consulted
Public Draft 5-4
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix A
Project Engineering Layouts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are welcome and encouraged.