San Francisco Bay Trail at Point Molate
Draft Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared For: Prepared By: East Bay Regional Park District NCE 2950 Peralta Oaks Court 501 Canal Blvd. Suite I Oakland, CA 94605 Richmond, CA 94804
Date: March 2018 NCE Project Number: 567.04.55
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...... iii 1.0 BACKGROUND ...... 1 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ...... 2 3.0 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION ...... 2 4.0 PROJECT SUMMARY ...... 3 4.1 Project Location ...... 3 4.2 Project Background ...... 3 4.3 Project Description ...... 3 4.4 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ...... 5 5.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...... 9 I. Aesthetics ...... 10 II. Agricultural and Forestry Resources ...... 12 III. Air Quality ...... 14 IV. Biological Resources ...... 21 V. Cultural Resources...... 30 VI. Geology & Soils ...... 34 VII. Tribal Cultural Resources ...... 37 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 39 IX. Hazards & Hazardous Materials ...... 41 X. Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 47 XI. Land Use & Planning ...... 50 XII. Mineral Resources ...... 53 XIII. Noise ...... 54 XIV. Population & Housing ...... 56 XV. Public Services ...... 57 XVI. Recreation ...... 59 XVII. Transportation & Traffic ...... 61 XVIII. Utilities & Service Systems ...... 64 XIX. Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... 66 6.0 REFERENCES ...... 68
i | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Site and Vicinity ...... 6 Figure 2A. Segment A – Site Plan ...... 7 Figure 2B. Segment B – Site Plan ...... 8 Figure 3. Special Status Plant Species Survey ...... 29
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Bay Area Air Quality Management District Thresholds of Significance ...... 16
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Appendix B: Site Photographs Appendix C: Preliminary Biological Resources Assessment Appendix D: Cultural Resources Report Appendix E: Geotechnical Report Appendix F: Coastal Erosion Assessment Appendix G: Phase I Assessment Appendix H: Phase II Assessment
ii | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ARB California Air Resources Board BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District Bay Trail San Francisco Bay Trail BCDC San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission BMP Best Management Practice CAP Contra Costa County Climate Action Plan CBC California Building Code CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish & Wildlife CESA California Endangered Species Act CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CH4 Methane CMP Congestion Management Program CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNEL community noise equivalent level CNPS California Native Plant Society CO Carbon Monoxide CO2e CO2 equivalents CWA Clean Water Act dB decibel dBA A‐weighted sound level District East Bay Regional Park District DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control EBRPD East Bay Regional Park District EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utilities District EFZ Earthquake Fault Zone EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FCD Contra Costa County Flood Control District FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FHWA Federal Highways Administration GHG Greenhouse Gas GIS Geographic Information System HBM Hazardous Building Materials HCP/NCCP Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan kVA kilovolt‐amperes Ldn Day‐night average sound level Leq Equivalent continuous sound level Lmax Maximum instantaneous sound level LOS Level of Service LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
iii | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Acts MLD Most Likely Descendant MPH Miles Per Hour NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFD Navy Fuel Depot NHPA National Historic Preservation Act N2O Nitrous Oxide NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NOI Notice of Intent NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWIC Northwest Information Center O3 Ozone OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark OS Open Space OSHA Occupational Health and Safety Administration PAHs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Pb Lead PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls PFCs Perfluorocarbons PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter PM10 Coarse Particulate Matter ppm parts per million PR Parks and Recreation PRC Public Resource Code PRD Permit Registration Document ROG Reactive Organic Gases RSR Richmond-San Rafael Bridge RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride SHMA Seismic Hazards Mapping Act SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act SMARTS Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System Specific Plan Area New Pacific Properties Specific Plan Area SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SR State Route SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TACs Toxic Air Contaminants TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey UST Underground Storage Tank VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
iv | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds vph vehicles per hour WCCIWMA West Contra Costa County Integrated Waste Management Authority WDID Waste Discharge Identification Number WPCP Water Pollution Control Plant
v | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
1.0 BACKGROUND
1. Project Title: San Francisco Bay Trail at Point Molate
2. Project Location: Castro Point and Point Molate, Richmond, CA
3. Lead Agency Name and Address: East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605
4. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: EBRPD Suzanne Wilson, Senior Planner 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605
5. General Plan Designations: Open Space, Parks and Recreation (City of Richmond General Plan 2030)
6. Zoning: Community and Regional Recreational District, Light Industrial
7. Description of Project: Proposed construction of approximately 2.5 miles of a pedestrian and bike trail from the Richmond San Rafael (RSR) Bridge to Point Molate
8. Other Agencies whose Approval May Be Required: - US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) - San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) - California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) - State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) - Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) - City of Richmond - Native American Heritage Commission - State Water Resources Control Board - Caltrans District 4
1 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
2.0 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 environmental checklist (Section 5.0).
Aesthetics Agricultural and Forestry X Air Quality Resources X Biological Resources X Cultural Resources X Geology/Soils X Hazards and Hazardous X Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Materials Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Tribal Cultural Resources X Greenhouse Gas Emissions X Mandatory Findings of Significance
3.0 LEAD AGENCY 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. _X_ 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 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.
______March 13, 2018 Suzanne Wilson, EBRPD Date
2 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
4.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
4.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed Project (Project) is located near Castro Point and Point Molate within the City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, California (Figure 1). The proposed trail begins near the intersection of Stenmark Drive and a private road west of the I-580 RSR Bridge toll plaza, and extends through Chevron property, Point Molate Beach Park, then along Burma Road, finally terminating just north of the Winehaven building. The Project courses through the following Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 561-040-013, 561-040-016, 561-040-015, and 561-040-014 (Chevron USA Inc.); 561-400-008, 561-100-008, and 561-080-006 (City of Richmond); and 561-400-004 (private property owner).
4.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The complete San Francisco Bay Trail is anticipated to be a 500-mile shoreline bike and pedestrian trail that circumnavigates the San Francisco Bay. Currently more than 345 miles have been completed along the shoreline through 9 counties and 47 cities. This approximately 2.5 mile section of trail at Point Molate was proposed for design and construction after Chevron granted a surface easement to the EBRPD for construction of a bike and pedestrian path, and after the Bay Area Toll Authority’s (BATA) recent approval to install a bike and pedestrian path across the RSR Bridge.
4.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project consists of an approximately 2.5 mile non-motorized bike and pedestrian trail at Point Molate. The trail is comprised of Segment A and B and would be constructed in a previously disturbed area that coincides or is adjacent to the old Richmond Belt Railway corridor. Segment A would be constructed within a surface easement granted by Chevron to EBRPD for construction, operation, and maintenance of the trail. The trail is anticipated to be 10 feet wide with shoulders on one or both sides with a combined shoulder width of 4 to 5 feet. This portion of Chevron property includes the former railway corridor, access roads for RSR Bridge maintenance and adjacent properties, and adjacent coastal areas. Segment A begins near Stenmark Drive on the north side of the RSR Bridge (I-580) and extends to the Chevron’s property boundary with the City of Richmond at Point Molate Beach Park. A portion of Segment A would be constructed on private property (APN 561-400-004) in order to avoid significant hillside cuts and grading. Segment A is approximately 1.0 mile in length. This segment would be operated and maintained by EBRPD (Figure 2A).
Segment B of the trail would be constructed on City of Richmond property and continues north from the northern limit of Segment A through Point Molate Beach Park, along Burma Road, and terminating north of the Winehaven Historic District. Segment B is approximately 1.5 miles long, and anticipated to be 10 feet wide with shoulders on one or both sides with a combined shoulder width of 4 to 5 feet. Segment B would be operated and maintained by the City of Richmond (Figure 2B).
Project improvements would include: asphalt pavement removal and grading, installation of asphalt-concrete pavement with decomposed granite shoulders, installation of fencing and an electric gate, ADA upgrades in Point Molate Beach Park, boardwalk paths over wetland habitats, construction of earthen berms where the trail is at-grade with adjacent existing rip rap, installation of rip rap slope protection along segments of the shoreline (totaling 450 linear feet),
3 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration replacement of stairs to beach with a concrete access ramp to the beach, wayfinding and coastal access signage. Where the trail crosses or is adjacent to an existing road, proposed improvements along the trail alignment would include bollards, painted lanes, or unpaved buffer zones. At the north end of the Point Molate Beach Park where Burma Road transitions closer to the shoreline, the trail would be discontinued for approximately 150 feet. This discontinuation is necessary because of an active coastal erosion feature that would be addressed as a separate project by the City of Richmond. Once the coastline has been stabilized and re-established, the gap in the trail would be closed.
Clearing and grubbing and limited vegetation removal would occur where vegetation coincides with the trail alignment. Invasive plant species and wetland plants would be removed at limited locations. Shrubs would be pruned in locations where a boardwalk would be installed over wetland habitats. A total of approximately 20 trees would be removed and 10 trees would be pruned within the wetland areas, Point Molate Beach Park, and at the northern end of Segment B. Approximately half of these trees are eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus spp.), the remaining tree species include Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa), Populus sp, Plantanus sp, and Pittosporum sp.
Construction of the trail is expected to occur in stages from May through October in 2018 and 2019, depending on the timing of funding and permit approvals. Segment A and a portion of Segment B (from the end of Segment A to the north end of Point Molate Beach Park) are anticipated to be constructed in 2018, the remainder of Segment B may be constructed in May through October in 2019, depending on funding. Construction equipment would be staged at different locations, listed north to south: an existing staging area on west side of the proposed trail near Mile 0.15, Point Molate Beach Parking Lot (approximately Mile 1.0), the IR3 site drum lot (approximately Mile 1.6), and along the proposed alignment. Equipment would not be staged in wetlands, streams, or riparian areas. Construction equipment would likely include dozer, excavator, grader, compactor, paver, dump trucks, and water trucks.
Additional improvements along the proposed trail alignment are summarized below with approximate mileage beginning from the southern limit of Segment A:
Mile 0 – 0.15: • The three existing gates at the beginning of Segment A would be replaced by a 6-foot high electric gate, including trenching for new electrical service. • Access to the existing private road would be maintained by siting the trail along the southern edge of the road and conducting hillside grading to maintain road width and provide a stable footing and adjacent slope for the proposed trail. • On the south side of the trail, fencing would be installed along the slope adjacent to the west side of the trail to protect trail users and prohibit access to Chevron property outside of the easement.
Mile 0.20 - 0.50: • Replace the existing stairs to the beach with new steps for pedestrian access, with an adjacent concrete access ramp for light-duty maintenance vehicles. • Install fencing on both sides of trail to Mile 0.40. • Continue fencing to Mile 0.50 if needed. • Remove concrete pad and platforms near Mile 0.50. • Install additional rip rap totaling 450 linear feet at four discrete locations along the shoreline, within the footprint of the existing armored slope.
4 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mile 0.40: • Clear and grub invasive and wetland vegetation, and fill a portion of the existing 0.06 acre wetland to construct the asphalt concrete trail. • Protect upland wetland in place. • Construct a berm and culvert on the north side of the road to convey flows from a seep wetland underneath the proposed trail. • Install outfall protection at the discharge location.
Mile 0.70 – 0.80 & 0.85 – 0.9: • Construct a raised wooden boardwalk over the wetland area with side railings to prevent users from accessing areas off the boardwalk.
Mile 1.0 • Fill area between the rails with decomposed granite to provide an even walking surface and highlight the existing rail features. • Install ADA improvements from the parking lot at Point Molate Beach Park.
Mile 1.6 - 1.95: • Remove and replace chain link fencing around existing buildings in the IR3 drum lot. • Add additional fencing along the inside perimeter of the drum lot to prohibit access to buildings which may pose a health and safety concern. • Add additional fencing along the east side of Burma Road to prohibit access to previous railway alignment which may contain elevated levels of arsenic in the soil.
Mile 2.15 to end of trail: • Remove or pave over existing railroad and railroad spur which are currently at grade with existing pavement. • Remove eucalyptus trees within the proposed alignment.
4.4 SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The City of Richmond 2030 General Plan Land Use Designations in the Project Area include Open Space and Parks and Recreation (City of Richmond General Plan 2030). The Project location has been identified in numerous stakeholder agencies master plans, polices, and goals as a beneficial location for a portion of the San Francisco Bay Trail. Identified stakeholder agency plans include the City of Richmond 2030 General Plan, EBRPD’s Master Plan, Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) Plan Bay Area, and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s (BCDC) San Francisco Bay Plan.
Current and surrounding land uses include Industrial, Open Space, and Parks and Recreation. The proposed trail alignment is within the former Richmond Belt Railway corridor. The site is accessed from the Stenmark Drive exit from I-580 West. The Project would connect with a bicycle and pedestrian trail, which would cross the RSR Bridge and is estimated to be constructed in 2018 as part of a separate project. The San Francisco Bay coastline parallels the west side of the trail.
Habitats in the vicinity of the Project include eucalyptus forest, ruderal/developed, northern coastal bluff scrub, native grassland, urban landscapes, high salt marsh, estuaries, tideflats, rocky and sandy intertidal zones, and the nearshore environment (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf, 1995). Habitats in the proposed alignment include ruderal/developed areas and urban landscapes through much of the alignment. Wetlands occur within the alignment in a few locations.
5 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 1. Project Site and Vicinity
6 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 2A. Segment A – Site Plan
7 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 2B. Segment B – Site Plan
8 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
5.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The Environmental Checklist and discussion describes the impacts of the proposed Project, as detailed in the Project Description. The Environmental Checklist is based on the questions provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (Revised 2016). This checklist focuses on 17 different categories. If substantial evidence exists for impacts not described in the checklist, these impacts should also be considered. Potential environmental impacts are described as follows:
Potentially Significant Impact: An environmental impact that could be significant and for which no feasible mitigation is known. If any potentially significant impacts are identified in this Checklist, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared.
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation: An environmental impact that requires the incorporation of mitigation measures to reduce that impact to less-than-significant level.
Less-than-Significant Impact: An environmental impact may occur, however, the impact would not be considered significant based on CEQA environmental standards.
No Impact: No environmental impacts would result from implementation of the Project.
9 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
I. AESTHETICS – Would the Project:
Environmental Issue
Impact Impact
Less Than Than Less Than Less
Mitigation Mitigation
No Impact No
Significant Significant Significant
Potentially Potentially
Incorporated Significant with with Significant
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic X buildings, within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in X the area?
Discussion: Current and surrounding land uses include Industrial, Open Space, and Parks and Recreation. The area includes remnants from former industrial and military operations, vacant buildings, rock outcrops along the coastline and in upland areas. Habitats in this area include eucalyptus forest, ruderal/developed, northern coastal bluff scrub, native grassland, urban landscapes, high salt marsh, estuaries, tideflats, rocky and sandy intertidal zones, and the nearshore environment (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf, 1995). Habitats in the proposed alignment include ruderal/developed areas and urban landscapes through much of the alignment.
Existing views along the proposed alignment are partially obstructed by I-580 where the trail is parallel to the RSR Bridge. As the trail extends north toward Castro Point, there are views of the San Francisco Bay and waterfront for a majority of the trail, except where dense wetland vegetation and rock outcrops are present. Existing sources of light near the Project site include vehicular traffic along Stenmark Drive, RSR Bridge, and few buildings along Stenmark Drive. No additional sources of light or glare exist in the immediate Project area. a & c) Less-than-Significant Impact. The trail would be constructed at the existing grade of the previous railroad corridor and would not substantially alter or block existing views or scenic vistas. No vertical structures other than fencing, replacing the existing gate at Segment A with an electric gate, and directional signage would be installed as part of the Project. Proposed fencing is along portions of the trail easement through Segment A and will be similar to existing fencing to prohibit access to Chevron property outside of the surface easement. Fencing would be visually permeable so users can view the Bay and surrounding area. The new 6-foot electric gate would not be larger or significantly different visually than the existing gate. The additional rip rap installed at four locations will be discrete but visible to trail users. The existing rip rap that armors the shoreline is also visible from the roadway. Given these factors, proposed site improvements would not alter or block existing views and these impacts would be less than significant.
10 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
b) No Impact. There are no state scenic highways near the Project area, so no impacts to scenic resources would occur within a state scenic highway. The nearest state scenic highway is State Route 24 which is located approximately 10.5 miles southeast of the site. d) Less-than-Significant Impact. No additional sources of lighting are proposed for operation of the trail. Lighting for construction of the trail is not anticipated since construction would occur during daylight hours. Since no new lighting is proposed, no significant impacts would occur.
Findings: The Project would not introduce visual elements that are inconsistent with the existing visual character of the site, are not located within a state scenic highway, and no additional sources of lighting are proposed that would affect day or nighttime views. Identified thresholds of significance for aesthetics have not been exceeded and less-than-significant environmental effects would result from the Project.
11 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
II. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES – Would the Project:
Environmental Issue
Impact Impact
Less Than Than Less Than Less
Mitigation Mitigation
No Impact No
Significant Significant Significant
Potentially Potentially
Incorporated Significant with with Significant
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the X Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X 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 X 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? X e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland (including livestock grazing) to X non-agricultural use?
Discussion: The Project site has never historically been used for agricultural or timberland production. There are no agricultural uses within close proximity of the Project site. a-e) No Impact. The proposed trail alignment occurs within two City of Richmond Zone District’s; Community and Regional Recreation (CRR) and Light Industrial (M-2). The site does not have agricultural uses, is not under a Williamson Act Contract, and has been historically used for industrial purposes. The soil type within the Project area consists of Millsholm loam and is not listed as a Prime Farmland Soil or Farmland of Statewide Importance by the California Department of Conservation. The Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Locally Important Farmland (Farmland) and is not designated as a timber preserve zone. The Project site has historically been used for industrial purposes, is adjacent to other industrial uses, and therefore no impacts to agriculture or timber resources would occur as a result of the Project.
Findings: It has been determined there would be no impacts to agricultural and forestry resources. Identified thresholds of significance for the agricultural and forest resources category have not been exceeded and no significant adverse environmental effects would result from the Project.
12 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
13 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
III. AIR QUALITY – Would the Project:
Environmental Issue
Impact Impact
Less Than Than Less Than Less
Mitigation Mitigation
No Impact No
Significant Significant Significant
Potentially Potentially
Incorporated Significant with with Significant
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality X violation?
c. 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 (including releasing X emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X
Discussion: The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is part of the California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and is responsible for the coordination and administration of both the federal and state air pollution control programs in California. CARB sets the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), oversees the Toxic Air Contaminants Program (TACs), and the Hotspots Program. TACs were intended to reduce exposure to air toxins such as asbestos, benzene, and chloroform. The Hotspots Program was designed to report and notify the public of the types and quantities of air toxins routinely released in the air at specific locations.
The City of Richmond and the proposed Project site are located in the San Francisco Bay Air Basin and are under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The BAAQMD enforces rules and regulations regarding air pollution sources and is the primary agency preparing the regional air quality plans mandated under state and federal law.
As of October 1, 2015 the EPA designated Contra Costa County as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (US EPA, 2016). Contra Costa County is mapped as “marginal”. The nonattainment status in the Project area can be attributed to the overall development history in the region. Development projects from the past, present, and future contribute to the region’s adverse air quality impacts on a cumulative basis. Alternatively, a proposed project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. If a proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considerable, then the project’s impact on air quality would be considered significant. The most recent Bay Area Clean Air Plan (CAP) was adopted in 2010 by the BAAQMD and provides a comprehensive plan to improve Bay Area air quality and protect public health. The
14 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
2010 cap provides measures to (1) reduce emissions and decrease ambient concentrations of harmful pollutants; (2) 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 (3) reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) to protect the climate.
The BAAQMD provides a guidance document titled California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, which provides guidance for evaluating air quality impacts in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin pursuant to CEQA. The document provides guidance on evaluating air quality and GHG impacts of development projects and local plans, determining whether an impact is significant, and mitigating significant impacts.
The BAAQMD’s updated CEQA Guidelines including thresholds of significance were adopted in May of 2017 (BAAQMD, 2017). These current thresholds have been used in this analysis for a conservative determination of impact significance as shown in Table 1. The current significance thresholds including annual emissions for operational emissions and daily standards for short- term construction-related emissions are shown in Table 1. Emission levels for Reactive Organic Gases, Nitrogen Oxides, and Particulate Matter (PM2.5) are limited to 54 lbs/day during construction related projects and 82 lbs/day for Particulate Matter (PM10) emissions.
15 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Table 1. Bay Area Air Quality Management District Thresholds of Significance
16 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
A substantial adverse effect on air quality would occur if:
• Construction operations would result in Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides NO2, exceeding 54 lbs/day during construction related projects (Table 1). • Emissions of PM1O, CO, S02 and Nox, as a result of construction or operation emissions, will result in ambient pollutant concentrations in excess of the applicable California Ambient Air Quality Standard (CAAQS). • Emissions of toxic air contaminants cause cancer risk greater than 1 in 1 million (10 in 1 million if best available control technology for toxics is used) or a non-cancer Hazard Index greater than 1. In addition, the Project must demonstrate compliance with all District, State and U.S. EPA regulations governing toxic and hazardous emissions.
17 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration a) Less-than-Significant Impact. Proposed projects that could generate emissions in excess of the BAAQMD’s recommended significance thresholds would be considered to potentially conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. As discussed in sub section c) below, implementation of the proposed Project would not be anticipated to result in long-term increases of mobile-source emissions, nor would short-term construction-generated emissions be projected to exceed applicable thresholds of significance. For these reasons, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with nor obstruct implementation of applicable air quality plans. b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Construction of the proposed Project could temporarily generate emissions in excess of the BAAQMD’s recommended significance thresholds that would be considered to result or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, including increases in emissions for which the region is designated nonattainment. Fugitive dust emissions from construction of the Project would cause increases in ambient air particulate matter concentrations at receptors near the Project area. Construction dust is composed primarily of large particles that settle out of the atmosphere with increasing distance from the source. In general, construction dust would result in more of a nuisance than a health hazard. About one-third of the dust generated by construction activities consists of smaller size particles (PM10) in the range that can be inhaled by humans (EPA, 2015). Persons with respiratory diseases who may be immediately downwind of the construction activities could be sensitive to this dust. The short-term PM10 air quality impacts from fugitive dust during construction would be significant unless mitigation measures prescribed by BAAQMD are implemented. Therefore, the short-term PM10 air quality impacts from fugitive dust during construction would be significant unless mitigation measures prescribed by BAAQMD are implemented.
Although exhaust emissions from construction vehicles are much lower than fugitive dust emissions, some of them, such as NOx and VOCs, contribute to the formation of ozone, a nonattainment pollutant, and fine particulate matter from exhaust emissions would contribute to ambient air PM10 levels. Thus, short-term ozone impacts would be significant, and PM-10 impacts would be significant at locations near the construction site unless mitigation measures are adopted to reduce exhaust emissions.
Mitigation Measure: (Mitigation Measures are summarized in Appendix A : Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program)
AQ-1: Consistent with the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures required by the BAAQMD, the following actions shall be incorporated into construction contracts and specifications for the project:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day with reclaimed water, if available.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off‐site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt tracked‐out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
18 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
• Structural pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized, specifically near the Point Molate Beach Park, either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at Contra Costa County regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. c) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Short-term increases in emissions would occur during construction. Since the Project is a bike and pedestrian trail there would be no long-term increases in emissions. Construction generated emissions would be temporary and last only as long as the actual construction of the Project, but also have the potential to cause a significant air quality impact. The construction of the proposed Project could result in the temporary generation of emissions associated with site grading and excavation, paving, vehicle exhaust associated from construction equipment, including movement of construction equipment on unpaved surfaces. Temporary short-term construction emissions would result in increased emissions of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides (No2) and emissions of PM1O, CO, S02 and Nox. Emissions of ozone-precursors would result from the operation of on-road and off-road motorized vehicles and equipment. Emissions of airborne PM are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities and can result in increased concentrations of PM that can adversely affect nearby sensitive land uses.
The U.S. EPA designates Contra Costa County as an 8-hour ozone nonattainment area, where Contra Costa County is mapped as “marginal”. Given the proposed Project would be required to comply with the BAAQMD dust control requirements including the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, Project generated emissions would not exceed applicable BAAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 construction generated emissions would be considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measure:
Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1. d) Less-than-Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors are children or the elderly and occur in areas where outdoor activities are the primary land use, such as residences, schools,
19 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
parks, hospitals, or other land uses where children or the elderly congregate. Potential short-term exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations from temporary construction activities would be considered less than significant. Operation of the bike trail will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. e) Less-than-Significant Impact. Temporary construction activities associated with the proposed Project would involve the use of a variety of gasoline or diesel-powered equipment and pavement coatings emitting temporary exhaust fumes and odors. However, construction-related emissions would occur intermittently throughout the workday and would dissipate rapidly with increasing distance from the source. As a result, short-term construction activities would not expose a substantial number of people to frequent objectionable odors. Potential short-term exposure of sensitive receptors to objectionable odors would be considered less than significant.
Findings: It was determined that potential impacts could occur as a result of temporary construction activities violating air quality standards or contribute cumulatively to a net increase of criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under the BAAQMD standards. However, it has been determined that the proposed Project would result in less- than-significant impacts to Air Quality with the incorporation of the above mentioned Mitigation Measures AQ-1.
20 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the Project:
Environmental Issue
Impact Impact
Less Than Than Less Than Less
Mitigation Mitigation
No Impact No
Significant Significant Significant
Potentially Potentially
Incorporated Significant with with Significant
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 X Department of Fish & Wildlife or U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the X California Department of Fish & Wildlife or U.S. Fish & 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, X 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, X 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 X ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat X conservation plan?
Discussion: A preliminary biological resources assessment was completed for this Project to identify the habitats which occur on site and which species have the potential to utilize these habitats in order to identify avoidance or mitigation measures necessary to minimize potential impacts associated with construction and operation of the trail. See Appendix B for site photos and Appendix C for the biological resources assessment. A site visit was conducted to identify rare plants and sensitive natural communities and is summarized below.
The general approach to the design of the trail is to locate the footprint within the existing railroad alignment to minimize grading, using land that has already been developed to the extent practicable. The current design also allows for minimizing grading by using existing
21 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration paved surfaces and old railroad ballasts for trail support. This would not only reduce grading costs but reduce construction exposure and more expensive handling and off-haul of potentially contaminated soils. Utilizing a previously impacted footprint for the trail would reduce the impact to sensitive resources and avoid most sensitive habitats.
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), soils found in the immediate vicinity of the Project site are Millsholm loam, 20% to 60% slopes, Quarry, and Urban land. These soil units are not known to contain serpentine. Topography in the vicinity of the site ranges from rolling to steep. Elevations of the Project site range from approximately 0 feet to 150 feet (0 meters to 45 meters) above mean sea level (MSL). The proposed trail would occur on an elevated bluff which parallels the coastline, with the lowest elevation of the trail estimated at approximately 14 feet above MSL.
The lands surrounding the site are influenced by immediate proximity to the coast. Fourteen general habitat types were identified within or adjacent to the Project study area. These habitat types are based on their potential to support Special Status Species flora and fauna. The habitat types are palustrine scrub-shrub, seasonal and seasonal seep wetlands, northern coastal bluff scrub, ruderal/developed, eucalyptus forest, landscaped, native grassland, estuarine wetland, rocky shoreline, mud flat, high salt marsh, sandy shoreline and open water (Sawyer and Keeler- Wolf, 1995). Habitats in the proposed alignment include ruderal/developed areas and urban landscapes through much of the alignment. Wetlands occur within the alignment in a few locations (Appendix C, Figures 3A-3E). Other habitats in the region include wetlands, ponds, riparian areas, and streams. These habitat types provide habitat for a number of resident and migratory birds and makes the general area particularly rich in avian fauna. Pelagic birds, shorebirds, waterfowl, passerines, raptors and others can be found in the vicinity from time to time. These and other birds may nest, forage, or winter in habitats on or adjacent to the site. The shoreline, wetland, and upland habitats in the vicinity also provide foraging and cover for several mammal species. A eucalyptus grove at the north end of the alignment may provide potential roosting habitat for monarch butterflies.
Flora. Special status plant species have the potential to occur within the Project vicinity. A site visit was conducted on May 13, 2016 to map rare plants and sensitive natural communities within or near the proposed alignment. The locally rare plants identified during the visit were bluff lettuce (Dudleya farinosa) (feature 2 in Figure 3) and coast buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium) (features 1 and 6 in Figure 3). The sensitive natural communities observed during the visit were northern coastal bluff scrub [ranked G2 S2 by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)], and coastal terrace prairie, a very threatened natural community ranked G2 S2.1 by CDFW. While none of these species or communities were observed within the proposed work area, they would still require consideration during the construction phases of this Project to ensure that they are not impacted. These areas should be identified in a restoration plan developed for the Project to ensure these areas are avoided during construction.
Two locally rare plant species were identified within the proposed trail alignment, the many flowered brodiaea (Dichelostemma multiflorum) (EBCNPS rank A1) located just east of the “postage stamp prairie” (feature 7 in Figure 3) and willow dock (Rumex crassus) (EBCNPS rank A2) located near the railroad track in a disturbed section adjacent to the beach park parking lot. Within the same area as the many flowered brodiaea, several clumps of native perennial bunch grass also occur (feature 8 in Figure 3), although not in sufficient quantities to constitute a viable coastal terrace plant community. The rest of the trail alignment with the exception of wetland areas is heavily degraded and has little to no native habitat value.
CDFW describes the state natural community rankings (S1-S5) as being based on restricted “high quality” examples of the community. Alliances ranked S1-S3 are considered rare by CDFW
22 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and the California Native Plant Society and require consideration under CEQA. Native coastal terrace prairie grassland, ranked S2.1, occurs near the proposed trail alignment in stands of exceptionally high quality, but the alignment itself contains only isolated examples of the requisite species. Due to its degraded nature resulting from past disturbance, the grassland within the disturbed cut channel that is east of the “postage stamp prairie” (feature 8 in Figure 3) does not constitute a sensitive natural community. However, care should be taken to ensure that trail construction activities do not impact the high quality native grassland to the west and east of the trail alignment outside of the previously disturbed area where the trail is proposed.
A high-quality stand of coastal terrace prairie grassland dominated by purple needle grass (Stipa pulchra) occurs on the north-east side of the proposed trail alignment (Feature 10 in Figure 3). This area is of note due to erosion of the bay-side of the existing paved roadway. If bank stabilization activities would occur to prevent further erosion at this location, care should be taken to ensure that the native grassland is specifically identified or fenced off to ensure that equipment movement and materials staging do not occur on the native grassland community.
Native bunch grasses identified within the trail alignment can be transplanted into existing native grassland communities, especially in areas where weeds are being removed. This ensures the genetic diversity of the perennial grass species on site remains high and would result in an improvement in the native species density within the remnant native prairie ecosystems. The locally rare many flowered brodiaea and willow dock, which were identified within the proposed trail alignment, also have potential for transplantation.
During the site visit, several invasive species ranked as high-risk species by the California Invasive Plant Council were noted throughout the proposed trail alignment. Invasive plant species, as defined for the purposes of this document is a noxious or nonnative plant species that has the potential to displace native plants, increase wildfire and flood danger, consume valuable water, or degrade recreational opportunities. Fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) (features 11, 12, 16, 17 in Figure 3), pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana) (Features 13, 14 in Figure 3), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) (Feature 15 in Figure 3), French broom (Genista monspessulana) (Features 16, 17 in Figure 3), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), and a variety of non-native annual grasses were observed within the proposed trail alignment. Care would need to be taken during construction to ensure that these species are not spread into the sensitive natural communities along the trail as a result of ground disturbance and vehicle movement.
Suisun marsh aster (Symphyotrichum lentum) is identified on the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) as occurring in the Project area in the past but this species was not observed during the site walk and the potential for this special-status plant species to occur within the proposed work area appears low.
Fauna. Several of the special status or sensitive animal species that occur, or once occurred, regionally, have the potential to occur at the site. These include nesting birds, foraging birds, and the monarch butterfly. Two osprey nests are known to occur on the site. These and other species may either occur on the site incidental to home range and migratory movements, thus using the site infrequently, or may forage on the site year-round or during migration.
A portion of the trail exists within the City of Richmond. Local policies implemented by the City of Richmond that are relevant to Biological Resources include the policies described in Element 7 of the Richmond General Plan and the City’s tree ordinance (Richmond Municipal Code 10.08). East Bay Regional Park District’s Mater Plan addresses resource management and establishes policies to monitor and maintain the health of resources near park facilities (EBRPD Master Plan,
23 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
2013, Chapter 2). The District should obtain a tree permit for the proposed Project, consistent with the City’s ordinance. a) Less than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Project has the potential to cause direct impacts to biological resources during construction and indirect impacts to biological resources during trail operation. The proposed Project would include the construction of a new paved trail located in the footprint of the existing railroad alignment to minimize grading by using developed land. This would require some amount of grading, vegetation removal, soils disturbance, and paving. Wildlife species may be disturbed during these activities and their habitats may be impacted unless they are avoided or mitigated.
During Project operation, the public would use the trail on foot and bicycle. These activities would create additional noise and other disturbance that has the potential to impact sensitive wildlife species that may be located in close proximity to the trail. In particular, birds may be nesting in willow shrubs or on the ground immediately adjacent to the trail. Uncontrolled litter, feral cats, and dogs also have the potential to impact wildlife.
Flora. Special status or locally rare plants that occur within the proposed alignment would be removed. Invasive species on site could be spread to high-quality habitat areas unless avoided or mitigated. Mitigation opportunities exist that can reduce impacts to less than significant. The first is enhancement of habitat through the transplantation (when possible) of native bunch grasses that occur within the proposed trail alignment and would be removed due to construction. Second, weeds can be managed to prevent invasion of high quality habitats at the site. Exceptionally high-quality coastal terrace prairie, known as the “postage stamp prairie,” was being invaded by French broom (Genista monspessulana) as well as naturally occurring coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum) which are expanding into the prairie as part of a natural succession process in the absence of fire or grazing pressures. Mitigation for impacts to native grasses will be carried out by managing these invading woody plants to ensure the continued viability of the high-quality coastal terrace prairie communities near the project area. Any sensitive coastal terrace prairie species with potential to be impacted by trail construction may be transplanted, where possible, into outskirts of this prairie area (located on the nob just south of the sandy shoreline that begins at the Beach Park) so as not to interfere with the health and resiliency of the core prairie ecosystem. Third, locally rare plants can be replanted or restored to a habitat of equal or greater value on site. Finally, a protocol-level study may be required by agencies prior to construction to determine the presence or absence of additional special status plant species (e.g., Suisun marsh aster), which have been known to occur in the area in the past but were not identified during site visits conducted on October 26, 2015 and May 13, 2016.
Fauna. Trees, shrubs, and other habitats in the Project vicinity may provide suitable nesting habitat for migratory birds, including raptors. If a migratory bird, regardless of its federal or state status, were to nest near the site prior to or during proposed construction activities, such activities could result in abandonment of active nests or direct mortality to these birds. Construction activities that adversely affect the nesting success of special-status or non- special-status migratory birds, including tree-nesting raptors, or result in mortality of individual birds, constitute a violation of state and federal laws. In addition to birds that nest in trees and shrubs, ground nesting avian species also occur in the vicinity of the Project. Two protected species, the California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) and the Ridgway’s rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) may occur but are unlikely to be on the site due to the lack of suitable habitat. These nesting birds may be adversely affected by the noise and dust of construction activities.
24 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Construction would avoid removing most trees and shrubs while protecting special status species habitat. Project buildout would entail minimal loss of foraging, nesting, and/or roosting habitat that is abundantly available regionally. Appropriate best management practices would be employed in order to protect these resources. Therefore, the loss of habitat for these species would be considered less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures:
BIO–1 Prior to construction, EBRPD or a qualified botanist shall pin flag or mark locations of special-status plant species along the alignment. The Project shall avoid impacts to special-status plant species where possible, however, where impacts cannot be avoided, plants shall be translocated or replanted in the project vicinity or nearest suitable habitat. Prior to the initiation of construction, a qualified botanist shall conduct a focused survey for marsh gumplant and Suisun marsh aster within the construction footprint during the appropriate blooming period (April through November). The survey will be conducted in accordance with the CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG 2009).
BIO–2 If any construction activities (e.g., grubbing, grading, removal of one tree) are scheduled during the bird nesting season (typically defined by CDFW as February 1 to September 1), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for nesting birds no more than 14 5 days prior to the start of work, or as otherwise specified by permit conditions. If the project is suspended and delayed for 10 or more days another nesting survey shall be conducted 2 days prior to resuming work. If the survey indicates the presence of nesting birds, a qualified biologist shall delineate a buffer zone where no construction will occur until the biologist has determined that all young have successfully fledged, or until otherwise approved by CDFW. The size of the buffer(s) shall be determined by the project biologist in consultation with CDFW and be based on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance.
BIO-3 Prior to ground-disturbing activities, a biologist shall conduct visual pre- construction surveys for California Ridgway’s (formerly Clapper) rail, and California black rail within suitable habitat and surrounding areas. Suitable habitat on site is limited to marsh and mud flat areas near Castro Point. If the rails or other sensitive species are observed on or near the site, the biologist will establish buffers around which no disturbance can occur until the biologist determines a work can proceed within the area or the species do not occur within the area.
BIO–4 Measures shall be taken to avoid impacts to monarch butterflies if present on site. If eucalyptus trees at the northern end of the trail are proposed for removal, a biologist shall conduct a survey for monarch butterflies during the winter roosting season when monarch butterfly roosting colonies would be expected to occur (typically October to February). If present, an avoidance plan will be developed by a biologist for implementation during construction. If monarch butterflies are present, grading, excavation, and eucalyptus tree removal shall be restricted from August 1 through March 31. b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Riparian and other sensitive habitats exist within the trail and in the immediate vicinity. These include native grasslands, high salt marsh, wetlands, and northern coastal bluff scrub and the flora that are found in these communities. To the extent practicable, direct impacts to these sensitive habitats would be minimized and avoided. The primary strategy for achieving this is to place the trail footprint
25 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
and construction staging areas in previously impacted areas, largely paved roads or abandoned rail beds.
During trail operation, members of the public would be discouraged from leaving the trail with signage that indicates the sensitivity of the habitats and wildlife found in the vicinity. This would discourage the development of “social trails”. Fencing would be constructed on Chevron's property, further deterring trail users from leaving the footprint of the trail.
Because of the potential to impact wildlife and water quality, dogs on the trail would be required to be on leashes and their owners to clean up after them. Additional public facilities such as parking, picnic areas, and litter barrels are available at the Point Molate Beach Park which is located along the trail route. The park has beach access and additional areas for walking dogs and other traditional recreational activities. Concentrating the human impacts in the park would reduce the potential for disturbance to wildlife in more sensitive habitats along the trail, including nesting birds and overwintering shorebirds.
Mitigation Measures:
BIO–5 After construction is complete, EBRPD or the construction contractor shall replant native trees and native shrubs in the immediate vicinity of the Project at a 3:1 mitigation ratio, or a replacement ratio as determined by regulatory agencies and specified in environmental permits obtained through the Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) if it results in a greater number of replacement trees.
BIO–6 During construction, the contractor shall avoid and minimize the spread of invasive or noxious weed species. Equipment shall be cleaned and free of weeds, and seeds prior to being used on site. The EBPRD or a qualified contractor will write a site- specific Invasive Plant Plan to specify how the plan shall be implemented to avoid and minimize the introduction and spread of invasive plant species and seeds. c) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Project proposes trail construction within a railroad corridor that contains wetlands. One seep wetland approximately 0.06 acres in size would be impacted by filling a portion of the wetland to construct the trail, while the upland wetland would be protected in place. Remaining sections of the trail that intersect wetlands would be constructed on a boardwalk. Fill within wetlands would be minimized to the amount required to construct the trail over the 0.06 acre wetland, and to install the footings for a boardwalk over three seep wetlands and a palustrine scrub shrub wetland. No additional loss of Waters of the United States (WOUS) is anticipated. There may be opportunities for onsite mitigation, which will be assessed during the permitting process with USACE (pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) and RWQCB (pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act). A potential opportunity for onsite mitigation could include expanding the existing seep wetlands in Segment A, and/or the palustrine scrub- shrub wetland in Segment A and B.
26 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measures:
BIO–7 To reduce potential short‐term impacts to the upland wetland, the contractor shall implement the following avoidance measures and BMPs: • Install temporary silt fencing beyond the outer edge of the wetland boundary to prevent entry of fill into the wetland during construction. Temporary silt fencing will also reduce the likelihood of wildlife from entering the work area. • Place temporary Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) fencing where needed to prevent construction equipment and workers from entering the upland wetland. d) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Fencing would be placed within Segment A of the alignment, which may interfere with the movement of small or large animals unless avoided or mitigated. The three existing gates at the beginning of Segment A would be replaced by a single 6-foot electric gate, which would be open all day and would not differ from the existing condition in terms of wildlife movement. Tree and shrub removal may impact migratory birds and species that nest or forage in the area. The Project would not place structures in a stream, channel, or water that would impede or interfere with migratory fish. Mitigation measures can be implemented to design and construct fencing which will minimize impacts to the movement of animals.
Mitigation Measures:
BIO–8 Fencing and other structures shall be designed and constructed in a manner that shall not impede wildlife movement.
Implementation of BIO-2 e) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Project would require removal or pruning of trees and shrubs. Approximately 20 trees would be removed and approximately 10 trees would be pruned throughout the wetland areas, Point Molate Beach Park, and at the northern end of Segment B. Approximately half of these trees are eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus spp.), the remaining tree species include Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa), Populus sp, Plantanus sp, and Pittosporum sp. The diameter at breast height (DBH) of trees proposed for removal ranges from 6 to 24 inches and the DBH for trees to be pruned ranges from 6 to 36 inches. The Project would be consistent with local policies and ordinances by obtaining a tree permit and providing protection for trees and shrubs in construction areas.
Mitigation Measures:
BIO–9 The EBRPD or its construction contractor shall obtain a tree removal permit from the City of Richmond superintendent, or equivalent, for removal or pruning of trees at least three days prior to when work shall occur. Proposed tree removal shall be completed within 30 days of obtaining the permit.
BIO–10 The construction contractor shall be responsible for providing, installing, and maintaining tree and shrub protection in active work areas for the duration of construction. f) No Impact. There are no known Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan that are relevant to the Project site.
27 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Findings: The Project requires construction in the vicinity of sensitive habitats, including wetlands. Several special status species have the potential to use these habitats, and the potential exists to adversely affect these species and their habitats. However, the Project shall be designed to avoid sensitive species with timing and pre-construction surveys, implement BMPs for avoiding impacts to trees and vegetation, and to restore areas where vegetation is unavoidably impacted. These mitigation measures shall allow this Project to be constructed and utilized, while avoiding significant impacts to the natural resources of the site.
28 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Figure 3. Special Status Plant Species Survey
29 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the Project:
Environmental Issue Than
Impact Impact
Less Less Than Less
Mitigation Mitigation
No Impact No
Significant Significant Significant
Potentially Potentially
Incorporated Significant with with Significant
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in X Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource X pursuant to Section 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic X feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including these X interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Discussion: Cultural Resources Studies were conducted for the Project and are included in Appendix D of this document. The studies include a summary of previous work, an archival records search, tribal consultation, a pedestrian survey of the Project area, and an evaluation of cultural resources within or adjacent to the Area of Potential Effect (APE) in accordance with relevant state and federal regulations.
National Historic Preservation Act: The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was enacted by Congress in 1966 to establish national policy for historic preservation in the United States. The NHPA establishes the role and responsibilities of the federal government in historic preservation. The NHPA directs agencies to identify and manage historic properties under their control; to undertake actions that will advance the Act’s provisions, and avoid actions contrary to its purposes; to consult with others while carrying out historic preservation activities; and to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties.
California Register of Historical Resources: The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is a guide to cultural resources that must be considered when a government agency undertakes a discretionary action subject to CEQA. The California Register helps government agencies identify and evaluate California’s historical resources (California Office of Historic Preservation 2001b:1), and indicates which properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change (PRC §5024.1(a)). Any resource listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register is to be taken into consideration during the CEQA process.
Public Resources Code §5097.5: California Public Resources Code §5097.5 prohibits excavation or removal of any “vertebrate paleontological site […] or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands”. Public lands are defined to include lands
30 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
owned by or under the jurisdiction of the state or any city, county, district, authority or public corporation, or any agency thereof. Section 5097.5 states that any unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historical, or paleontological materials or sites located on public lands is a misdemeanor.
Three historical resources occur in the Project Area, as defined by Section 15064.5 of CEQA Guidelines; the Chinese Shrimp Camp (Primary Site # P-07-000277), the Winehaven National Historic District (P-07-000454) and the Richmond-San Rafael Ferry Terminal. One archaeological site as defined by Section 21083.2 of the CEQA Guidelines was identified through the records search but does not occur inside the Project area where ground disturbance will occur (P-07-000441). No other archaeological sites are known to occur within the Project area.
The Chinese shrimp camp, occupied by Chinese-Americans from the mid to late 1860s to approximately 1912, has been recommended eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)/CRHR. The site is buried under modern fill ranging from 6.5 feet at the north end of the site to two feet at the south end. Construction of the proposed trail calls for a maximum vertical disturbance of two feet. Where it crosses site P-07-000277, the trail alignment would be located atop a portion of site P-07-004593, the Richmond Belt Line Railroad grade (recommended not eligible). Ballast from the Belt Line extends to a depth of two feet in the site area. It is recommended that if ground disturbance associated with construction of the trail is limited to the depth of the Belt Line ballast or non-cultural fill, the Project would not impact buried cultural deposits associated with the Chinese shrimp camp.
The Winehaven National Historic District is included on the NRHP and the Richmond Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Historic Properties Directory. The proposed trail alignment skirts the western periphery of the site boundary. The Winehaven property is fenced and the proposed trail alignment would be located outside the fenced area. As such, there are no identified direct effects to the historic property.
The Richmond-San Rafael Ferry Terminal historically consisted of numerous buildings and structures that operated the former Richmond Terminal of the Richmond-San Rafael Ferry. This terminal was constructed on the east shore of the San Francisco Bay to facilitate travel across the bay from Richmond to San Rafael. The property once featured a full complement of related buildings and structures, including a toll booth, ticket office, several outbuildings, parking area, apron, and three docks on timber-piled piers. Today, one building and a collapsed causeway are all that remain. The ferry was established by the Richmond-San Rafael Ferry Company, a defunct company that provided water transport between 1914 and 1956. While this property may have significance at the local level for its association in the area of Transportation for its role in the development of Richmond and the Bay Area of California, it is unable to convey its historic function and use as a transportation property due to the loss of the original full complement of buildings and structures that operated as a ferry terminal. Therefore, the site is recommended not eligible for inclusion to the NRHP/CRHR.
Previous research indicates an absence of unique paleontological and geologic features in the Point Molate area (AES 2009, Section 3.6.4). Construction of the Project would call for excavation within previously impacted areas including the Richmond Belt Railway alignment, dirt/gravel access roads, Burma Road, and areas with non-cultural fill that do not extend into bedrock where these resources would be anticipated to occur.
31 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration a & b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. If trail construction would exceed the depth of the Belt Line ballast or non-cultural fill (up to 2 feet), then there is potential to impact historical or archaeological resources associated with Site P-07-000277. Therefore, it is recommended that an archaeological monitor be present during subsurface activities through Site P-07-000277.
Construction of a paved trail adjacent to Winehaven would result in the introduction of a new visual element and would increase pedestrian traffic in the area. This may result in some level of indirect effect to the Winehaven district. Any such potential for indirect effect is considered less than significant given the limited scale of the proposed trail, and the pedestrian nature of its proposed use. Reintroduction of pedestrian activities into the area surrounding Winehaven could be considered consistent with the district’s history. Also, Winehaven’s currently listed significance relates to the interior relationship of buildings. Given that the proposed trail would be located outside this cluster of buildings and would not introduce vertical structures within the district, the potential for indirect effects is greatly reduced. Therefore, it is recommended that construction and operation of the trail alignment would have no adverse effect on the Winehaven historic district.
It is possible that incidental discovery of archaeological resources that were not previously recorded or otherwise identified may occur during Project construction. Implementation of the mitigation measures below would minimize impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
CUL-1 The contractor shall be required to limit the depth of grading and subsurface activities within P-07-000277 to the depth of the Belt Line ballast (approximately 2 feet). If it is determined that the depth of subsurface activities would exceed the depth of the Belt Line ballast through P-07-000277, then a qualified archaeologist should be retained to monitor Project ground‐disturbing activities through Site P-07-000277. Archaeological monitors should be empowered to halt construction activities at the location of a discovery to review possible archaeological material and to protect the resource while the finds are being evaluated. Monitoring should continue until, in the archaeologist’s judgment, cultural resources are not likely to be encountered. If deposits of prehistoric or historical archaeological materials are encountered during project monitoring, all work within 25 feet of the discovery should be redirected until the archaeologist assesses the finds, consults with agencies as appropriate, and makes recommendations for the treatment of the discovery. If avoidance of the archaeological deposit is not feasible, the archaeological deposits should be evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. If the deposits are eligible, impacts to the deposits should be mitigated. Mitigation may include excavation of the archaeological deposit in accordance with a data recovery plan (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials; preparation of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; and accessioning of archaeological materials and a technical data recovery report at a curation facility. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist should prepare a report to document the methods and results of the assessment. The report should be submitted to the EBRPD, the City of Richmond, and the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University upon completion of the resource assessment. c) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. While not anticipated for this Project, it is possible that incidental discovery of paleontological resources may occur during
32 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
construction. Implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1 will minimize impacts below the level of significance.
Mitigation Measure:
Implementation of CUL-1 d) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. An archival records search and previous work completed identified a site within the Project area that contains human remains (Site P-07-000162) (AES, 2009, Appendix Y). While the site does not retain enough integrity to elevate its potential significance for inclusion as an eligible resource to the NRHP/CRHR, subsurface activities in this area shall be limited to avoid disturbance of human remains. In case of inadvertent discovery of human remains outside of Site P-07-000162, mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
CUL–2 Subsurface disturbance related to the construction of the trail shall be limited to the depth of asphalt and fill associated with Burma Road. If it is determined that the depth of trail construction will exceed the depth of asphalt and fill of Burma Road (2 feet), then it is recommended that an archaeological and/or Native American monitor be present during subsurface activities through Site P-07-000162.
CUL-3 Any human remains encountered during project ground disturbing activities should be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. The District and the County of Contra Costa should verify that the following directive has been included in the appropriate contract documents: “If human remains are uncovered, work within 25 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the County Coroner notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist shall be contacted—if one is not already on site—to assess the situation and consult with agencies as appropriate. Project personnel shall not collect or move any human remains or associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.”
Findings: The Project is located in an area with known historical resources; however, mitigation measures shall be implemented to avoid the disturbance of subsurface cultural materials and no adverse impacts are anticipated. Subsurface excavation is not expected to exceed the depth of non-cultural fill and impacts to these resources can be avoided by limiting excavation depth in areas of known historical resources or sites known to include human remains, and if necessary an archaeological monitor shall be provided (CUL-1). In the case of inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources, paleontological resources, or human remains, mitigation measures CUL-2 and CUL-3 would be implemented to reduce impacts to less than significant.
33 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
VI. GEOLOGY & SOILS – Would the Project:
Environmental Issue
Impact Impact
Less Than Than Less Than Less
Mitigation Mitigation
No Impact No
Significant Significant Significant
Potentially Potentially
Incorporated Significant with with Significant
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, X 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 X evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii.) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii.) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
iv.) Landslides? X b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X 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- X 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), X 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 X the disposal of waste water?
Discussion: The Project site is located within the greater San Francisco Bay Area which is recognized as one of the more seismically active regions of California. The seismic activity of the greater Bay Area results from the complex movements along the transform boundary between the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate.
The Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province is comprised of a complex sequence of Mesozoic and Cenozoic age volcanic and sedimentary bedrock materials. The bedrock materials in the greater Richmond area have been folded and faulted as a result of regional tectonic forces. As a
34 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration consequence, geologic relationships are often complex, and individual bedrock units are locally tightly folded, faulted, sheared, and overturned (Appendix E).
Soils in the Project vicinity consist of Millsholm loam and Urban Land (NRCS, 2010). The Millsholm Loam soils have a Liquid Limit ranging from 30 to 40 percent and a Plasticity Index between 15 and 16 percent within the upper 60 inches. These types of soils are generally considered to have a moderate to low expansion potential.
Aggregate base, ballast, and fine grain soils were encountered during geotechnical borings conducted along the proposed trail alignment. Railroad ballast is present within portions of the trail along Segment A and B. Based on what is visible at the surface, rail lines coincide with the northern extent of Segment B for approximately 1000 feet near the end of the bike trail. a) Less-than-Significant Impact a)(i) Earthquake Fault. The Division of Mines and Geology has not completed an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map in the San Quentin Quadrangle where the Project is located. While there are no active faults located within the Project area, three faults occur within the vicinity, the San Andreas, San Gregorio, and Rogers Creek fault (Appendix E). There are no known faults directly within the Project area and therefore impacts are less than significant and no mitigation is necessary. a(ii) Seismic Shaking. Several faults exist within the San Francisco Bay region and the probability of seismic shaking exists throughout the region. The boardwalk will be designed and constructed according to appropriate code requirements for boardwalk systems constructed in areas with seismic activity. The Project would consist of a bike trail and no buildings are proposed as part of the Project. Thus the Project would not expose users of the trail to substantial adverse effects related to seismic shaking. a(iii-iv) Risk of Ground Failure and Landslides. The USGS Susceptibility Map of the San Francisco Bay Area shows a very low to very high susceptibility for liquefaction in the Project area. Geologic cut slopes near the proposed trail alignment were assessed and no evidence was found of deep-seated slope instability or landslides at the site (Appendix E). Based on site specific information gathered along the trail alignment, and that the trail is proposed through a former railroad alignment, impacts related to seismic induced ground failure or landslides is less than significant. b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. During construction, portions of the site would have exposed soil areas that if exposed to rain or high wind events could cause erosion. Land disturbing activities greater than one acre must develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) in order to comply with the Construction General Stormwater Permit (CGP) (2012-0006-DWQ). The SWPPP requires installation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control BMPs at the Project site to prevent or minimize erosion. The BMPs may include silt fencing, construction limit fencing, and stabilized construction access areas. Linear sediment controls such as fiber rolls must be installed along the toe of the slope, face of the slope, and at exposed grade breaks to comply with sheet flow lengths specified in Table 1, Attachment D of the CGP (Order No. 2012-006- DWQ). The Project site would be required to meet stabilization criteria specified in Section II.D.3 of the CGP. As a result, bare areas or topsoil exposed due to the Project would be stabilized prior to Project close out. Implementation of the SWPPP and complying with the
35 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
CGP would minimize soil erosion or the loss of topsoil to a less-than-significant level. Addition of rip rap along four sections of shoreline (totaling 450 linear feet) within the footprint of the existing armored slope in Segment A would also dissipate wave energy and reduce shoreline erosion for modeled sea level rise through 2050.
Mitigation Measures:
GEO-1 EBRPD or a qualified contractor shall be required to develop a SWPPP and obtain coverage under the CGP. To obtain coverage, EBRPD shall be required to submit and certify the SWPPP and Permit Registration Documents (PRDs) in the Stormwater Multiple Application Tracking and Reporting System (SMARTS) at least 14 days prior to any ground disturbance.
GEO-2 The contractor shall be required to implement the SWPPP throughout construction of the Project until stabilization criteria have been met and a Notice of Termination (NOT) of coverage under the CGP has been filed in SMARTS. c & d) Less–than-Significant Impact. The Project is not located within an unstable geologic unit. Millsholm loams at the Project site have low expansion potential. Geotechnical borings collected at the Project site identified ballast, aggregate base, and other coarse materials associated with the prior railroad bed. Construction of a trail over these conditions would not cause the soils to become unstable as a result of the Project. Since the Project does not exist within an unstable geologic unit, create unstable conditions, and is not located on expansive soil, there is a less-than significant impact to geologic resources and life and property at the site. e) No Impact. The Project does not include the use of septic systems.
Findings: The Project would not expose structures or people to adverse effects related to rupture of known earthquake faults, strong seismic shaking, liquefaction, or landslides. Potential for soil erosion and loss of topsoil erosion exists during construction and would be mitigated by complying with the CGP and implementing a SWPPP (GEO-1 and GEO-2). The Project is not located on an unstable geologic unit, or on expansive soils, and would not require use of septic systems. Impacts to Geology and Soils are less than significant with mitigation incorporated to address potential soil erosion or the loss of soil.
36 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
VII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the Project:
Environmental Issue ificant
Impact Impact
Less Than Than Less Than Less
Mitigation Mitigation
No Impact No
Significant Significant Sign
Potentially Potentially
Incorporated Significant with with Significant
Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section X 5020.1(k), or b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code X Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Discussion: California Native Tribes have traditionally been culturally affiliated with the San Francisco Bay Area. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) conducted a review of their Sacred Lands files on February 02, 2016. The NAHC provided a list of Native American individuals and organizations that may have knowledge of cultural resources in the proposed Project area. Letters with maps identifying the scope of the proposed Project area were sent by NCE on February 02, 2016 to: Irenne Zwierlein, Chairperson for the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Tony Cerda, Chairperson for the Coastanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe, Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson of the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, Rosemary Cambra, Chairperson of the Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area, and Andrew Galvan, representing the Ohlone Indian Tribe. Receipt confirmation of the letters was received from every individual except Mr. Cerda whereby a follow-up email was sent February 18, 2016. As of the date of publication of this report, no response has been received from Mr. Cerda.
Significant impacts with regard to a Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR) are those that diminish the integrity, research potential, or other characteristics that make a TCR significant or important. To be considered a TCR, a resource must be either: (1) listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, on the national, state, or local register of historic resources, or: (2) a resource that the lead agency chooses, in its discretion, to treat as a TCR and meets the criteria for listing in the state register of historic resources pursuant to the criteria set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c).
37 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
A substantial adverse change to a TCR would occur if the implementation of the Project would disrupt, alter, or adversely affect a TCR such that the significance of the resource would be materially impaired. a & b) Less-than-Significant Impact. Impacts could include the disturbance of TCR in the subsurface, or alteration of views or landscape features which are known to be a TCR in the Project area. As of the date of publication of this report, no TCRs have been identified in the Project area. A search of the sacred lands database did not identify any TCR within the Project area. No requests for formal consultation were received at the close of the 30 day consultation period. As of the date of publication of this report, no other tribal representatives inquired about the Project. Correspondence with Native American representatives and tribal organizations to date did not identify concerns about particular TCR(s) in the Project area.
Findings: Based on the feedback received as a result of tribal consultation and a search of the sacred lands database for the Project area, no impacts to TCRs are anticipated and no mitigation measures are proposed.
38 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project:
Environmental Issue
Impact Impact
Less Than Than Less Than Less
Mitigation Mitigation
No Impact No
Significant Significant Significant
Potentially Potentially
Incorporated Significant with with Significant
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the X environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of X greenhouse gases?
Discussion: Greenhouse gas emissions can be generated during both construction and operation of a project. Greenhouse gases (GHG) absorb infrared energy that would otherwise escape from the earth and as the infrared energy is absorbed, the air surrounding the earth is heated. Since the Industrial Revolution the amount of CO2 has dramatically increased to 100 times faster than the increase when the last ice age ended, according to the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA). Greenhouse gases are defined as any gas that absorbs infrared radiation within the atmosphere and include; carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), ozone, aerosols, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), water vapor, and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Sources of greenhouse gases, such as electricity production and tail-pipe emissions from the operation of motor vehicles, have elevated greenhouse gas concentrations within the atmosphere. Emissions of greenhouse gases in excess of natural ambient concentrations are thought to be responsible for the enhancement of the greenhouse effect and contribute to what is termed “global warming,” a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s natural climate. Unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern, greenhouse gases are global pollutants and climate change is a global issue.
The BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for air quality regulation in the nine county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. As part of that role, the BAAQMD has prepared CEQA Air Quality Guidelines that provide CEQA thresholds of significance for operational GHG emissions from land use projects. The BAAQMD has not defined thresholds for construction GHG emissions. The BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines methodology and thresholds of significance have been used in this analysis to determine the potential GHG impacts associated with Project implementation.
A substantial adverse effect on Greenhouse Gas Emissions would occur if the implementation of the Project would:
For Non-stationary Sources:
• be incompatible with a qualified GHG reduction strategy; • create greater than 1,100 metric tons (MT) of CO2e/yr; Or • create greater than 4.6 MT CO2e/SP/yr (residents+employees)
39 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
For Stationary Sources
• exceed 10,000 MT of CO2e/yr a & b) Less–than-Significant Impact. Project construction would result in emission of GHG’s from on-site construction, equipment and off-site worker trips. With the exception of short- term increases of GHG’s as a result of construction and because the Project is a trail for non-motorized pedestrian use only, it has been determined that the Project would not contribute to long-term increases of GHG emissions. Excessive idling of trucks or equipment will not be allowed. Given the relatively low GHG emissions generated during construction of the proposed Project and that emissions would be short-term over an approximate 6 month construction timeframe, increases in GHG emissions would not result in a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions and, thus would have a less-than-significant impact.
Findings: The Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to greenhouse gas emissions because, with the exception of short-term increases of GHG’s as a result of construction, the Project is a coastal trail for non-motorized pedestrian use only. For this "Greenhouse Gas Emissions" category, there would be no significant adverse environmental effect as a result of the Project.
40 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
IX. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS – Would the Project:
Environmental Issue
Impact Impact
Less Than Than Less Than Less
Mitigation Mitigation
No Impact No
Significant Significant Significant
Potentially Potentially
Incorporated Significant with with Significant
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal X of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and X 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 X 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 X 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 X 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 X residing in the Project area? g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency X evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where X wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Discussion:
General Area History
In the early 1800’s, the area was used by the padres of Mission Delores and later became a Spanish Rancho. In the late 1860’s, Chinese fisherman developed a shrimp fishing camp, which lasted for more than 40 years, and by 1899 a quarry was in operation north of segments A and B of the Project and continued as late as 1915.
41 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
In 1908, the California Wine Association constructed a winery (i.e., Winehaven Winery) at Point Molate for processing grapes. A portion of Segment B is located adjacent to the Winehaven Winery building. At its peak, the winery became the largest winery in the United States. During that time, up to 400 workers lived at the winery during the peak seasons of operation. In 1919, the winery was shut down during prohibition, and, as a result, went mostly unused from about 1920 until the late 1930’s. In 1937, the California Wine Association dissolved and began selling off its holdings.
In the early 1940’s, the Navy established Point Molate Naval Fuel Depot (NFD) at Point Molate for fuel storage and distribution for the Pacific Fleet. Segment B is located within a portion of the former NFD. The NFD consists of includes 20 large concrete underground storage tanks (USTs; each with 2.1 million gallons capacity) that have been built into the hillside and covered by native soil and several smaller USTs connected to refueling piers by over nine miles of buried pipeline.
Several fuel types were stored in the USTs over the years including Navy Special Fuel Oil (NSFO), a black viscous bunker fuel, diesel fuel, F-76 (marine diesel), JP-5, (jet turbine fuel), and aviation and motor vehicle gasoline (RWQCB, 2011). Historical releases of fuel likely occurred during transfer of fuel to and from the USTs. The facility also operated a sanitary sewer system and a ballast water fuel reclamation/treatment system. The reclamation/treatment system included three former treatment ponds. The ponds were built on the site of a larger single pond that was used for the disposal of oily wastes from various facility activities adjacent to segment B.
In 1995, fuel storage and supply operations ceased and, in 1995, the Navy designated the NFD for closure under the fourth round of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Act. In September 1998, operational closure of the facility occurred. Significant cleanup efforts have occurred in the area with the RWQCB serving as lead agency in these efforts. However not all remediation has been completed to ensure no potential significant impacts as a result of the project. Further discussion is provided below.
Project Area
The Project traverses through a large portion of the former NFD and surrounding areas as shown on Figure 1. Due to past hHistorical uses activities at the NFD resulted in the presence of impacts to soil and groundwater that are regulated by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board under Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) No. R2-2009-0059 issued to the City of Richmond on October 1, 2009in. While significant site characterization investigations and soil and groundwater clean ups have been conducted at the NFD under this and other WDR (and other previous WDRs), there is a potential that there are areas of to encounter previously unidentified impacted soil and groundwater not previously identified. In addition, there are stipulations outlined in the WDRs that requrequirenew projects that include changes in land use and/or soil excavation may create potential environmental concerns (PEC’s) for exposing users to elevated levels of constituents not previously considered or remediated. Therefore, the proposed project that includes bringing users of the bike trail to the NFD and which is considered a change in land use, and will also result in soil excavation activities to construct the trail, requires compliance with the specific mitigation measures. In addition,preparation and implementation of a the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (SGWMP) that was prepared for that must be followed if ground-disturbing activities are planned and conducted that may
42 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration disturb soil or produce groundwater at the former NFD at Point Molate. , and approved by the RWQCB serving as the lead agency (Attachment F of the Phase II/Appendix H), must also be followed. The SGWMP was prepared by the City of Richmond and approved by the RWQCB, and also requires notification to the RWQCB prior to initiation of any construction work at the NFD as well as specific measures that must be implemented if previously unknown impacted soil and groundwater are encountered. In response to Task 2 of San Francisco Bay RWQCB Order #R2- 2011-0087, which statesThe requirements of the SGWMP outlined in the WDRs are as follows:
“The Discharger shall propose a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan for the Facility, acceptable to the Executive Officer, identifying how soils and affected groundwater will be managed for any phase of cleanup activities at the Facility, including initial cleanup as well as cleanups related to discoveries during any future development of the Facility. The plan must propose how soil and groundwater will be sampled and analyzed during all phases of remediation and development, and how test results will be used to protect Facility workers and future occupants and visitors from residual pollutants.
The plan shall describe the protocol to be followed for all sampling, field measurements, analytical techniques, and the sequence and methods of any proposed remediation. The plan shall be consistent with and incorporate all applicable mitigation measures set forth in the certified EIR [Environmental Impact Report]. The plan shall address equipment and the schedule of activities, proposed measures to limit fugitive emissions from site remediation and trucking activities, general soil removal and backfilling specifications, dewatering and discharge activities during the remedy process, and the proposed groundwater treatment activities to protect surrounding groundwater and surface water resources.”
NCE conducted Phase I and II Assessments (Appendix G and H) that identified specific potential environmental concerns (PECs) present within or nearby along the trail alignment.in order to identify avoidance and mitigation measures during construction and operation of the trail. The concerns identified included the presence of arsenic above health-based screening values and background concentrations that may pose an unacceptable risk be a concern to users of the bike trail, construction workers during construction, and future maintenance crews; the potential for users of the trail to be exposed to hazardous building materials (HBM) potentially present around and within the existing abandoned buildings near the trail and within the NFD, as wells as physical hazards associated with theis buildings; and potential contamination that may be present in the subsurface that hasmay not have been previously mitigated.
a) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The operation of the trail would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. However, construction of the trail will require the movement and handling of soil with arsenic concentrations above background levels. In addition, contaminated soils not previously identified could also be encountered. There are also existing abandoned structures located near the proposed trail alignment that may contain HBMs and pose a physical hazard to trail users. As required by Mitigation measure HAZ-1, fencing would be installed to keep users from accessing abandoned buildings, other structures, and areas known to contain contaminated soils. As a requirement of HAZ-2 the soils with elevated levels of arsenic along the trail would either be capped in place, or relocated and capped. Areas where soils containing arsenic above background levels occur beneath the footprint of the trail, those soils would be covered with a minimum of 1-foot of clean fill material or clean fill, aggregate base and asphalt. To prohibit users from accessing wetland areas that may contain high levels of arsenic, lead or PAHs, the boardwalk would be designed and constructed with railings that keep users on the boardwalk. Where soils containing arsenic concentrations above background levels occur
43 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration near the proposed alignment and would not be capped by the methods described above, fencing and/or signage would be placed to discourage users from entering the areas (e.g., areas immediately east of Burma Road where rail lines are exposed) as a requirement of mitigation measure HAZ-3.
During construction of the trail, the contractor would remove some abandoned infrastructure (e.g. abandoned fire hydrant piping, an abandoned fuel tank, and a containment vault). Removal of the abandoned fuel tank may require oversight from the RWQCB. Removal of the other infrastructure may require additional testing for HBMs if they are identified during construction. Additionally, project construction will require excavation of some soil with elevated levels of arsenic that could cause temporary exposure to workers during earth work activities. Incorporation of mitigation measure HAZ-42 requires the contractor to prepare a site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HS&P) and implement a project- specific soil management plan, and air monitoring plan, under the direction of a Certified Industrial Hygienist. If unexpected HBMs or contamination is are encountered during construction, the contractor will be required to follow the NFD Soil and Groundwater Management Plan procedures.
Mitigation Measures:
HAZ -1 Exclusionary fencing shall be installed to keep users from accessing abandoned buildings and other structures that pose a physical hazard. Fencing shall also be installed in areas where HBMs may be present and where contaminated soils occur near the proposed alignment and would not be capped. This may include areas along the eastern edge of Burma Road, the perimeter of buildings at the drum lot, and the inside perimeter of the drum lot.
HAZ-2 The final Plan, Specification and Estimate (PS&E) for the Project shall identify areas where arsenic shall be addressed and require the contractor to comply with the NFD SGWMP, the. The contractor shall prepare a project-specific soil management plan, and air monitoring plan. The contractor shall be required to prepare and Health and Safety Plan. Implementation of the project-specific soil management plan and air monitoring plan, and preparation and implementation of the Health and Safety Plan shall be conducted with oversight by a Certified Industrial Hygienist. During construction, areas of known elevated arsenic, lead, or PAHs shall be either capped in place, relocated and capped, or access discouraged to prohibit users. Areas where soils containing arsenic above background occur beneath the footprint of the trail shall be covered with a minimum of 1-foot of clean fill material. Soils shall not be transported between City and Chevron properties (i.e. between Segment A and Segment B). The Lead Agency shall document that the City has informed/contacted the RWQCB two weeks prior to construction, as required by the SGWMP.
HAZ-3 A boardwalk over the wetland area where elevated arsenic was identified shall be constructed with railings designed to inhibit trail users from accessing the wetland. The boardwalk shall be included in the final PS&E to be reviewed and approved by the Lead Agency.
HAZ-4 To protect construction personnel from potential exposure to undiscovered hazardous materials, the contractor shall be required to follow the NFD SGWMP. The NFD SGWMP defines protocols to be implemented if suspected contamination is found during mass grading and excavation activities associated with site development. These protocols shall include identification of how soils and affected groundwater are to be managed and requiring hourly field measurements within active excavation areas. Hourly field measurements shall also be required within active soil stockpile areas and confined spaces.
44 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
The Plan shall be implemented by a professional engineer registered in the State of California and shall include hourly field measurements for undiscovered contaminants using a photo ionization detector (PID) for measuring volatile organic compounds (VOCs), confined space monitor (oxygen, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, and, lower explosive limit), and any other monitor deemed appropriate by the registered engineer. If deemed necessary by the engineer, soil samples shall be collected and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons in areas of suspected contamination. If suspected contamination is found during construction activities, all work shall stop in the immediate area and a safe zone for construction personnel shall be established. The extent of contamination shall be assessed to determine whether there is a significant health risk to construction personnel working on- site. The SMP would also include construction personnel safety protocols according to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines to be implemented as part of the SMP. The contractor shall ensure through contractual obligations with the RWQCB that OSHA guidelines are followed during construction activity and any potential removal of affected soils. b) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would not construct buildings or dwelling units and therefore no impacts related to vapor intrusion to indoor air from the migration of volatile chemicals in the subsurface would occur. Potentially hazardous materials would not be accidentally released during Project operation. If hazardous materials would be used during Project construction, these materials would be contained and stored per OSHA and SWPPP requirements. c) No Impact. The Project is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Peres School is the nearest school and is 2 miles from the Project site. d) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. California Government Code Section 65926.5 requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to compile, and submit annually to the Secretary for Environmental Protection, a list of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action, land designated as hazardous waste property or border zone property, hazardous waste disposals on land, and all sites listed pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code. Pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code, DTSC’s Envirostor database includes a list of sites, referred to as the “Cortese” list. Sites on the “Cortese” list include sites that are not owned by the Federal Government and a release or threatened release of hazardous substances has been confirmed by on-site sampling.
The former NFD is on the Cortese list and is within the Project area (Point Molate/Richmond NSC, Envirostor ID 7970002). As previously discussed, Portions of the site were to be remediated by the City of Richmond as a requirement of a 2010 FOCET between the Navy and the City of Richmond, which includes a Covenant to Restrict Use of Property recorded with the County and specifies restrictions for use of the site in order to protect human health and safety and the environment (City of Richmond, 2010). Project implementation and construction would be required to comply with the Land Use Controls document prepared for the Former NFD site where applicable. Adherence to the relevant restrictions during Project construction and implementation would reduce potential impacts below the level of significance.
Mitigation Measures:
HAZ-54: The contractor shall adhere to and incorporate the relevant conditions contained in the 2012 NFD SGWMP. Prior to Project construction, a project specific soils management plan and or equivalent health and safety plan shall be prepared by the contractor under the
45 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
direction of a certified industrial hygienist, and reviewed by the City of Richmond for consistency with existing contractual requirements. e & f) No Impact. The Project site is not located within 2 miles of a public airport and is not within an airport land use plan, nor within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The nearest airports include the Marin County and Oakland international Airport which are over 10 miles from the Project site. g) Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Project is not expected to significantly increase the number of vehicles and or create traffic congestion that would interfere with an emergency evacuation or emergency response plan. The Project is located within the previous railroad alignment, a portion of which is along private roads or roads which are currently closed to the public. The proposed Project would not block emergency vehicle access along Stenmark Drive which provides a route to buildings within the Project area. h) No Impact. The Project is in a non-residential area within the City of Richmond and would not pose a risk to residences associated with wildland fires.
Findings: The Project is located in an area where previous infrastructure and past land uses create the potential for contamination in areas containing abandoned infrastructure, contaminated soils within the railroad alignment, and in HBMs that may be on site. Implementation of HAZ-1, 2, and 3 would reduce or eliminate potential for exposure of trail users to areas of known contamination. There is potential for exposure of hazardous materials to construction workers during earth-moving construction activities, which can be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of HAZ-4 and HAZ-5. Direct and indirect impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials will be reduced to less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-45.
46 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the Project:
Environmental Issue
Impact Impact
Less Than Less Than Less
Mitigation Mitigation
No Impact No
Significant Significant Significant
Potentially Potentially
Incorporated Significant with with Significant
a. Violate any water quality standards? X
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 local groundwater supplies (i.e. the production rate of pre- X 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 X substantial erosion or siltation on- or 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 (e.g. due to increased X impervious surfaces) in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site (i.e. within a watershed)? e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of X polluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X 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 X Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area improvements which would impede or redirect flood X flows? i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a X result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
47 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Discussion: The Project is located within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the agency responsible for overseeing, administering, and/or implementing the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act. A majority of the Project is also located within the BCDC Shoreline Band and is therefore within BCDC’s jurisdiction.
The proposed Project parallels the San Francisco Bay coastline and is located within the Angel- Island San Francisco Bay Estuaries watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code 180500021001). Within the Project vicinity there are several small ephemeral streams which drain flows from upland areas through existing culverts or overland flow to the San Francisco Bay. Seeps occur in the area and have created seep wetlands in the Project vicinity and a few are located within the proposed trail alignment.
Water Quality Standards include beneficial uses, water quality criteria, and antidegradation. Water quality criteria for surface waters are established in the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan. Numeric or narrative criteria exist for the San Francisco Bay for DO, pH, suspended sediment, oil and grease, floating materials, and other pollutants.
A coastal erosion assessment was completed and identifies sea level elevations anticipated in different years, and in different wave run-up or tsunami conditions (Appendix F). Tsunami wave-run up conditions could persist and not inundate the trail based on current and future sea level rise projections through 2050, and sea level rise projections for 2030, 2050, and 2100 in non-seiche and non-tsunami conditions are not expected to inundate the trail. a) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. During trail construction, there is potential for suspended sediment or oil and grease from construction vehicles to enter surface waters or the San Francisco Bay via overland flow or existing culverts. Implementation of a SWPPP would be required as discussed in Section VI Geology and Soils and would reduce impacts below the level of significance. The SWPPP would specify BMPs that must be implemented to control run-on and run-off from the construction site, prevent and address fluids/oil and grease from construction equipment from entering into surface waters or surrounding soils, secure stockpiles and active work areas prior to rain events, and to conduct visual inspections to ensure the SWPPP is being implemented and the site is in compliance with the provisions of the CGP. Runoff from impervious surfaces currently drains via surface flow to the San Francisco Bay. During operation of the trail, runoff from the proposed trail would drain to adjacent non- erodible pervious areas to infiltrate runoff from trail footprint. Sources of pollutants in stormwater runoff related to operation of the trail are expected to be minimal. Potential sources of pollutants would include atmospheric deposition of sediments over the surface of the trail, and pet waste. These sources are expected to be minimal due to the small footprint of the trail, runoff is directed to non-erodible pervious areas where runoff will be treated from infiltration, and trail signage and pet waste stations would help control sources of pollutant loads from pet waste.
Mitigation Measures:
HYD -1: Implement GEO -1 and GEO-2 HYD-2: The Lead Agency shall obtain permits from RWQCB to ensure compliance with Clean Water Act Section 401. b) Less–than-Significant Impact. Construction of the trail would require shallow subsurface excavations and impacts to groundwater movement or groundwater tables are not anticipated as a result. The proposed Project does not require the use of groundwater wells.
48 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Seep wetlands occur in a portion of the trail, but a boardwalk would be designed and constructed over the wetland so shallow subsurface and surface flows are not significantly impeded. c) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project does not propose to substantially alter the course of a stream or river. A boardwalk would be built over a majority of wetland habitats so that shallow subsurface and surface flows are not impeded. Drainage improvements are proposed in Segment B to remove and daylight a culvert that currently drains runoff from Stenmark Drive and areas upland from Stenmark drive to the San Francisco Bay. The culvert is failing and a clogged inlet on the east side of the trail alignment has created erosion issues which can be addressed by stabilizing this area and continuing the boardwalk over this area so runoff and existing drainage patterns are not adversely impacted by the trail Project. d,e,f) Less–than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The Project would increase impervious surface by adding a trail in areas that are currently over ballast or vegetated areas. The trail would be graded such that stormwater runoff from the trail would drain to adjacent non- erodible pervious surfaces (i.e., vegetated and landscaped areas through the beach park and the recently remediated site near Winehaven) and is not anticipated to increase runoff volumes from the site through the storm drain system. Post construction mitigation measures required by the SWPPP would require site stabilization (e.g., hydroseeding or revegetation) which would reduce the likelihood of erosion and increased sedimentation from recently graded areas within the Project.
Mitigation Measures:
Implement HYD-1 g,h,i) No Impact. Federal Flood Hazard boundary maps for the project area illustrate that the proposed trail alignment does not intersect a 100-year flood hazard area (Firmette 06013C0208G, 06013C0216G, 06013C0217G). A 100-year flood hazard exists to the west of the Project area along the San Francisco Bay coastline, however no housing is proposed as part of this project and no improvements are proposed that would impede surface flows within a flood hazard area. j) Less-than-Significant Impact. No structures are proposed for this Project that would be subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflows.
Findings: The project has the potential to increase pollutants during construction and operation of the trail. Obtaining coverage under the CGP and implementing a SWPPP would reduce the impacts related to increased runoff and pollution during and after construction by implementing BMPs and meeting site stabilization criteria, respectively (HYD-1).
During operation of the trail, the Project has the potential for minor increases in runoff volumes and pollutants in stormwater runoff due to increased impervious surfaces where the trail would be constructed over existing pervious (i.e., vegetated and landscaped) areas; however, increased runoff would drain to adjacent non-erodible pervious areas providing for some infiltration and treatment of the runoff. Implementation of mitigation measures HYD-1 and HYD-2 would reduce the potential for impacts below the level of significance.
49 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
XI. LAND USE & PLANNING – Would the Project:
Environmental Issue
Impact Impact
Less Than Than Less Than Less
Mitigation Mitigation
No Impact No
Significant Significant Significant
Potentially Potentially
Incorporated Significant with with Significant
a. Physically divide an established community? X 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 X for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X
Discussion:
Existing Land Uses- Current and surrounding land uses include Industrial, Open Space, and Parks and Recreation. Segment A of the trail would be constructed within a dedicated easement through Chevron property, while Segment B will be constructed through an existing park and on City of Richmond property. A portion of Segment A is proposed to be constructed on private property (APN 561-400-004) to be obtained through an easement or acquisition in order to avoid significant hillside cuts and grading.
Local Plans- Applicable stakeholder agency master plans and policies include the City of Richmond 2030 General Plan, EBRPD’s Master Plan, ABAG San Francisco Bay Trail Plan, and the BCDC Mission, Vision, Guiding, Principal’s and Goals.
The City of Richmond 2030 General Plan seeks to guide the City's sustainable growth and development. The Richmond General Plan provides a comprehensive framework for developing a successful “Healthy City and Healthy Neighborhoods” initiative. The Plan contains 15 elements addressing land use, economic development, housing, transportation, climate change, public safety, arts and culture, and open space conservation strategies.
The EBRPD’s core mission is to acquire, develop, manage, and maintain a high quality, diverse system of interconnected parklands that balances public usage and education programs with protection and preservation of our natural and cultural resources. The EBRPD governing board adopted the 2013 EBRPD Master Plan, which sets priorities and objectives for implementing the District’s core mission. One of the Park District’s main priorities in the 2013 Master Plan is to provide connections between Bay Area parks and recreation areas via bike and pedestrian paths.
The ABAG’s mission is to work with local governments and stakeholders to develop and implement innovative solutions for issues involving land use planning, housing, transportation, environmental climate change, earthquakes and disaster resilience, and economic equity. Specific to the proposed Project, the ABAG adopted the San Francisco Bay Trail plan which
50 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration includes a proposed alignment; a set of policies to guide the future selection, design and construction of routes; and strategies for implementation and financing.
The BCDC is a California state planning and regulatory agency with regulatory authority over the San Francisco Bay. Its mission is to protect and enhance San Francisco Bay and to encourage the Bay’s responsible and productive use for this and future generations. BCDC is tasked with requiring maximum feasible public access within the Bay’s 100-foot shoreline band. The BCDC sets out to achieve its’ mission, vision, guiding principles and goals through specific policies adopted as part of the San Francisco Bay Plan (SFBP). a) No Impact. The proposed Project would construct a Class I bike path providing additional recreation opportunity to the surrounding community. No new roadways or structures are proposed that could result in dividing the community. b) Less-than-Significant Impact. The projected route of the bike path crosses through two different City of Richmond Zone Districts; Community and Regional Recreation (CRR) and Light Industrial (M-2). An easement across a portion of private land zoned M-2 has been dedicated to the East Bay Regional Park District for a Class I bike path along the outer edge of the current industrial use.
The City of Richmond General Plan Parks and Recreation Element outlines specific goals and policies to support the East Bay Regional Park District’s goal of connecting Bay Area parks and recreation areas via bike and pedestrian paths. More specifically, Policy PR1.2- Multimodal Connections to Parks, Open Space and Recreational Facilities, requires the City work to improve connections to parks, open space and recreational facilities through an interconnected network of pedestrian-friendly green streets, multimodal corridors and trails. Also, Policy PR 1.3-Joint-Use Opportunities requires that the City promote access to non-City operated parks and recreational facilities by working with the East Bay Regional Park District. The Project area, as shown on the City of Richmond General Plan Land Use Map, is bordered by a mix of Open Space and Industrial land use designations. The Open Space land use designation encourages bike and pedestrian pathways. As previously mentioned above, an easement across a portion of private industrial use land has been dedicated to the East Bay Regional Park District for a Class I bike path to connect Bay area parks and recreation areas.
The EBRPD 2013 Master Plan Public Access (PA) policies encourage “Healthy Parks Healthy People, Green Transportation, and Accessibility” for those requiring special assistance or facilities. Master Plan Policy PA5 ensures that the EBRPD cooperates with local and regional planning efforts to create more walkable and bikeable communities, and coordinates park access opportunities with local trails and bike paths developed by other agencies to promote green transportation. Under the Recreational Facilities and Areas (RFA) portion of the Master Plan, policy RFA5 requires the EBRPD continue to plan for and expand the system of paved, multi-use regional trails connecting parklands and major population centers. The Planning Process and Policies portion of the Master Plan provides guidance under Key Elements of the Planning Process (KEP). Policy KEP2 states, all District planning documents will be developed and approved in compliance with CEQA and when appropriate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Construction and implementation of the bike path would be consistent with the policies discussed in the EBRPD 2013 Master Plan.
The ABAG Bay Trail Plan proposes development of a regional hiking and bicycling trail around the perimeter of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. The Plan provides design guidelines intended to compliment, rather than supplant, the adopted regulations and guidelines of
51 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
local managing agencies. The Plan includes policies for trail alignment, trail design, environmental protection, transportation access, and implementation policies.
The SFBP adopted and implemented by BCDC identifies Priority Uses in the project area (SFBP Map 4, Central Bay North). The Project exists within Waterfront Park, Beach Priority Uses. Segment A and will be constructed on an easement granted by Chevron to EBRPD for the purposes of a recreational trail. Water-Related Industry is the Priority Use in areas adjacent to the easement within Segment A. Segment B exists within an area identified for Waterfront Park, Beach Priority Use. Recreation Policy 4-B under the SFBP encourages a trail system linking shoreline park areas and vista points in hillside open space areas. The Project would provide a link between Bay Area parks and recreation areas by constructing a bike path between Point Molate and the Ferry Point Trail. c) No Impact. The Project area is not located within a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
Findings: The proposed Project would not result in significant impacts to land use and no mitigation measures are required.
52 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES – Would the Project result in:
Environmental Issue
Impact Impact
Less Than Than Less Than Less
Mitigation Mitigation
No Impact No
Significant Significant Significant
Potentially Potentially
Incorporated Significant with with Significant
a. The loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the X state? b. The loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, X specific plan, or other land use plan?
Discussion: The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) requires that the State Mining and Geology Board identify, map, and classify aggregate resources throughout California that contain regionally significant mineral resources. Designations of land areas are assigned by California Department of Conservation and California Geological Survey following analysis of geologic reports and maps, field investigations, and using information about the locations of active sand and gravel mining operations.
The California Mineral Land Classification System represents the relationship between knowledge of mineral deposits and their economic characteristics (grade and size). Lands classified as a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) are areas that contain identified mineral resources. Areas classified as MRZ are considered important mineral resource areas.
There are no regionally significant aggregate resources (i.e., sand and gravel resources) in the Project area, as identified by the California Department of Conservation and there are no ongoing mining activities in or near the proposed Project. a) No Impact. The Project site is not located within the overlay zone designated in the Zoning Ordinance for areas with known mineral resources. Given the absence of known mineral resources within the Project site, no impacts to significant mineral resources are anticipated as a result of the proposed Project. b) No Impact. The Project would not limit the ability to extract mineral resources should such resources become known in the future.
Findings: Identified thresholds of significance for mineral resources have not been exceeded and no significant adverse environmental effects would result from the Project.
53 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
XIII. NOISE – Would the Project result in:
Environmental Issue
Impact Impact
Less Than Than Less Than Less
Mitigation Mitigation
No Impact No
Significant Significant Significant
Potentially Potentially
Incorporated Significant with with Significant
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or X noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground X borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the X Project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing X 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 X 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 X area to excessive noise levels?
Discussion: The Project would be required to meet certain provisions of the Contra Costa County Zoning Ordinance as stated in the EBRPD Ord. 38: Chapter. II Sec. 200.2 that “District employees and concessionaires and their employees shall abide by the laws of the State of California and all applicable county and/or municipal ordinances.” Since The EBRPD Ordinance 38 does not contain noise policies that relate to temporary construction noise, the provision set forth by Chapter 9.52 of the City of Richmond Municipal Code would apply to the Project. According to Chapter 9.52, construction equipment noise is not allowed within the boundary of a residential zone between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am the next day.
Vibration is described in terms of frequency and amplitude. Unlike sound, there is no standard way of measuring and reporting amplitude. Construction vibration is generally associated with pile driving and rock blasting. Occasionally, large bulldozers and loaded trucks can cause perceptible vibration levels at close proximity. a & d) Less-than-Significant Impact. According to Chapter 9.52 of the City of Richmond Municipal Code, construction equipment noise is not allowed within the boundary of a residential zone between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am the next day. This noise generation
54 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
would be required to comply with the Community Noise Ordinance limiting construction between the hours of 7 am and 10 pm. Deviations from any provision of this regulation are subject to the approval of a conditional use permit issued by the City Richmond. Construction related activities would generate a short term increase of existing ambient noise levels. There are no residential neighborhoods or sensitive noise receptors located within the Project area. b) Less-than-Significant Impact. Vibration is described in terms of frequency and amplitude. Unlike sound, there is no standard way of measuring and reporting amplitude. Construction vibration is generally associated with pile driving and rock blasting. Occasionally, large bulldozers and loaded trucks can cause perceptible vibration levels at close proximity. Construction activities would result in intermittent exposure of ground borne vibration to the surrounding areas. However, this impact would be temporary and would not occur at any boundary of a residential zone between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am the next day under the City of Richmond Community Noise Ordinance. c) Less-than-Significant Impact. Noise due to construction would be temporary and would not occur at any boundary of a residential zone between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am the next day per the City of Richmond Community Noise Ordinance. Noise from operation of the new electric gate the beginning of Segment A would be minimal, would not within the boundary of a residential zone, and would only occur twice per day when it is being opened or closed for the day. e & f) No Impact. A review of the Project area indicates that the Project is not located in an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The Oakland International Airport is located approximately 10 miles south of the proposed Project. Since the proposed Project is not located in an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip there would be no exposure to people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels.
Findings: The Project would increase ambient noise levels during construction; however, this is limited by the hours of operation allowed under the City’s Zoning Code. Additional noise increases would result from implementation of the Project; however, identified thresholds of significance for the noise category have not been exceeded and no significant adverse environmental effects would result from the Project.
55 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
XIV. POPULATION & HOUSING – Would the Project:
Environmental Issue
Impact Impact
Less Than Than Less Than Less
Mitigation Mitigation
No Impact No
Significant Significant Significant
Potentially Potentially
Incorporated Significant with with Significant a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (i.e. by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (i.e. through extension of roads or other X infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X
Discussion: As of 2014, the City of Richmond had an estimated population of 106,469 residents and a housing stock consisting of 39,772 dwelling units. Contra Costa County had an estimated population of 1,087,008 and a housing stock of 403,449 units (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014). There are no dwelling units or permanent residents on the proposed bike trail alignment. The proposed bike trail would be constructed within a previously disturbed area following the former Richmond Belt Railway corridor. Existing park users in the area include residents and other individuals who visit the Point Molate Beach Park. a-c) No Impact. The proposed Project would add a non-motorized bike and pedestrian trail along the coast for recreation and would not induce population growth directly by adding new housing or commercial or indirectly by adding new infrastructure. Therefore, the proposed Project is not anticipated to induce substantial population growth either directly or indirectly. Construction of the proposed Project would not result in the removal of any homes within or adjacent to the Project site and would not displace existing residents. Therefore, no homes or persons would be displaced as a result of the proposed Project.
Findings: The Project would not increase the population, nor displace housing or residents, therefore, there would be no impacts to population and housing.
56 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the Project result in:
Environmental Issue
Impact Impact
Less Than Less Than Less
Mitigation Mitigation
No Impact No
Significant Significant Significant
Potentially Potentially
Incorporated Significant with with Significant
a. Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental services and/or 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? i. Fire Protection? X
ii. Police Protection? X
iii. Schools? X
iv. Parks? X
v. Other Public Facilities? X
Discussion:
Fire Protection- The Richmond Fire Department has seven stations distributed across a 56- mile service area and provides fire protection services to the area. The nearest fire department to the Project is Station 61, located at 140 West Richmond Avenue, approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the site.
Police Protection- The City of Richmond Police Department provides law enforcement and police protection in the area. The Police Department is located at 1701 Regatta Boulevard, approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the Project site. The Department is broken into three different districts (Northern, Central and Southern). Each district is divided again into three smaller beats. Every officer in the Patrol Bureau is assigned to a beat. The Project area is located in the Southern District (21 Total Officers) in Beat 1 and has seven officers providing law enforcement and police protection to the area.
Schools- The City of Richmond, including the Project area, is served by the West Contra Costa Unified School District. The Project is within approximately 2.5 miles of the Peres Elementary School, DeJean Middle School, and the De Anza High School.
Parks- A portion of the trail would exist within the Point Molate Beach Park operated by the City of Richmond.
Libraries- The nearest library to the site is the Richmond Public Library Located at 325 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond 94804, approximately 3.6 miles to the east of the Project site.
57 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
a)(i) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would not involve construction of habitable structures, nor would the Project lead to a permanent resident population at or near the Project area. The proposed Project improvements would not be built with or utilize flammable, combustible, or explosive materials. Therefore, limited demand for fire protection services would be generated as a result of the Project. No new or physically altered fire protection facilities would be required to provide fire protection services to users of the proposed trail. Design and construction of the trail would not impede or constrict the width of the existing roads within the Project area and thus would not impact fire access where it currently exists within the Project area. a)(ii) Less-than-Significant Impact. The Project would not involve the construction of habitable structures, nor would the Project lead to a permanent resident population at or near the Project area. However, an increase in demand for police protection services could occur due to the potential for property crimes such as theft, vandalism, and graffiti on the trail improvements and the potential for personal crimes due to the presence of trail users. The trail would be closed from dusk until dawn which would help to minimize the potential for property or personal crimes such as theft, or vandalism reduce the potential demand on police services below the level of significance. No new or physically-altered police protection facilities would be required to provide police protection services to the proposed trail and trail improvements. a)(iii-v) No Impact. The proposed Project would not lead to an increase in the resident population or housing stock of the area and therefore would not create a demand for schools, or libraries, or other public facilities associated with an increase in resident population. The demand for maintenance activities on the bike path would not require new or expanded public facilities. There are existing maintenance programs, crews, and facilities at the City of Richmond Public Works Department and EBRPD that would be used to maintain the bike path. No new public facilities would be required and there would be no adverse impact. The Project is not expected to have any direct impacts on nearby schools, libraries, or other public facilities.
Findings: There would be no significant impacts to public services as a result of the proposed Project. There are adequate police, fire, school, park, and other public services available to serve the proposed Project without resulting in significant impacts to the physical environment.
58 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
XVI. RECREATION – Would the Project:
Environmental Issue
Impact Impact
Less Than Than Less Than Less
Mitigation Mitigation
No Impact No
Significant Significant Significant
Potentially Potentially
Incorporated Significant with with Significant
a. 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 X accelerated? b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an X adverse physical effect on the environment?
Discussion: Recreational facilities within the area include the Point Molate Beach Park, and will include an adjoining section of the San Francisco Bay Trail (i.e., BATA approved project across the RSR bridge). A portion of the proposed trail will be constructed in the Point Molate Beach Park in the City of Richmond, which includes a parking lot, portable toilet, picnic tables with barbeque grill stands, and access to the beach via a foot path. The park was recently reopened in 2014 by the City after completing a rehabilitation project to replace the picnic tables, resurface the parking lot, and provide a portable, ADA accessible toilet facility. Local community groups are involved with minor maintenance and clean-up throughout the park to augment the City’s maintenance and care of the facility.
The proposed Project is identified in EBRPD’s Master Plan Update (approved by the EBRPD Board on July 16, 2013), which addresses the expansion of parks, trails, and services.
A substantial adverse effect on Recreational Resources would occur if the implementation of the Project would:
• Substantially increase the use of neighborhood or regional parks in the area such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur; or • Require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that have not been analyzed as part of the EBRPD Master Plan Visions, Goals and Policies for future development and management of facilities. a) Less–than-Significant Impact. The proposed Project would expand access to park and open space facilities in the City of Richmond area through construction of a non-motorized bike and pedestrian trail connection from an existing paved trail segment starting near Stenmark Drive on the north side of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge (I-580) extending approximately 2.5 miles north and terminating after the Winehaven Historic District. While the pedestrian path is expected to be used mainly by existing residents of the City of Richmond, it would be a part of a regional trail system, where users would come from throughout the region to utilize the EBRPDs’ Regional Trail System. The proposed Project would not lead to an increase in the permanent population or housing stock, either directly or indirectly within City of Richmond. Trail users would likely increase visitation to Point Molate Beach Park. Potential impacts from increased visitation may include deterioration of
59 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
landscaped grounds, and increased use of toilet facilities. The Project design includes improvements within the park that will minimize the potential impacts from trail users. The improvements include ADA access from the parking lot to the park at designated locations, a designated path for cyclists and pedestrians through the park and signage to keep trail users on designated and appropriate paths through the park. Potential increased use of the portable toilet could be addressed through more frequent service. b) Less–than-Significant Impact. The proposed trail would serve to connect public parks and open spaces throughout the East Bay Region. Furthermore, the proposed Project would highlight existing rail features adjacent to the trail in this section, incorporate ADA safety improvements, and provide landscape improvements, which would enhance the Point Molate Beach Park. Therefore, the proposed Project would have beneficial impacts on recreation.
Findings: While the proposed Project could increase demand of trail use at Point Molate Beach Park, the design and construction of the trail includes improvements that will minimize impacts to the park grounds and create a beneficial impact on recreation regionally.
60 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
XVII. TRANSPORTATION & TRAFFIC – Would the Project result in:
Environmental Issue
Impact Impact
Less Than Than Less Than Less
Mitigation Mitigation
No Impact No
Significant Significant Significant
Potentially Potentially
Incorporated Significant with with Significant 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 transits and non-motorized travel and relevant X 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 X 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 X that results in substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or X incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such X facilities?
Discussion: Regional access to the Project area is provided by I-580 exiting onto Stenmark Drive. I-580 connects the City of Richmond to the City of San Rafael via the RSR Bridge. Stenmark Drive is a 2-lane road exiting from I-580, which has 10 travel lanes and runs in a general east-west direction away from the Project site. I-580 carried approximately 13,400 cars during peak hours and 94,600 vehicles per day in 2014 (Caltrans 2015). The local roadway network in the Project area operates at Level of Service of (LOS) E during peak AM and peak PM travel times. (Level of Service refers to the operational conditions at an intersection based on the average number of seconds of delay experienced by vehicles traveling through the intersection, with LOS A representing free flow conditions and LOS F defining forced or breakdown flow).
61 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Congestion Management Plan
The Contra Costa County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) was developed by the Contra Costa Metropolitan Transportation Commission (CCMTC). The CCMTC is the county’s Congestion Management Agency (CMA) and is responsible for maintaining and improving the County’s transportation system by planning, funding, and delivering critical transportation infrastructure projects and programs that connect communities, foster a strong economy, increase sustainability, and safely and efficiently get people where they need to go. The CCMTC is the primary transportation planning agency for Contra Costa County, responsible for prioritizing the county's share of available federal, State and regional transportation funds. As the CMA, CCMTC prepares the county's CMP, monitors LOS on County roads and works with other CMAs and agencies to address regional issues. There are no CMP designated highways connected to Stenmark Drive. Nearby CMP highways include Cutting Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard (CCMTC 2016).
Public Transit
The City of Richmond is served by the Bay Area Rapid Transit System (BART), Amtrak, Alameda- Contra Costa Transit (AC Transit) and West Contra Costa Transit Authority. Richmond’s BART station is the northwestern terminus of the regional rail system with the nearest station roughly 3-miles from the Project site. AC Transit operates several local bus routes in Richmond that typically operate with 30 to 60-minute headways and connect to key destinations within and near Richmond with the nearest stop (Tewksbury Avenue and Castro Street) less than a mile from the Project site.
Bikeways
Most of Richmond’s arterial and collector roadways include sidewalks. Richmond’s trails and greenways provide important bicycle and pedestrian connections between some neighborhoods, commercial centers, parks and Richmond shoreline. The Richmond segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail supports both recreational and essential trips. As of 2011, approximately 30 miles of the trail within Richmond have been completed (City of Richmond General Plan Circulation Element). In addition, the BATA approved Project to install a bike and pedestrian path across the RSR bridge, will provide a connection for pedestrians and cyclists between Contra Costa and Marin counties. a) Less-than-Significant Impact
Construction Traffic. The Project would generate short-term vehicle trips to and from the Project area during construction. These trips would include worker commute, construction equipment and materials transport, import of fill soils, and/or export of excavated soils. These vehicle trips would add to existing traffic volumes on local and regional roadways. Apart from the initial transport of construction equipment and materials, relatively minor construction-related traffic would occur. Because of the small scale of the proposed trail improvements, construction-related daily trips associated with worker commutes, equipment and materials transport, and haul truck trips would be relatively low. Final Construction plans would incorporate a traffic control plan (TCP) using the Caltrans Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices to address the worker commutes, equipment and materials transport, and haul truck trips. Construction staging would occur within an existing Caltrans lot and would not result in a lack of access to adjacent properties.
Operational Traffic. The majority of trail users might drive to and from the proposed trail, which typically occurs during the weekends or late afternoon/early evening hours.
62 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Implementation of the Project is not anticipated to result in a substantive increase in vehicle trips during the AM and PM peak hours. Rather, most of the new vehicle trips to and from the Project site are expected to occur before or after peak hours or on weekends. Maintenance would be provided by the City of Richmond Parks and Recreation Department and the EBRPD. Maintenance is not expected to create a major increase in vehicle trips to the area. Traffic increases due to the increase in trail users coming to and from the proposed trail would be incremental over time and trips for maintenance activities would be minimal. b) Less-than-Significant Impact. The City of Richmond has 28 designated truck routes in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Project to allow for the movement of goods from the port terminals located at the Richmond Harbor. The LOS standard in Contra Costa County is set by the CMA at LOS E. The Project would not generate excessive trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours on CMP highways. Also, there are no CMP designated highways connected to Stenmark Drive. Nearby CMP highways include Cutting Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard (CCMTC 2016). c) No Impact. The site is not located within the boundaries of an airport land use plan or within 2.0 miles of an airport. The Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. d) Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed trail would be fenced in some areas to prevent access to adjacent industrial uses. In addition, warning and traffic safety signs would be provided along the proposed trail to promote safety for trail users. Furthermore, the trail would be constructed in compliance with ADA standards. Therefore, a substantial increase in traffic hazards to trail users would not be created by the Project. e) Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not be located on a public roadway and therefore would not affect emergency response to the Project area. Construction of the Project would require a TCP integrated into final construction plans. The project would not require closure of travel lanes that could impede circulation of emergency vehicles along Stenmark drive. f) No Impact. As discussed above, the Project would not conflict with the Contra Costa County CMP. Also, the Project would complement the City of Richmond 2030 General Plan Circulation Element since it would promote bicycle use and provide additional access to city recreation areas and parks. The Project is part of the EBRPD Bay Trail network benefiting pedestrians, bicyclists and trail users, thereby promoting the use of alternative transportation. Therefore, there are no adverse impacts on alternative transportation systems or conflicts with alternative transportation policies, plans, or programs.
Findings: The identified thresholds of significance for transportation and traffic would not be exceeded and no significant environmental impacts would result from the Project.
63 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
XVIII. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the Project:
Environmental Issue
Impact Impact
Less Than Than Less Than Less
Mitigation Mitigation
No Impact No
Significant Significant Significant
Potentially Potentially
Incorporated Significant with with Significant a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater delivery, collection or treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which X 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 X environmental effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are X new or expanded entitlements needed?
e. Result in a determination by wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected X 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? X
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? X
Discussion: No connections to a wastewater treatment facility occur along the trail or are proposed as part of this Project. Portable toilet facilities exist at the Point Molate Beach Park. Existing storm drain facilities in the Project area include a storm drain basin on Chevron property, which is located near the beginning of Segment A, and storm drain trunk lines within the Point Molate Beach Park and Burma Road. The storm drain trunk lines convey stormwater flows from upland drainage areas, roadways, and within the Park to the Bay. Fire hydrants occur in the Project area and are operated by the City of Richmond. Currently, these fire hydrants are inactive but may be brought back on-line during construction of the Project if necessary to provide a source of water for dust control. a & e) Less-than-Significant Impact. Trail users may use existing portable toilet facilities at the park. Any increase in sewage generation due to increased use of the trail would be negligible. No direct demand for sewer line capacity, wastewater treatment requirements,
64 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
or wastewater treatment facilities would occur as a result of implementation or construction of the proposed Project. The implementation and construction of the proposed Project would not require new wastewater treatment facilities. b & d) Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed Project would require the use of water for dust mitigation. Water tanks could be filled using designated fire hydrants located in the Project area or will be trucked to the site. The proposed Project would not require the construction or expansion of any new water or wastewater facilities for either construction or operations. Water usage for the construction and implementation of the proposed Project would be negligible and existing resources have the capacity to serve any temporary water needs. c) Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed Project would include the construction of two new drainage features but these features would not increase runoff volumes coming onto or off the site. The features include an approximately 500 foot section of curb and gutter at the beginning of Segment A and one new culvert to convey seep flows underneath the trail. The curb and gutter would be installed to separate the trail from the existing roadway at the beginning section of Segment A. It would capture and convey runoff from the existing road and convey it to the existing storm drain ditch along the trail or back to the existing storm drain retention area. The new culvert would be installed under the existing road and at one location along Segment A to convey existing flows from an existing seep wetland. Flows from the wetland currently drains across the existing roadway, over rip rap along the shore, and then ultimately into the San Francisco Bay. Concentrating flows could have impacts if the culvert outfall were unprotected. The design of the outfall would be protected with rip rap to prevent erosion and scour, reducing the potential for environmental effects resulting from this feature. The culvert would not be designed or installed in a manner which would convey additional flows other than what currently exists at this location.
The trail would be designed so stormwater runoff from the trail surface would flow to adjacent vegetated or non-erodible pervious areas. Given that no expansion of facilities would occur, runoff volumes from the trail would be conveyed to adjacent vegetated or non- erodible pervious areas, and that the new culvert would not result in increased discharge or erosion, there is a less–than-significant impact. f & g) Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction activities for the proposed Project would generate solid wastes requiring disposal at area landfills. The types of construction waste that would be generated include vegetation from site clearing, soil export from grading activities, construction waste, signs, and excess trail-building materials. In addition, long- term waste generation would include wastes from organic materials (i.e. leaves, sticks) and from trash cans along the trail. This waste would be collected by the City and EBRPD as part of the general maintenance of the trail. Furthermore, any hazardous wastes generated during construction of the Project would be handled and disposed of consistent with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations, including the City’s Solid Waste Ordinance (Chapter 9.20).
Findings: Identified thresholds of significance for water, wastewater, drainage, or solid waste utilities would not be exceeded and no significant adverse environmental effects would result from the Project.
65 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Environmental Issue
Impact Impact
Less Than Than Less Than Less
Mitigation Mitigation
No Impact No
Significant Significant Significant
Potentially Potentially
Incorporated Significant with with Significant
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 X 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 X effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, or the effects of probable future projects.) c. Does the Project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on X human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Less-than-Significant Impacts with Mitigation. The proposed Project would result in potentially significant impacts to biological resources due to the presence of special status species within the Project’s alignment. MM BIO-1 requires surveys for special status plants and implementation of appropriate measures for restoration and avoidance. These mitigation measures would reduce impacts to biological resources to less than significant. MM BIO-2 and MM BIO-3 would reduce impacts to nesting birds and raptors below the level of significance and MM BIO-4 implements avoidance measures to protect Monarch Butterfly habitat. Impacts to the quality of the environment and special status species are reduced to less than significant. b) Less-than-Significant Impacts. The proposed Project would not involve development or changes in land use that would result in increased population growth or demand for public services. The Project would not contribute substantially to increased automobile traffic in the area. The Project would improve connectivity between parks year-round to provide better mobility to residents and visitors to the East Bay Region. The Project would not cumulatively contribute to the capacity of other parks and recreation facilities in the area. Implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with the goals and policies implemented by the City of Richmond General Plan, EBRPD Master Plan, ABAG Bay Area Plan and BCDC San Francisco Bay Plan. Each of the aforementioned plans provides guidance and land use controls for a multi-use bike and pedestrian path. Therefore, it is anticipated
66 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
that there are no significant cumulative impacts resulting from the construction and implementation of the proposed Project. As discussed throughout this environmental document, the Project would not contribute to a substantial decline in water quality, air quality, noise, biological resources, agricultural resources, or cultural resources under cumulative conditions. Cumulatively considerable impacts associated with the Project are less than significant. c) Less-than-Significant Impacts. All impacts associated with construction and implementation of the proposed Project identified in this Mitigated Negative Declaration are either less than significant after mitigation or less than significant and do not require mitigation. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in environmental effects that cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly.
67 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
6.0 REFERENCES
Analytical Environmental Services. 2009. Point Molate Mixed-Use Tribal Destination Resort and Casino Project EIS/EIR.
Association of Bay Area Governments Plan Bay Area 2040. Adopted July 2013. http://planbayarea.org/the-plan/adopted-plan-bay-area-2013.html. Accessed August 2016.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. June 2, 2010. News Release. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Communications%20and%20Outreach/Publications/N ews%20Releases/2010/ceqa_100602.ashx. Accessed March 17, 2016.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. California Natural Diversity Database. “RareFind 5.” Biogeographic Data Brach, Sacramento, CA. https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2frarefind%2fview%2fRareFind.asp x
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. “Natural Communities – Background Information ”. (online) http://www.dfg.ca.gov/BIOGEODATA/VEGCAMP/NATURAL_COMM_BACKGROUND.ASP
California Department of Conservation Soil Types and Profiles. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/cgs_history/PublishingImages/GMC_750k_ReleaseState ment_SAMPLE.jpg. Accessed March 16, 2016.
California Native Plant Society. 2016. “Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (online edition).” Vers. 8-02. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA.
Caltrans Earth. State Scenic Highway Data Layer. http://earth.dot.ca.gov/. Accessed June 11, 2016.
Caltrans. Traffic Count Data, 2015. http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/. Accessed June 11, 2016.
Citizens for a Sustainable Point Molate. www.sfspm.org/Pt-Molate-Beach.html. Accessed October 7, 2016.
City of Richmond. 2010. Covenant to Restrict Use of Property Environmental Restriction (Re: Former Naval Fuel Depot Point Molate, Richmond CA. Contra Costa County Document No. 2010-0060368-00 recorded March 29, 2010)
City of Richmond Municipal Code Section 9.52: Community Noise Ordinance, 2011. https://www2.municode.com/library/ca/richmond/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=ARTIXH E_CH9.52CONOOR. Accessed June 14, 2016.
City of Richmond Municipal Code. Chapter 10.08 - TRIMMING, PRUNING, CARE, PLANTING, REMOVAL AND MOVING OF TREES, SHRUBS OR PLANTS.
City of Richmond General Plan 2030. Adopted April 25, 2012. Conservation Natural Resources and Open Space Element. http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2608/General-Plan-2030. Accessed May 14, 2016.
City of Richmond General Plan 2030. Adopted April 25, 2012. Circulation Element. http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2608/General-Plan-2030.
68 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
Accessed April 4, 2016.
City of Richmond Fire Prevention Services Division. http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/205/Fire- Prevention-Services-Division. Accessed May 14, 2016
City of Richmond Police Department. http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/82/Police-Department. Accessed May 14. 2016.
Contra Costa Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Contra Costa County Congestion Management Plan. Adopted 2016. http://mtc.ca.gov/tags/central-contra-costa-transit- authority. Accessed April 4, 2016
Cortese List: Section 65962.5(a). http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/SectionA.htm. Accessed June 16, 2016.
East Bay Regional Park District 2013 Master Plan. Adopted July 2013. http://www.ebparks.org/Assets/_Nav_Categories/Park_Planning/Master+Plan/Master+Plan+2 013+Final+-+Web.pdf. Accessed August 2016.
Federal Environmental Protection Agency: Contra Costa County Nonattainment Status. https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbk/rncty.html. Accessed March 17, 2016.
Lake, D. 2004. Rare, Unusual and Significant Plants of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, Seventh Edition, California Native Plant Society, East Bay Chapter
LSA Associates. 2011. San Francisco Bay Trail: Pinole Shores to Bayfront Park Project EIR. Produced for EBRPD.
______. 2011. Wetland Delineation Study, Point Molate Bay Trail. Technical memorandum to EBRPD.
______. 2011. Natural/Cultural Resource Information, Point Molate Bay Trail. Technical memorandum to EBRPD.
National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA). http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/greenhouse- gases.php?section=carbondioxide. Accessed March 18, 2016.
NCE, 2015. San Francisco Bay Trail at Point Molate: Preliminary Biological Resource Assessment. Produced for EBRPD.
NRCS. 2010. Web Soil Survey. www.websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed March 14, 2016.
San Francisco Bay Area Plan Approved October 24, 1968. http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/plans/sfbay_plan.html. Accessed March 22, 2016.
San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. San Francisco Bay Basin Plan. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/planningtmdls/basin plan/web/bp_ch3.shtml. Accessed June 20, 2016.
Sawyer, John, and Keeler-Wolf, Todd. 2010. A Manual of California Vegetation. 2 Edition California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
69 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
State Water Resources Control Board. 2016. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T0609592138. Accessed June 21, 2016.)
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1998. Special Status Plant Survey and Habitat Assessment. Navy Fuel Depot, Point Molate, Contra Costa County, California.
United States Census Bureau: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimate, 2010-2014. http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed August 18, 2016.
United States Environmental Protection Agency: AirNow.Gov. October 2015. Particulate Pollution. https://airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=airnow.main. Accessed March 17, 2016.
United States Environmental Protection Agency: Contra Costa County Nonattainment Status. https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbk/rncty.html. Accessed March 17, 2016.
United States Geological Survey. San Francisco Bay Region Geology and Geologic Hazards, Susceptibility Map of the San Francisco Bay Area interactive map. http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/sfgeo/liquefaction/susceptibility.html. Accessed June 2016.
United States Geological Survey. 1995. “San Quentin Quadrangle California 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic).” Reston, Virginia.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Federally Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in or may be Affected by Projects in the San Quentin U.S.G.S. 7 ½ Minute Quad.
University of California. 2009. Facts About Serpentine Rocks and Soil Containing Asbestos in California.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army.
______. 2001. Minimum standards for acceptance of preliminary wetland delineations. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch, November 30.
______. 2006. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. Engineer Research and Development Center.
Zeiner, D. C., Laudenslayer, W.F., Mayer, K.E., and M. White, editors. (1988). California’s wildlife, volume I, amphibians and reptiles. Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 272 pp. ______. 1988. California’s wildlife, volume I, amphibians and reptiles. Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 731 pp.
______. 1988. California’s wildlife, volume I, amphibians and reptiles.” Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 407 pp.
70 | P a g e
Appendix A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Appendix B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Appendix C PRELIMINARY BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
Appendix D CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT
Appendix E GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Appendix F COASTAL EROSION ASSESSMENT
Appendix G PHASE I ASSESSMENT
Appendix H PHASE II ASSESSMENT
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE APPENDIX A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan San Francisco Bay Trail at Point Molate Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Implementation Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Verified By Mitigation Measures Actions Responsible Party Mitigation Measure and Date
I. AESTHETICS There are no potentially significant impacts related to aesthetic resources. II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES There are no potentially significant impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources. III. AIR QUALITY Mitigation Measure AQ-1: • Include • Contractor • During Verified by: measure as • East Bay Regional construction Consistent with the Basic Construction Mitigation Condition of Park District activities Measures required by the BAAQMD, the following Approval • On a daily basis actions shall be incorporated into construction • Implementation during grading Date: contracts and specifications for the project: actions are activities • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, outlined in the staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and measure unpaved access roads) shall be watered two
times per day with reclaimed water, if available. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off‐site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt tracked‐out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. 1 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE APPENDIX A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Implementation Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Verified By Mitigation Measures Actions Responsible Party Mitigation Measure and Date
• Structural pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times shall be minimized, specifically near the Point Molate Beach Park, either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at Contra Costa County regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
2 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE APPENDIX A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Implementation Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Verified By Mitigation Measures Actions Responsible Party Mitigation Measure and Date
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure BIO-1: • Include • East Bay Regional Prior to construction Verified by: measure as Park District is activities, and for 2 Prior to construction, EBRPD or a qualified Condition of responsible for years after botanist shall pin flag or mark locations of Approval incorporating this construction special-status plant species along the • Implementation measure into completion. Date: alignment. The Project shall avoid impacts to actions are contract special-status plant species where possible, outlined in the specifications and for however, where impacts cannot be avoided, measure ensuring compliance plants shall be translocated or replanted in the during construction. project vicinity or nearest suitable habitat. Prior • The botanist is to the initiation of construction, a qualified responsible for botanist shall conduct a focused survey for conducting the marsh gumplant and Suisun marsh aster within survey and, if the construction footprint during the necessary, salvaging appropriate blooming period (April through and relocating November). The survey will be conducted in plants. accordance with the CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG 2009). Mitigation Measure BIO-2: • Include • East Bay Regional No more than 14 days Verified by: measure as Park prior to If any construction activities (e.g., grubbing, Condition of District is responsible commencement of grading, removal of one tree) are scheduled Approval for incorporating this construction during the bird nesting season (typically defined • Implementation measure into contract activities/throughout Date: by CDFW as February 1 to September 1), a actions are specifications and for the construction qualified biologist shall conduct a outlined in the ensuring compliance period. preconstruction survey for nesting birds no measure during construction. more than 14 5 days prior to the start of work, 3 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE APPENDIX A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Implementation Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Verified By Mitigation Measures Actions Responsible Party Mitigation Measure and Date
or as otherwise specified by permit conditions. • A CDFW‐approved If the project is suspended and delayed for 10 or biologist is more days another nesting survey shall be responsible for conducted 2 days prior to resuming work. If the surveying the site and survey indicates the presence of nesting birds, a delineating a buffer qualified biologist shall delineate a buffer zone zone if necessary. where no construction will occur until the • The Construction biologist has determined that all young have Contractor is successfully fledged, or until otherwise responsible for approved by CDFW. The size of the buffer(s) implementing this shall be determined by the project biologist in measure. consultation with CDFW and be based on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: • Include • East Bay Regional One time prior to Verified by: measure as Park ground disturbing Prior to ground-disturbing activities, a biologist Condition of District is responsible activities, and during shall conduct visual pre-construction surveys for Approval for incorporating this construction if species California Ridgway’s (formerly Clapper) rail, and • Implementation measure into contract are observed after the Date: California black rail within suitable habitat and actions are specifications and for pre-construction surrounding areas. Suitable habitat on site is outlined in the ensuring compliance survey is completed. limited to marsh and mud flat areas near Castro measure during construction. Point. If the rails or other sensitive species are • The biologist is observed on or near the site, the biologist will responsible for establish buffers around which no disturbance conducting the can occur until the biologist determines a work survey. can proceed within the area or the species do not occur within the area.
4 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE APPENDIX A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Implementation Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Verified By Mitigation Measures Actions Responsible Party Mitigation Measure and Date
Mitigation Measure BIO-4: • Include • East Bay Regional During construction Verified by: measure as Park and as deemed Measures shall be taken to avoid impacts to Condition of District is responsible necessary by a monarch butterflies if present on site. If Approval for incorporating this qualified biologist. eucalyptus trees at the northern end of the trail • Implementation measure into contract Date: are proposed for removal, a biologist shall actions are specifications and for conduct a survey for monarch butterflies during outlined in the ensuring compliance the winter roosting season when monarch measure during construction. butterfly roosting colonies would be expected to • The biologist is occur (typically October to February). If responsible for present, an avoidance plan will be developed by conducting the pre- a biologist for implementation during construction survey construction. If monarch butterflies are present, and, if found, grading, excavation, and eucalyptus tree developing an removal shall be restricted from August 1 avoidance plan during through March 31. construction.
Mitigation Measure BIO-5: • Include • East Bay Regional During construction Verified by: measure as Park activities deemed After construction is complete, EBRPD or the Condition of District is responsible necessary by a construction contractor shall replant native Approval for incorporating this qualified biologist trees and native shrubs in the immediate • Implementation measure into contract Date: vicinity of the Project at a 3:1 mitigation ratio, actions are specifications and for or a replacement ratio as determined by outlined in the ensuring compliance regulatory agencies and specified in measure during construction. environmental permits obtained through the
Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) if it results in a greater number of replacement trees.
5 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE APPENDIX A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Implementation Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Verified By Mitigation Measures Actions Responsible Party Mitigation Measure and Date
Mitigation Measure BIO-6: • Include • East Bay Regional During construction Verified by: measure as Park activities deemed During construction, the contractor shall avoid Condition of District is responsible necessary by EBRPD and minimize the spread of invasive or noxious Approval for incorporating this weed species. Equipment shall be cleaned and • Implementation measure into contract Date: free of weeds, and seeds prior to being used on actions are specifications and for site. The EBPRD or a qualified contractor will outlined in the ensuring compliance write a site-specific Invasive Plant Plan to measure during construction. specify how the plan shall be implemented to avoid and minimize the introduction and spread of invasive plant species and seeds.
Mitigation Measure BIO-7: • Include • East Bay Regional Prior to project Verified by: measure as Park construction To reduce potential short‐term impacts to the Condition of District is responsible upland wetland, the contractor shall implement Approval for incorporating this the following avoidance measures and BMPs: • Implementation measure into contract Date: • Install temporary silt fencing beyond the actions are specifications and for outer edge of the wetland boundary to outlined in the ensuring compliance prevent entry of fill into the wetland during measure during construction. construction. Temporary silt fencing will also
reduce the likelihood of wildlife from entering the work area. • Place temporary Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) fencing where needed to prevent construction equipment and workers from entering the upland wetland.
6 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE APPENDIX A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Implementation Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Verified By Mitigation Measures Actions Responsible Party Mitigation Measure and Date
Mitigation Measure BIO-8: • Include • East Bay Regional Prior to and during Verified by: measure as Park construction activities Fencing and other structures shall be designed Condition of District is responsible deemed necessary by and constructed in a manner that shall not Approval for incorporating this East Bay Regional Park impede wildlife movement. • Implementation measure into contract District/ Contractor Date: actions are specifications and for outlined in the ensuring compliance measure during construction.
Mitigation Measure BIO-9: • Include • East Bay Regional During construction Verified by: measure as Park activities within 30 The EBRPD or its construction contractor shall Condition of District is responsible days of obtaining the obtain a permit from the City of Richmond Approval for incorporating this permit superintendent, or equivalent, for removal or • Implementation measure into contract Date: pruning of trees at least three days prior to actions are specifications and for when work shall occur. Proposed tree removal outlined in the ensuring compliance shall be completed within 30 days of obtaining measure during construction. the permit.
Mitigation Measure BIO-10: • Include • East Bay Regional During construction Verified by: measure as Park activities, as deemed The construction contractor shall be responsible Condition of District is responsible necessary by for providing, installing, and maintaining tree Approval for incorporating this Contractor and shrub protection in active work areas for • Implementation measure into contract Date: the duration of construction. actions are specifications and for
outlined in the ensuring compliance
measure during construction.
7 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE APPENDIX A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Implementation Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Verified By Mitigation Measures Actions Responsible Party Mitigation Measure and Date
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure CUL-1: • Include • East Bay Regional During construction Verified by: measure as Park activities or within 14 The contractor shall be required to limit the Condition of District is responsible days prior to depth of grading and subsurface activities Approval for incorporating this subsurface activities within P-07-000277 to the depth of the Belt • Implementation measure into contract below the Belt Line Date: Line ballast (approximately 2 feet). If it is actions are specifications and for Ballast are scheduled determined that the depth of subsurface outlined in the ensuring compliance activities would exceed the depth of the Belt measure during construction, Line ballast through P-07-000277, then a and hiring a qualified qualified archaeologist should be retained to archaeologist. monitor Project ground‐disturbing activities • The Construction through Site P-07-000277. Archaeological Contractor is monitors should be empowered to halt responsible for construction activities at the location of a redirecting discovery to review possible archaeological construction if material and to protect the resource while the resources are finds are being evaluated. Monitoring should discovered and continue until, in the archaeologist’s judgment, contacting the cultural resources are not likely to be qualified encountered. If deposits of prehistoric or archaeologist. historical archaeological materials are • The qualified encountered during project monitoring, all work archaeologist is within 25 feet of the discovery should be responsible for redirected until the archaeologist assesses the identifying finds, consults with agencies as appropriate, appropriate mitigation and makes recommendations for the treatment measures. of the discovery. If avoidance of the archaeological deposit is not feasible, the archaeological deposits should be evaluated for 8 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE APPENDIX A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Implementation Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Verified By Mitigation Measures Actions Responsible Party Mitigation Measure and Date
their eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. If the deposits are eligible, impacts to the deposits should be mitigated. Mitigation may include excavation of the archaeological deposit in accordance with a data recovery plan (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C)) and standard archaeological field methods and procedures; laboratory and technical analyses of recovered archaeological materials; preparation of a report detailing the methods, findings, and significance of the archaeological site and associated materials; and accessioning of archaeological materials and a technical data recovery report at a curation facility. Upon completion of the assessment, the archaeologist should prepare a report to document the methods and results of the assessment. The report should be submitted to the EBRPD, the City of Richmond, and the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University upon completion of the resource assessment. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: • Include • East Bay Regional During construction Verified by: measure as Park activities or within 14 Subsurface disturbance related to the Condition of District is responsible days prior to construction of the trail shall be limited to the Approval for incorporating this subsurface activities depth of asphalt and fill associated with Burma • Implementation measure into contract near site P-07-000162 Date: Road. If it is determined that the depth of trail actions are specifications and for construction will exceed the depth of asphalt ensuring compliance and fill of Burma Road (2 feet), then it is 9 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE APPENDIX A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Implementation Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Verified By Mitigation Measures Actions Responsible Party Mitigation Measure and Date
recommended that an archaeological and/or outlined in the during construction, Native American monitor be present during measure and hiring a qualified subsurface activities through Site P-07-000162. archaeologist and/or Native American monitor • The Construction Contractor is responsible for redirecting construction if resources are discovered and contacting the qualified archaeologist and/or Native American monitor. • The qualified archaeologist and/or Native American monitor is responsible for identifying appropriate mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure CUL-3: • Include • East Bay Regional Within 24 hours in the Verified by: measure as Park District is event of discovery of Any human remains encountered during project Condition of responsible for human remains ground disturbing activities should be treated in Approval incorporating this accordance with California Health and Safety • Implementation measure into contract Date: Code Section 7050.5. The District and the actions are specifications and for County of Contra Costa should verify that the 10 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE APPENDIX A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Implementation Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Verified By Mitigation Measures Actions Responsible Party Mitigation Measure and Date
following directive has been included in the outlined in the ensuring compliance appropriate contract documents: “If human measure during construction. remains are uncovered, work within 25 feet of • The qualified the discovery shall be redirected and the archaeologist and/or County Coroner notified immediately. At the Native American same time, an archaeologist shall be monitor is responsible contacted—if one is not already on site—to for identifying assess the situation and consult with agencies appropriate mitigation as appropriate. Project personnel shall not measures. collect or move any human remains or associated materials. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.” VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Mitigation Measure GEO-1: • Include • East Bay Regional Prior to issuance of a Verified by: measure as Park grading permit and EBRPD or a qualified contractor shall develop a Condition of District is responsible throughout the SWPPP and obtain coverage under the CGP. To Approval for incorporating this construction period. obtain coverage, EBRPD shall be required to • Implementation measure into Date: submit and certify the SWPPP and Permit actions are contract Registration Documents (PRDs) in the outlined in the specifications and for Stormwater Multiple Application Tracking and measure 11 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE APPENDIX A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Implementation Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Verified By Mitigation Measures Actions Responsible Party Mitigation Measure and Date
Reporting System (SMARTS) at least 14 days ensuring compliance prior to any ground disturbance. during construction. Mitigation Measure GEO-2: • Include • East Bay Regional During construction Verified by: measure as Park The Contractor shall be required to implement Condition of District is responsible the SWPPP throughout construction of the Approval for incorporating this project until stabilization criteria have been met • Implementation measure into Date: and a Notice of Termination (NOT) of coverage actions are contract under the CGP has been filed in SMARTS. outlined in the specifications. measure • Construction Contractor is responsible for implementing the SWPPP.
VII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES There are no potentially significant impacts related to tribal cultural resources VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMMISSIONS There are no potentially significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions
12 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE APPENDIX A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Implementation Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Verified By Mitigation Measures Actions Responsible Party Mitigation Measure and Date
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: • Include East Bay Regional Park Prior to project Verified by: measure as District/ Contractor construction Exclusionary fencing shall be installed to keep Condition of users from accessing abandoned buildings and Approval other structures. Fencing shall also be installed • Implementation Date: in areas where HBMs may be present and where actions are contaminated soils occur near the proposed outlined in the alignment and would not be capped. This may measure include areas along the eastern edge of Burma Road, the perimeter of buildings at the drum lot, and the inside perimeter of the drum lot.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: • Include East Bay Regional Park Prior to project Verified by: measure as District/ Contractor construction The final Plan, Specification and Estimate (PS&E) Condition of for the Project shall identify areas where arsenic Approval shall be addressed and require the contractor to • Implementation Date: comply with the NFD SGWMP. The contractor actions are shall prepare a project-specific soil management outlined in the plan, air monitoring plan, and Health and Safety measure Plan. During construction, areas of known arsenic, lead, or PAHs shall be either capped in place, relocated and capped, or access discouraged to prohibit users. Areas where soils containing arsenic above background occur beneath the footprint of the trail shall be covered with a minimum of 1-foot of clean fill material. Soils shall not be transported between City and
13 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE APPENDIX A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Implementation Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Verified By Mitigation Measures Actions Responsible Party Mitigation Measure and Date
Chevron properties (i.e. between Segment A and Segment B).
• Include East Bay Regional Park Prior to project Verified by: Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: measure as District/ Contractor construction Condition of A boardwalk over the wetland area shall be Approval constructed with railings designed to inhibit trail • Implementation Date: users from accessing the wetland. The boardwalk actions are shall be included in the final PS&E to be reviewed outlined in the and approved by the Lead Agency. measure
Mitigation Measure HAZ-4: • Include East Bay Regional Park Prior to project Verified by: measure as District/ Contractor construction To protect construction personnel from potential Condition of exposure to undiscovered hazardous materials, Approval the contractor shall be required to follow the NFD • Implementation Date: SGWMP. The NFD SGWMP defines protocols to actions are be implemented if suspected contamination is outlined in the found during mass grading and excavation measure activities associated with site development.
These protocols shall include identification of how soils and affected groundwater are to be managed and requiring hourly field measurements within active excavation areas. Hourly field measurements shall also be required within active soil stockpile areas and confined spaces. The Plan shall be implemented by a professional engineer registered in the State of
14 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE APPENDIX A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Implementation Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Verified By Mitigation Measures Actions Responsible Party Mitigation Measure and Date
California and shall include hourly field measurements for undiscovered contaminants using a photo ionization detector (PID) for measuring volatile organic compounds (VOCs), confined space monitor (oxygen, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, and, lower explosive limit), and any other monitor deemed appropriate by the registered engineer. If deemed necessary by the engineer, soil samples shall be collected and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons in areas of suspected contamination. If suspected contamination is found during construction activities, all work shall stop in the immediate area and a safe zone for construction personnel shall be established. The extent of contamination shall be assessed to determine whether there is a significant health risk to construction personnel working on-site. The SMP would also include construction personnel safety protocols according to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines to be implemented as part of the SMP. The contractor shall ensure through contractual obligations with the RWQCB that OSHA guidelines are followed during construction activity and any potential removal of affected soils.
15 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE APPENDIX A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Implementation Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Verified By Mitigation Measures Actions Responsible Party Mitigation Measure and Date
Mitigation Measure HAZ-54: • Include Contractor approved Prior to construction Verified by: measure as plans required by RWQCB The contractor shall adhere to and incorporate Condition of and City of Richmond the relevant conditions contained in the 2012 Approval NFD SGWMP. Prior to Project construction, a • Implementation Date: project specific soils management plan and or actions are equivalent health and safety plan shall be outlined in the prepared by the contractor under the direction of measure a certified industrial hygienist, and reviewed by the City of Richmond for consistency with existing contractual requirements.
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Mitigation Measure HYD-1: • Include East Bay Regional Park Prior to project Verified by: measure as District/ Contractor construction Implement GEO -1 and GEO-2 Condition of Approval • Implementation Date: actions are outlined in the measure
16 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE APPENDIX A – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Implementation Mitigation/Monitoring Timing for Verified By Mitigation Measures Actions Responsible Party Mitigation Measure and Date
Mitigation Measure HYD-2: • Include East Bay Regional Park Prior to project Verified by: measure as District construction The Lead Agency shall obtain permits from Condition of RWQCB to ensure compliance with Clean Water Approval Act Section 401. • Implementation Date: actions are outlined in the measure
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING There are no potentially significant impacts related to land use and planning. XII. MINERAL RESOURCES There are no potentially significant impacts related to mineral resources. XIII. NOISE There are no potentially significant impacts related to noise XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING There are no potentially significant impacts related to population and housing. XV. PUBLIC SERVICES There are no potentially significant impacts related to public services. XVI. RECREATION There are no potentially significant impacts related to recreation. XVII. TRANSPORATION/TRAFFIC There are no potentially significant impacts related to transportation and traffic. XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS There are no potentially significant impacts related to utilities and service systems.
17 | P a g e
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration Response to Comments and Text Changes San Francisco Bay Trail at Point Molate State Clearinghouse Number: 2018032036
May 01, 2018 Point Richmond, Ca
501 Canal Blvd. Suite I Richmond, CA 94804
East Bay Regional Park District- Trails Development Department 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, Ca 94605
Report Title for:
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Response to Comments and Text Changes
Prepared for:
Suzanne Wilson East Bay Regional Park District- Trails Development Department 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605
Prepared by:
NCE Gretchen Taylor and Mike Baron 501 Canal Blvd. Suite I Richmond, CA 94804
NCE Project Number:
567.04.55
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONTENTS RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 CEQA Process...... 1 2.0 Comments on the Draft MND and response ...... 2 2.1 Introduction ...... 2 2.2 Agencies Commenting on the Draft MND ...... 2 Comment Letter #1-A Caltrans ...... 2 Comment Letter #2-A City of Richmond Sewer and Water ...... 5 Comment Letter #3-A California Department of Fish and Wildlife ...... 6 2.3 Organizations Commenting on the Draft MND ...... 8 Comment Letter #1-O CNPS ...... 8 2.4 Letters of Support Received ...... 12 Comment Letter #1-S TRAC ...... 12 Comment Letter #2-S TRAC ...... 13 2.5 Individuals Commenting on the Draft MND ...... 14 Comment Letter #1-I Jim Hite ...... 14 Comment Letter #2-I Deborah Bayer ...... 15 Comment Letter #3-I Charles Smith ...... 15 Comment Letter #4-I Carol Teltschick ...... 17 Comment Letter #5-I Carol Teltschick ...... 19 Comment Letter #6-I Chia Hamilton...... 20 Comment Letter #7-I Jim Mckissock ...... 21 3.0 Text Changes to the Draft MND ...... 24
i | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1.0 INTRODUCTION RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 CEQA Process
Pursuant to Section 15085 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) submitted a Notice of Completion (NOC) for the proposed San Francisco Bay Trail at Point Molate Project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to the California State Clearinghouse (SCH) on March 14, 2018. Also, pursuant to Section 15072 of the CEQA Guidelines the EBRPD posted a Notice of Intent to Adopt (NOI) the proposed MND. In accordance with Section 15105(b) CEQA Guidelines, the public review and comment period began on March 14, 2018 and ended on April 13, 2018. In response to the publication of the Draft MND for public review, agency, organizational, and public comments have been received. These comments are discussed in this document and are available for public review at EBRPD Headquarters located at: 2950 Peralta Oaks Court, Oakland, Ca 94605; or e-mail [email protected].
This document incorporates comments from agencies, organizations, and the general public and contains responses by the Lead Agency to those comments. As a result of agency and public comment, changes have been made to the Draft MND. The sole intent of the Final MND and purpose is to provide corrections to certain facts set forth in the Draft MND to ensure accuracy. No new significant environmental impacts are created with revisions made to the Draft MND text. One mitigation measure presented in the Draft MND was deleted (HAZ-4) and combined with another (HAZ-2) because of its similarity and repetition to another mitigation measure addressing the same potential environmental impact. Modifications were made to mitigations measures to clarify individual responsibility and methods while retaining the intent of the mitigation measures.
1 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT MND
2.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT MND AND RESPONSE
2.1 Introduction
This chapter includes copies of the comment letters received during the public review period on the Draft MND and responses to those comments. Both the comments and responses are part of the Final MND. The response to each comment is presented immediately after the comment letter.
2.2 Agencies Commenting on the Draft MND
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) submitted comments on the Project that provide guidance on the requirements for future permitting activities during construction of the trail.
Comment Letter #1-A Caltrans
See Next Page
2 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT MND
3 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT MND
Response to Comment:
Comment noted. All required agency permits will be obtained prior to the start of construction.
4 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT MND
Comment Letter #2-A City of Richmond Sewer and Water
From: Ryan Smith To: Suzanne Wilson Cc: Craig Murray Subject: RE: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the San Francisco Bay at Point Molate - 30Day Comment Period Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 10:38:58 AM Attachments: image001.png Fwd Point Molate Utility Study.msg
Good day, Suzanne –
In response to this MND, I’d like to provide comment relative to sanitary sewer service at Point Molate. The boundaries of the Richmond Municipal Sewer District No. 1 (RMSD) include Point Molate and Point San Pablo Peninsula. As you may be aware, the future of Point Molate is somewhat uncertain and the topic of many City Council Closed Sessions. Also, Craig Murray with the City informed me that the Urban Land Institute forecasted up to 1,800 housing units at Pt Molate.
Just informational only, the attached email contains both an informational document prepared by Veolia, and a link to a utility study done by HydroScience Engineers.
Additionally, there are 2 ways to convey sewage from Point Molate to the Richmond wastewater treatment plant located at 601 Canal Blvd: 1. Along the public right-of-way on Stenmark Drive. a. This would be a hilly and curvaceous path, requiring likely 2 sewage pump stations to lift the sewage over the hill. 2. Along the former Richmond Belt Railway corridor. a. This option would be more desirable, being flat and less of a tortuous path to covey sewage; however, obviously it would align with your trail project.
Right now, there are no current plans to add sanitary sewer service to Point Molate, though as development is approved there will certainly be a need. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Regards,
Ryan Smith Director of Water Resource Recovery City of Richmond, CA 510.620.5486
Response to comments:
Comment noted. There are no current or proposed development permits associated with the trail project.
5 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT MND
Comment Letter #3-A California Department of Fish and Wildlife
From: Farinha, Melissa@Wildlife
Dear Ms. Suzanne Wilson,
Although the Public Comment Period has ended, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) wanted to provide the following comments prior to the Lead Agency’s adoption of the CEQA document.
CDFW has reviewed the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) from the East Bay Regional Park District for the San Francisco Bay Trail at Point Molate Project pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 addresses impacts to special-status plant species within the Project area. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 states that where impacts to special-status plants cannot be avoided, plants shall be translocated or replanted in the Project vicinity or nearest suitable habitat. CDFW recommends that the MND provide an assessment, prior to construction, of suitable habitat within the Project area or surrounding areas that could be used for translocation or replanting of special-status species. The assessment should provide habitat descriptions and locations for all potential replanting sites. These measures would confirm the availability of suitable replanting sites needed to mitigate impacts to special-status plant species. If the Project will negatively affect special- species plants, then a long-term management plan for the replanting site should be prepared to effectively protect and manage any translocated populations.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 addresses avoiding and minimizing impacts to nesting birds and states that preconstruction surveys for nesting birds shall be conducted by a Qualified Biologist no more than 14 days prior to the start of construction activities that could disturb nesting birds. CDFW recommends that preconstruction for nesting birds occur within 5 days prior to the initiation of construction activity. If the project is suspended and delayed for 10 or more days that another nesting survey be conducted 2 days prior to resuming work.
Mitigation Measure BIO-4. Mitigation Measure BIO-4 addresses avoiding impacts to monarch butterflies and states that eucalyptus trees with the potential to be used as winter roosting sites may be removed. CDFW recommends avoiding the removal of all trees on-site with the potential to function as overwinter butterfly habitat and instead conserving these trees through incorporation into Project designs. The monarch butterfly is declining throughout its native range. Monarch butterflies exhibit high site fidelity to roosting trees. This high site fidelity demonstrates that monarchs have a low tolerance for removal of any roosting trees (as the biological mechanisms for transferring locational information of roosting sites between generations is poorly understood) and therefore loss of a roosting tree or changes to trees within the same grove can be considered a significant biological impact.
CDFW also recommends that the Lead Agency incorporate and implement an enhancement and monitoring plan to restore and enhance areas for the benefit of the monarch butterfly as
6 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT MND part of the project. Enhancement and monitoring plans should be written by Qualified Biologists that are considered experts in monarch butterfly ecology. The plan should include planting of native plants that can be utilized by various stages of the monarch life cycle. The plans should also incorporate maintenance policies, maintenance tasks, schedules to perform tasks, vegetation trimming restrictions and a no-spray policy for herbicides or insecticides.
Questions regarding these comments or further coordination should be directed to Aicha Ougzin, Environmental Scientist at (209) 234-3434 or [email protected]; or Melissa Farinha, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory) at (707) 994-5579 or [email protected].
Thank You,
Melissa Farinha Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory) Bay Delta Region, Habitat Conservation Unit 7329 Silverado Trail Napa, CA 94558 (707) 944-5579
Response to Comment:
The commenter is requesting that suitable habitat be identified to in the event special-status plants need to be relocated. The commenter suggests shortening the duration of preconstruction surveys for nesting birds from 14 days to 5 days. Additionally, the commenter suggests that if construction suspended or delayed for more than 10 consecutive days that new pre-construction surveys be conducted 2 days prior to restarting construction. Finally, the commenter suggests protecting any and all monarch butterfly habitat as well as incorporating measures to enhance monarch butterfly habitat.
During preparation of a botanical survey (MND Appendix C) a site visit was conducted on May 13, 2017, it was noted that the exceptionally high-quality coastal terrace prairie, known as the “postage stamp prairie,” was being invaded by French broom (Genista monspessulana) as well as naturally occurring coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum) which are expanding into the prairie as part of a natural succession process in the absence of fire or grazing pressures. Mitigation for impacts to native grasses will be carried out by managing these invading woody plants to ensure the continued viability of the high quality coastal terrace prairie communities near the project area. Any sensitive coastal terrace prairie species with potential to be impacted by trail construction may be transplanted, where possible, into outskirts of this prairie area (located on the nob just south of the sandy shoreline that begins at the beach park) so as not to interfere with the health and resiliency of the core prairie ecosystem. Additional text has been incorporated into Section IV. Biological Resources of the final MND describing suitable replanting areas near the trail alignment.
Changes to the MND and MMRP have been incorporated to reflect the commenters suggested avian protection measures. Preconstruction surveys for nesting birds would occur within 5 days prior to the start of construction. If the project is suspended and delayed for 10 or more days, another nesting survey would be conducted 2 days prior to resuming work.
Large eucalyptus groves with the potential to provide monarch roosting habitat do occur at Point Molate, but none of them exist within the proposed Bay Trail project area. No trees with
7 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT MND the potential to function as overwinter butterfly habitat will be removed as part of this project. Therefore, impacts to monarch butterflies are unlikely to occur and no project design modifications are required to conserve overwinter habitat for monarch butterflies. Additionally, the EBRPD would be willing to discuss monarch butterfly habitat enhancement efforts lead by the CDFW.
2.3 Organizations Commenting on the Draft MND
The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) commented during the distribution period and provided suggested text edits and revised mitigation measures.
Comment Letter #1-O CNPS See Next Page
8 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT MND
9 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT MND
10 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT MND
11 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT MND
Response to Comment:
In several instances the commenter suggests text edits to change “would” to “will” to describe actions that will be required if the project were approved. Since the project is not yet approved using “would” in certain instances is appropriate rather than “will” to describe potential future actions.
The commenter is requesting that additional analysis be provided to identify suitable replanting areas if they are necessary for project implementation. In order to prepare a Biological Resources Assessment (MND Appendix C) a site visit was conducted on May 13, 2017. During the site visit it was noted that the exceptionally high quality coastal terrace prairie, known as the “postage stamp prairie,” was being invaded by French broom (Genista monspessulana) as well as naturally occurring coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum) which are expanding into the prairie as part of a natural succession process in the absence of fire or grazing pressures. Mitigation for impacts to native grasses will be carried out by managing these invading woody plants to ensure the continued viability of the high quality coastal terrace prairie communities near the project area. Any sensitive coastal terrace prairie species with potential to be impacted by trail construction may be transplanted, where possible, into outskirts of this prairie area (located on the nob just south of the sandy shoreline that begins at the beach park) so as not to interfere with the health and resiliency of the core prairie ecosystem. Additional text has been incorporated into Section IV. Biological Resources of the final MND describing the suitable replanting areas.
The commenter is suggesting that a protocol level survey for Suisun marsh astor be conducted within the areas of potential affect for the trail alignment. The botanical survey was floristic in nature and was properly timed to coincide with the flowering period for Suisun marsh aster (Symphyotrichum lentum) and other special status species that have the potential to occur in the project area. Suisun marsh aster is an “obligate wetland” indicator species meaning that it occurs in wetlands in more than 99 percent of its natural occurrences. Properly timed botanical surveys and wetland delineation surveys completed by NCE in 2016 did not observe Suisun marsh aster in the proposed project area. Furthermore, a properly timed botanical survey that happened to overlap a large section of the proposed Bay Trail project area completed by Analytical Environmental Services in 2009 as part of the Point Molate Casino EIR did not observe the Suisun marsh aster in the proposed Bay Trail alignment (ESA, 2009). Given the requirements described in mitigation measure BIO-1, a project design that isolates the majority of the work on previously disturbed and graded land, and the less-than-significant impact to wetland areas as a result of this project, no further botanical surveys would be necessary in addition to those required by mitigation measure BIO-1.
2.4 Letters of Support Received
The following letters of support was received during the comment period from the Trails for Richmond Action Committee (TRAC) April 2 & 11, 2018 in support of the Project.
Comment Letter #1-S TRAC
From: TRAC To: Suzanne Wilson Cc: Yader Bermudez; Whitney Dotson; Craig Murray; Ryan Shafer; Bruce Brubaker Subject: Pt. Molate Bay Trail Draft IS/MND Date: Monday, April 02, 2018 6:56:17 AM Attachments: SFBT NOI_Final.pdf Draft MND MMRP BT Point Molate031418.pdf
12 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT MND
Suzanne, TRAC, the Trails for Richmond Action Committee, has reviewed the Draft IS/MND for the San Francisco Bay Trail at Point Molate and believes that it is very well done. It describes the project accurately, fairly assesses potential impacts and recommends appropriate mitigation measures. Bruce ------Bruce Beyaert, TRAC Chair [email protected] tel. 510-235-2835 http://www.pointrichmond.com/baytrail/ http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/109/TRAC Photos: https://sfbaytrailinrichmond.shutterfly.com/pictures/5 .
Response to Comment:
Comment noted. As part of scoping for the proposed Project, outreach efforts were made by the EBRPD to solicit feedback from citizens groups.
Comment Letter #2-S TRAC
From: TRAC To: Suzanne Wilson Cc: Yader Bermudez; Whitney Dotson; Craig Murray; Ryan Shafer; Bruce Brubaker Subject: Re: Pt. Molate Bay Trail Draft IS/MND Date: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 10:51:36 AM
Suzanne, TRAC would like to elaborate on its April 2 email below regarding the Draft IS/MND for the San Francisco Bay Trail at Point Molate by expressing our support for the following statement in the first paragraph on page 4:
“At the north end of the Point Molate Beach Park where Burma Road transitions closer to the shoreline, the trail would be discontinued for approximately 150 feet. This discontinuation is necessary because of an active coastal erosion feature that would be addressed as a separate project by the City of Richmond. Once the coastline has been stabilized and re-established, the gap in the trail would be closed.”
This shoreline stabilization process would be extremely expensive and time- consuming with major regulatory hurdles, including the need for an EIR under CEQA with evaluation of alternative design approaches, including a “living shoreline” solution. This cost and delay would not be justified in terms of the Bay Trail, because it would be relatively simple for pedestrians and cyclists to get around the gap in the absence of a 15-foot wide developed trail. Also, there would be important economies and lower costs/mile if were possible to bid and construct the entire 2.5 miles as one project, rather than awaiting resolution of the complex and expensive shoreline erosion control project which includes the entirety of Point Molate Beach Park. Bruce ------Bruce Beyaert, TRAC Chair [email protected] tel. 510-235-2835 http://www.pointrichmond.com/baytrail/ http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/109/TRAC Photos: https://sfbaytrailinrichmond.shutterfly.com/pictures/5 .
13 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT MND
Response to Comment:
Comment noted. As part of scoping for the proposed Project, the EBRPD made outreach efforts to solicit feedback from citizens groups.
2.5 Individuals Commenting on the Draft MND
Comment Letter #1-I Jim Hite From: Jim Hite To: Suzanne Wilson Subject: A Comment, Phase I, Bike Path though Pt. Molate Beach Park Date: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 10:48:46 AM
East Bay Regional Parks Suzanne Wilson
Dear Ms. Wilson,
My name is Jim Hite. I have been going out to Pt. Molate Beach park since the 1970s and I have seen a few changes! A surprising (and remarkable) great change is the way the park has been maintained the last few years. OK, I'm a volunteer out there and I was on the PMCAC during Gail's tenure as mayor.
We have worked really hard to defend the beach park area from invasive plants and to restore the same grasses and flowers that I remember observing growing up here on the shores of the bay. These native grasses, shrubs and flowers are hard to find anywhere around the bay. Pt. Molate beach park allows the opportunity to roam among many different native species all together in one place.
At least through the sensetive areas of Pt. Molate and the beach park, asphalt is counter- productive to the restoration efforts that have been under way out here.
Please consider an alternative such as porous concrete to run through the park. A proper surface will respect the hard won and fragile environment the bike path will traverse. Thank you,
Jim Hite 34 13th St. #3 Richmond CA 94801 (510) 232-0457
Response to Comment:
The commenter is concerned with the type of surface proposed for construction of the trail through areas containing native grasses, shrubs, and flowers. An asphalt-concrete surface with decomposed granite shoulders is proposed for the project due to its durability and low maintenance requirements and to follow Bay Trail Design Guidelines and Tool Kit (June 2016), “Bay Trail surface will typically be paved but may also include non-paved shoulders for a variety of uses. In limited cases, such as in areas of sensitive habitat or on levees with particular maintenance conditions, the entire trail tread may be composed of stabilized natural materials. See also Sections 5.1 and 5.2.” The Park district manages over 144 centerline
14 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT MND miles of paved trails of which 139 centerline miles are asphalt concrete, which allows the Park District to cost effectively maintain and manage its trail network.
Alternatives such as porous concrete or decomposed granite would have the same construction impacts as asphalt (to strip, grub, and prepare the subgrade surface of the previous railroad corridor and then place the new trail section). Asphalt would not create hydrologic impacts because the trail would be graded such that stormwater runoff would drain to adjacent non-erodible pervious surfaces. Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 (Section VI. Geology & Soils [Page 36]) would be implemented to reduce the likelihood of erosion and increased sedimentation from recently graded areas within the Project. In addition, the design includes a 5-foot wide soft shoulder on the coastal side of the trail to absorb run-off for the entire length of the trail, in leaue of a typical 2-foot shoulder on both sides of the trail. The only exception to this design criteria is the segment that parallels the parking lot for the Beach Park that will incorporate 2-foot shoulders on both sides of the trail due to topograpgy and existing site conditions.
The alternative trail alignment along Stenmark Drive proposed by the commenter would not be feasible through this segment of the trail because it would be inconsistent with the San Francisco Bay Trail Guidelines and Toolkit (June 2016): • The Bay Trail should be designed for the widest variety of nonmotorized trail users. Page 8 identifies Bay Trail users as “any age with any level of physical, audial, and visual ability.” The grade of the existing road and the width of the right-of-way does not accommodate a trail design consistent with this concept and with ADA requirements. • Page 12 identifies the design principles which include user experience and safety as the first principle of Bay Trail design. The trail should be designed to provide “an adequate buffer to create a safe and positive user experience that considers design elements of sights, sounds and fresh air.” Other relevant design principles include accommodating for universal access and proximity to the Bay.
Comment Letter #2-I Deborah Bayer
From: Deborah Bayer To: Suzanne Wilson Subject: asphalt trail at Point Molate Date: Friday, April 13, 2018 5:43:43 PM
I am writing to request that the East Bay Parks does NOT use asphalt for the planned nature trail in Point Molate. The trail will go through an altogether too rare undeveloped area along the Bay. Asphalt has the potential to pollute native plants and animal habitat as well as not provide a pleasant sensory experience for those of us going there to get away from city streets and asphalt. I am sending this at 5:30 pm on April 13, and hope this is not to late for my letter to be considered.
Sincerely, Deborah Bayer 5706 Sacramento Richmond, CA 94804 510-524-8158
Response to Comment:
The commenter is concerned with the type of surface proposed for construction of the trail through an undeveloped area on the Bay. An asphalt-concrete surface with decomposed
15 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT MND granite shoulders is proposed for the project due to its durability and low maintenance requirements and to follow Bay Trail Design Guidelines and Tool Kit (June 2016), “Bay Trail surface will typically be paved but may also include non-paved shoulders for a variety of uses. In limited cases, such as in areas of sensitive habitat or on levees with particular maintenance conditions, the entire trail tread may be composed of stabilized natural materials. See also Sections 5.1 and 5.2.” The Park district manages over 144 centerline miles of paved trails of which 139 centerline miles are asphalt concrete, which allows the Park District to cost effectively maintain and manage its trail network.
Comment Letter #3-I Charles Smith
From: charles smith To: Suzanne Wilson Subject: Bike Path @ Point Molate Beach Park! Date: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 8:29:45 AM
Ms. Wilson,
I've been a voluteer maintance worker at Point Molate Beach Park for over three years. I would suggest using porous concrete for the bike path at Point Molate.
Personally I think the bike path should be on the opposite side of the street from the park because the park itself is small and the shoreline is eroding away more and more with each new winter storm.
Thank you.
Charles T. Smith 561 Dimm St. Richmond, CA 94805 510-233-5820
Response to Comment:
The commenter is suggesting that porous concrete be used for the trail surface as well an alternative trail alignment due to potential shoreline erosion. An asphalt-concrete surface with decomposed granite shoulders is proposed for the project due to its durability and low maintenance requirements and to follow Bay Trail Design Guidelines and Tool Kit (June 2016), “Bay Trail surface will typically be paved but may also include non-paved shoulders for a variety of uses. In limited cases, such as in areas of sensitive habitat or on levees with particular maintenance conditions, the entire trail tread may be composed of stabilized natural materials. See also Sections 5.1 and 5.2.” The Park district manages over 144 centerline miles of paved trails of which 139 centerline miles are asphalt concrete, which allows the Park District to cost effectively maintain and manage its trail network.
The commenter is concerned about shoreline erosion along the Beach Park as discussed in Appendix F of the MND, shoreline erosion along the Beach Park, particularly at the north end near Burma Road is being addressed as a separate project by the City of Richmond. In addition, a coastal erosion assessment was completed and identifies sea level elevations anticipated in different years, and in different wave run-up or tsunami conditions (MND Appendix F). The assessment concluded that tsunami wave-run up conditions could persist and not inundate the trail based on current and future sea level rise projections through 2050, and sea level rise
16 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT MND projections for 2030, 2050, and 2100 in non-seiche and non-tsunami conditions are not expected to inundate the trail.
Alternatives such as porous concrete or decomposed granite would have the same construction impacts as asphalt (to strip, grub, and prepare the surface of the previous railroad corridor). Asphalt would not create new hydrologic impacts because the trail would be graded such that stormwater runoff would drain to adjacent non-erodible pervious surfaces. Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 (Section VI. Geology & Soils [Page 36]) would be implemented to reduce the likelihood of erosion and increased sedimentation from recently graded areas within the Project. In addition, the design includes a 5-foot wide soft shoulder on the coastal side of the trail to absorb run-off for the entire length of the trail, in leaue of a typical 2-foot shoulder on both sides of the trail. The only exception to this design criteria is the segment that parallels the parking lot for the Beach Park that will incorporate 2-foot shoulders on both sides of the trail due to topograpgy and existing site conditions.
The alternative trail alignment along Stenmark Drive proposed by the commenter would not be feasible through this segment of the trail because it would be inconsistent with the San Francisco Bay Trail Guidelines and Toolkit (June 2016): • The Bay Trail should be designed for the widest variety of nonmotorized trail users. Page 8 identifies Bay Trail users as “any age with any level of physical, audial, and visual ability.” The grade of the existing road and the width of the right-of-way does not accommodate a trail design consistent with this concept and with ADA requirements. • Page 12 identifies the design principles which include user experience and safety as the first principle of Bay Trail design. The trail should be designed to provide “an adequate buffer to create a safe and positive user experience that considers design elements of sights, sounds and fresh air.” Other relevant design principles include accommodating for universal access and proximity to the Bay.
Comment Letter #4-I Carol Teltschick
From: Carol Teltschick To: Suzanne Wilson Cc: Jim Mckissock; Charles T Smith; Chia; DOROTHY GILBERT; Gail Wilson; Jim Hite; Joe Puleo; Khary Clyburn; Mike Eichenholtz; Paul Carman; Tom Gehling; Tom Johnson; Jim Hanson; [email protected] Subject: Comments on Proposed Phase I of Bay Trail Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 2:56:52 PM
Dear Suzanne and Trails Dept. of East Bay Regional Parks:
These comments concern Phase 1 of the proposed Bay Trail trail, which runs from the Richmond-San Rafael bridge to Point Molate Beach Park. Please study the following comparison of trail surfaces published the City of Santa Cruz for background information: http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showdocument?id=23669
Do Not Build An Asphalt Trail
I strongly oppose construction of an asphalt trail because asphalt has the highest (worst) environmental impact on natural systems. Construction, maintenance and runoff will damage native plants, the wildlife that depends on the plants, the watershed, the beach and the shallow eel beds, and life that depends on the eel beds.
Asphalt trails also bring the worst sensory impacts to humans and to wild life: visual, auditory, tactile, and smell (nothing like hot asphalt to stink up a summer day).
17 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT MND
Remember that a paved asphalt road already provides access to Point Molate Beach Park, and runs very close to where you intend to build Phase I of the trail. If you are intent on using the "old-fashioned," non-permeable, black asphalt, then you would do far better to simply widen the existing road to accommodate a foot and bike path, rather than adding what will be essentially be another asphalt road, going nowhere new but running through environmentally sensitive areas.
To Build a Nature Trail
The key word is “nature,” and the key intent must be to keep the environmental impact as low as you can possibly get it.
Decomposed granite = lowest environmental impact on native plants, wildlife that depends on plants, the watershed, the beach, the shallow eel beds, and brings the lightest sensory impacts (looks natural, no glare, smells ok, feels good to okay under feet or bike tires.)
Cost of construction is low. Cost of maintenance is moderate to high. However, I still put lowering environmental impact first, so why not design a trail using decomposed granite, and get creative to design it in a way that will reduce maintenance as much as possible. (For example, does placing a decomposed granite trail between rails (which you already plan to do) reduce run off and rutting? It’s worth looking into.
Looking at the trail comparisons done by the City of Santa Cruz, I see that decomposed granite has an overall higher score than boardwalks, so if boardwalks are doable and affordable to protect wetlands, why shouldn’t decomposed granite be worth protecting the rest? After all, the length of trail we’re talking about here is far less than what we’ll be looking at for remaining phases.
Porous Concrete is an Option but Requires Study
Again looking at comparisons done by the city of Santa Cruz, it seems possible to do a really fine job of installing a permeable concrete trail. The permeable concrete trail that Santa Cruz built through Arana Gulch had its defenders, and its opponents. It was highly controversial, as it would be for this project, but I think both sides in Santa Cruz would readily agree that it was far better than asphalt.
Basically they built an 8 foot wide trail of porous concrete, dyed to a “natural” color, with 1 foot of native plantings along each side, giving a total width of 10 feet. Here’s what it looked like on “opening day:” http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/Home/Components/News/News/1791/814?arch=1
And here’s a discussion of pros and cons after the trail became popular and heavily used: http://santacruzlife.com/arana-gulch/ What would it be like to put a porous concrete trail, with a foot of native plantings on either side, between the rails @ Pt Molate? It’s something to consider, but carefully, and with public input.
Upshot
I think you should go with decomposed granite for Phase I, and consider permeable concrete (with study, visual renderings, and further public input) for remaining Phases of the Bay Trail that will pass through Pt Molate.
Sincere regards,
Carol Teltschick former Planning Commissioner and member of General Plan Update Committee current member of Point Molate Friends and Point Molate Working Group
18 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT MND
Response to Comment:
The commenter is concerned with the type of surface proposed for construction of the trail through sensitive plant and wildlife habitats as well as impacts resulting from runoff into adjacent sensitive plant and wildlife habitats. Additionally, the commenter is concerned with the visual, auditory, tactile, and obnoxious odors resulting from the use of an asphalt trail surface. The commenter is also providing feedback for an alternative trail alignment.
An asphalt-concrete surface with decomposed granite shoulders is proposed for the project due to its durability and low maintenance requirements and to follow Bay Trail Design Guidelines and Tool Kit (June 2016), “Bay Trail surface will typically be paved but may also include non-paved shoulders for a variety of uses. In limited cases, such as in areas of sensitive habitat or on levees with particular maintenance conditions, the entire trail tread may be composed of stabilized natural materials. See also Sections 5.1 and 5.2.”
Alternatives such as porous concrete or decomposed granite would have the same construction impacts as asphalt (to strip, grub, and prepare the subgrade surface of the previous railroad corridor and then place the new trail section). Asphalt would not create new hydrologic impacts because the trail would be graded such that stormwater runoff would drain to adjacent non-erodible pervious surfaces. Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 (Section VI. Geology & Soils [Page 36]) would be implemented to reduce the likelihood of erosion and increased sedimentation from recently graded areas within the Project. In addition, the design includes a 5-foot wide soft shoulder on the coastal side of the trail to absorb run-off for the entire length of the trail, in leaue of a typical 2-foot shoulder on both sides of the trail. The only exception to this design criteria is the segment that parallels the parking lot for the Beach Park that will incorporate 2-foot shoulders on both sides of the trail due to topograpgy and existing site conditions.
Comment Letter #5-I Carol Teltschick
From: Carol Teltschick To: Suzanne Wilson Subject: further comment on Phase I of Bay Trail @ Point Molate Date: Thursday, April 12, 2018 4:29:26 PM
Dear Suzanne,
I would like to add to the comment that I sent to you on April 10. “Park tread” should also be considered as an alternative to asphalt for the trail @ Point Molate.
I’ve just received this info from Catherine Barner, VP of Projects @ Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy:
We used a material called park tread for the Crissy Field promenade. We considered a number of alternatives and all agreed this was the best product given the number of people and the various user groups. Here is the link with the specifics on the material: http://www.parktread.com/
This is the same product we have used in several other places including the Coastal Trail in the Presidio. We used a product called permazyme to stabilize the material at Crissy Field.
19 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT MND
Since the deadline for submitting comments is so near, I won’t try to track down any cost benefit charts myself. But I’ll bet that Catherine would be happy to provide more information to you and your colleagues @ EBRPD.
One final thought: Decomposed granite and park tread both seem to require borders, and I’ve been wondering whether the existing railroad tracks could serve as borders. They would certainly be more durable, and it might also reduce installation costs since the rails are already there.
Sincere regards,
Carol Teltschick
Response to Comment:
The commenter is concerned with the type of surface proposed for construction of the trail and its potential effects on plants and wildlife in sensitive areas near the trail alignment. An asphalt-concrete surface with decomposed granite shoulders is proposed for the project due to its durability and low maintenance requirements and to follow Bay Trail Design Guidelines and Tool Kit (June 2016), “Bay Trail surface will typically be paved but may also include non- paved shoulders for a variety of uses. In limited cases, such as in areas of sensitive habitat or on levees with particular maintenance conditions, the entire trail tread may be composed of stabilized natural materials. See also Sections 5.1 and 5.2.”
Alternatives such as “park tread” or decomposed granite would have the same construction impacts as asphalt (to strip, grub, and prepare the surface of the previous railroad corridor).
Comment Letter #6-I Chia Hamilton
From: Chia Hamilton To: Suzanne Wilson Subject: Pt Molate Date: Friday, April 13, 2018 4:07:36 PM
Hi Suzanne I'm very concerned about the damage that heavy bulldozing does, referenced here http://santacruzlife.com/arana-gulch/ Seems to me this would be incredibly destructive in the area. Would all trail installation require heavy bulldozing? What process would be used if decomposed granite is the choice?
The very wooded area just south of the beach/park area would be devastated by bringing a bulldozer in there. There's a spring and waterway from the culvert under the road, the current trail is narrow. Hacking out a wide trail would lose much of what makes that area special. Maybe the lower land, a short distance from the beach would work better.
Thank you for taking my comments under consideration. We've all put a lot of hard work and love into this very special place.
Chia Hamilton
20 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT MND
May there be Peace on Earth
Response to Comment: a) The commenter is concerned with potential impacts to the surrounding sensitive plant and wildlife habitat resulting from the use of heavy construction equipment to construct the proposed trail or other trail surfaces. The commenter is also suggesting an alternative trail alignment. Impacts to the areas surrounding the proposed trail alignment would be subject to agency permit requirements for protecting water resources, plant, and wildlife species. Also, as discussed in Section XIX. Mandatory Findings of Significance a), “The proposed Project would result in potentially significant impacts to biological resources due to the presence of special status species within the Project’s alignment. MM BIO-1 requires surveys for special status plants and implementation of appropriate measures for restoration and avoidance. These mitigation measures would reduce impacts to biological resources to less than significant. MM BIO-2 and MM BIO-3 would reduce impacts to nesting birds and raptors below the level of significance and MM BIO-4 implements avoidance measures to protect monarch butterfly habitat. Impacts to the quality of the environment and special status species are reduced to less than significant.”
Comment Letter #7-I Jim Mckissock
From: Jim Mckissock To: Jim Hite Cc: Suzanne Wilson Subject: Re: A Comment, Phase I, Bike Path though Pt. Molate Beach Park Date: Friday, April 13, 2018 4:29:11 PM
Attn. S. Wilson In response to the intent for a negative declaration for the Pt. Molate bike path/ Bay trail. Having read the 65% engineering plan for the project, I can only come to the conclusion that the general public could not possibly have been given proper notice or information that would have been required by CEQA in a complete EIR versus the negative dec that has been pursued so far. No pictures of the trail or accurate drawings of the bike route exist. The plans falsely claim that all the impacts are less than significant and that the mitigations offered will be acceptable to the wider public and will correct any issues. Driving the path through the most sensitive area on the south end of the park for the alleged enjoyment of a few bike riders is unthinkable to the many current park users whom I've had the opportunity to discuss this with over the past three and a half years as lead worker of the Pt. Molate beach park volunteers. The park and surrounding area are best enjoyed on foot. The unique, sensitive and rare natural resources of the beach park and neighboring areas are in everyone's opinion best left alone. There has been no discussion of alternative
21 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT MND
bike routes. For example the new bike access under construction will give easy access to Stenmark Dr. and the road to the old Red Rock Marina/ ferry terminal which is now included as the southern portion of the bike route. It is unclear at this time what the old Red Rock site will become, it could possibly be a destination in it's own right. The addition of a bike lane up the steep grade on the east side of Stenmark Dr. to the top of the grade south of the beach park would make an all down hill cruse to the beach park entrance and conversely a bike lane could be added on the west side of Stenmark on the uphill portion from the beach park entrance to the top of the hill and all down hill on the way back. In any case bikers will have to climb a significant grade to get home and back on to city streets. The above alternative would be far less expensive and more doable, using mostly existing pavement and no expensive wooden road through the undisturbed sensitive area south of the beach park. There is much more but no time to comment . Thank You Jim McKissock 516 Richmond St. El Cerrito Ca 94530
On 4/11/18, Jim Hite
> East Bay Regional Parks > > Suzanne Wilson > > > Dear Ms. Wilson, > > > My name is Jim Hite. I have been going out to Pt. Molate Beach park since > the 1970s and I have seen a few changes! A surprising ( and remarkable ) > great change is the way the park has been maintained the last few years. OK, > I'm a volunteer out there and I was on the PMCAC during Gail's tenure as > mayor. > > > We have worked really hard to defend the beach park area from invasive > plants and to restore the same grasses and flowers that I remember observing > growing up here on the shores of the bay. These native grasses, shrubs and > flowers are hard to find anywhere around the bay. Pt. Molate beach park > allows the opportunity to roam among many different native species all > together in one place. > > > At least through the sensetive areas of Pt. Molate and the beach park, > asphalt is counter-productive to the restoration efforts that have been
22 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ON THE DRAFT MND
> under way out here. > > > Please consider an alternative such as porous concrete to run through the > park. A proper surface will respect the hard won and fragile environment the > bike path will traverse. > > > Thank you, > > > Jim Hite > > 34 13th St. #3 > > Richmond CA 94801 > > (510) 232-0457
Response to Comment:
The Commenter is expressing that the 30-day review period required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15105 was not an adequate amount of time to review and comment on the project. The commenter challenges the thresholds of significance determination made for the resulting Mitigated Negative Declaration and describes the proposed mitigation measures, plans and exhibits as inadequate. The commenter is also providing feedback for an alternative trail alignment.
The 30-day review period was provided in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. No additional review period is necessary for the proposed Project. The Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared consistent with Appendix G: Initial Study and CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 Decision to Prepare a Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The alternative trail alignment along Stenmark Drive proposed by the commenter would not be feasible through this segment of the trail because it would be inconsistent with the San Francisco Bay Trail Guidelines and Toolkit (June 2016): • The Bay Trail should be designed for the widest variety of nonmotorized trail users. Page 8 identifies Bay Trail users as “any age with any level of physical, audial, and visual ability.” The grade of the existing road and the width of the right-of-way does not accommodate a trail design consistent with this concept and with ADA requirements. • Page 12 identifies the design principles which include user experience and safety as the first principle of Bay Trail design. The trail should be designed to provide “an adequate buffer to create a safe and positive user experience that considers design elements of sights, sounds and fresh air.” Other relevant design principles include accommodating for universal access and proximity to the Bay.
23 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3.0 TEXT CHANGES TO THE DRAFT MND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
3.0 TEXT CHANGES TO THE DRAFT MND
The following text changes are made to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) The changes are shown by page number in the Draft MND and identified as to the location of the change in the body of the text or table.
Where changes are shown inserted in the existing Draft MND text, revised or new language is underlined, deleted language is indicated by strike through, and the original text is shown without underline or strike through.
Page Identification/Text Change: 24 Paragraph 3 of Section IV. Biological Resources a) has been edited to provide additional analysis describing suitable replanting areas that could be used for translocation or replanting of special-status species.
Flora. Special status or locally rare plants that occur within the proposed alignment would be removed. Invasive species on site could be spread to high-quality habitat areas unless avoided or mitigated. Mitigation opportunities exist that can reduce impacts to less than significant. The first is enhancement of habitat through the transplantation (when possible) of native bunch grasses that occur within the proposed trail alignment and would be removed due to construction. Second, weeds can be managed to prevent invasion of high quality habitats at the site. Third, locally rare plants can be replanted or restored to a habitat of equal or greater value on site. Exceptionally high quality coastal terrace prairie, known as the “postage stamp prairie,” was being invaded by French broom (Genista monspessulana) as well as naturally occurring coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum) which are expanding into the prairie as part of a natural succession process in the absence of fire or grazing pressures. Mitigation for impacts to native grasses will be carried out by managing these invading woody plants to ensure the continued viability of the high quality coastal terrace prairie communities near the project area. Any sensitive coastal terrace prairie species with potential to be impacted by trail construction may be transplanted, where possible, into outskirts of this prairie area (located on the nob just south of the sandy shoreline that begins at the beach park) so as not to interfere with the health and resiliency of the core prairie ecosystem. Finally, a protocol-level study may be required by agencies prior to construction to determine the presence or absence of additional special status plant species (e.g., Suisun marsh aster), which have been known to occur in the area in the past but were not identified during site visits conducted on October 26, 2015 and May 13, 2016.
Page Identification/Text Change: 25 Mitigation Measure BIO-3 of Section IV. Biological Resources has been edited to reflect suggestions made by CDFW to address nesting birds.
BIO–2 If any construction activities (e.g., grubbing, grading, removal of one tree) are scheduled during the bird nesting season (typically defined by CDFW as February 1 to September 1), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for nesting birds no more than 14 5 days prior to the start of work, or as otherwise specified by permit conditions. If the project is suspended and delayed for 10 or more days another nesting survey shall be conducted 2 days prior to resuming work. If the survey indicates the presence of nesting birds, a qualified biologist shall delineate a buffer zone where no construction will occur until the
24 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3.0 TEXT CHANGES TO THE DRAFT MND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS biologist has determined that all young have successfully fledged, or until otherwise approved by CDFW. The size of the buffer(s) shall be determined by the project biologist in consultation with CDFW and be based on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance.
Page Identification/Text Change: 42 Paragraph 3 of Section IX. Hazards & Hazardous Materials under the General Area History proposes a minor text edit for clarification.
In the early 1940’s, the Navy established Point Molate Naval Fuel Depot (NFD) at Point Molate for fuel storage and distribution for the Pacific Fleet. Segment B is located within a portion of the former NFD. The NFD consists ofincludes 20 large concrete underground storage tanks (USTs; each with 2.1 million gallons capacity) that have been built into the hillside and covered by native soil and several smaller USTs connected to refueling piers by over nine miles of buried pipeline.
Page Identification/Text Change: 42-43 Paragraphs 1 and 4 of Section IX. Hazards & Hazardous Materials under Project Area requires informational updates as follows:
Project Area
The Project traverses through a large portion of the former NFD and surrounding areas as shown on Figure 1. Due to past hHistorical uses activities at the NFD resulted in the presence of impacts to soil and groundwater that are regulated by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board under Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) No. R2-2009-0059 issued to the City of Richmond on October 1, 2009in. While significant site characterization investigations and soil and groundwater clean ups have been conducted at the NFD under this and other WDR (and other previous WDRs), there is a potential that there are areas of to encounter previously unidentified impacted soil and groundwater not previously identified. In addition, there are stipulations outlined in the WDRs that requrequirenew projects that include changes in land use and/or soil excavation may create potential environmental concerns (PEC’s) for exposing users to elevated levels of constituents not previously considered or remediated. Therefore, the proposed project that includes bringing users of the bike trail to the NFD and which is considered a change in land use, and will also result in soil excavation activities to construct the trail, requires compliance with the specific mitigation measures. In addition,preparation and implementation of a the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (SGWMP) that was prepared for that must be followed if ground-disturbing activities are planned and conducted that may disturb soil or produce groundwater at the former NFD at Point Molate. , and approved by the RWQCB serving as the lead agency (Attachment F of the Phase II/Appendix H), must also be followed. The SGWMP was prepared by the City of Richmond and approved by the RWQCB, and also requires notification to the RWQCB prior to initiation of any construction work at the NFD as well as specific measures that must be implemented if previously unknown impacted soil and groundwater are encountered. In response to Task 2 of San Francisco Bay RWQCB Order #R2- 2011-0087, which statesThe requirements of the SGWMP outlined in the WDRs are as follows:
NCE conducted Phase I and II Assessments (Appendix G and H) that identified specific potential environmental concerns (PECs) present within or nearby along the trail alignment.in order to identify avoidance and mitigation measures during construction and operation of the trail. The concerns identified included the presence of arsenic above health-based screening values and background concentrations that may pose an unacceptable risk be a concern to users of the
25 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3.0 TEXT CHANGES TO THE DRAFT MND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS bike trail, construction workers during construction, and future maintenance crews; the potential for users of the trail to be exposed to hazardous building materials (HBM) potentially present around and within the existing abandoned buildings near the trail and within the NFD, as wells as physical hazards associated with theis buildings; and potential contamination that may be present in the subsurface that hasmay not have been previously mitigated.
Page Identification/Text Change:
43-44 Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section IX. Hazards & Hazardous Waste item b) have been revised to include further analysis as follows:
a) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The operation of the trail would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. However, construction of the trail will require the movement and handling of soil with arsenic concentrations above background levels. In addition, contaminated soils not previously identified could also be encountered. There are also existing abandoned structures located near the proposed trail alignment that may contain HBMs and pose a physical hazard to trail users. As required by Mitigation measure HAZ-1, fencing would be installed to keep users from accessing abandoned buildings, other structures, and areas known to contain contaminated soils. As a requirement of HAZ-2 the soils with elevated levels of arsenic along the trail would either be capped in place, or relocated and capped. Areas where soils containing arsenic above background levels occur beneath the footprint of the trail, those soils would be covered with a minimum of 1-foot of clean fill material or clean fill, aggregate base and asphalt. To prohibit users from accessing wetland areas that may contain high levels of arsenic, lead or PAHs, the boardwalk would be designed and constructed with railings that keep users on the boardwalk. Where soils containing arsenic concentrations above background levels occur near the proposed alignment and would not be capped by the methods described above, fencing and/or signage would be placed to discourage users from entering the areas (e.g., areas immediately east of Burma Road where rail lines are exposed) as a requirement of mitigation measure HAZ-3.
During construction of the trail, the contractor would remove some abandoned infrastructure (e.g. abandoned fire hydrant piping, an abandoned fuel tank, and a containment vault). Removal of the abandoned fuel tank may require oversight from the RWQCB. Removal of the other infrastructure may require additional testing for HBMs if they are identified during construction. Additionally, project construction will require excavation of some soil with elevated levels of arsenic that could cause temporary exposure to workers during earth work activities. Incorporation of mitigation measure HAZ-42 requires the contractor to prepare a site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HS&P) and implement a project- specific soil management plan, and air monitoring plan, under the direction of a Certified Industrial Hygienist. If unexpected HBMs or contamination is are encountered during construction, the contractor will be required to follow the NFD Soil and Groundwater Management Plan procedures.
Page Identification/Text Change: 44 Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 of Section IX. Hazards & Hazardous Materials proposes minor text edits for clarification.
26 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3.0 TEXT CHANGES TO THE DRAFT MND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
HAZ -1 Exclusionary fencing shall be installed to keep users from accessing abandoned buildings and other structures that pose a physical hazard. Fencing shall also be installed in areas where HBMs may be present and where contaminated soils occur near the proposed alignment and would not be capped. This may include areas along the eastern edge of Burma Road, the perimeter of buildings at the drum lot, and the inside perimeter of the drum lot.
Page Identification/Text Change: 42 Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 of Section IX. Hazards & Hazardous Materials4 proposes minor text edits for clarification and additional guidance for the Lead Agency to implement the mitigation measure correctly.
HAZ-2 The final Plan, Specification and Estimate (PS&E) for the Project shall identify areas where arsenic shall be addressed and require the contractor to comply with the NFD SGWMP, the. The contractor shall prepare a project-specific soil management plan, and air monitoring plan. The contractor shall be required to prepare and Health and Safety Plan. Implementation of the project-specific soil management plan and air monitoring plan, and preparation and implementation of the Health and Safety Plan shall be conducted with oversight by a Certified Industrial Hygienist. During construction, areas of known elevated arsenic, lead, or PAHs shall be either capped in place, relocated and capped, or access discouraged to prohibit users. Areas where soils containing arsenic above background occur beneath the footprint of the trail shall be covered with a minimum of 1-foot of clean fill material. Soils shall not be transported between City and Chevron properties (i.e. between Segment A and Segment B). The Lead Agency shall document that the City has informed/contacted the RWQCB two weeks prior to construction, as required by the SGWMP.
Page Identification/Text Change: 44 Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 of Section IX. Hazards & Hazardous Materials proposes minor text edits for clarification.
HAZ-3 A boardwalk over the wetland area where elevated arsenic was identified shall be constructed with railings designed to inhibit trail users from accessing the wetland. The boardwalk shall be included in the final PS&E to be reviewed and approved by the Lead Agency.
Page Identification/Text Change: 44-45 Mitigation Measure HAZ-4 of Section IX. Hazards & Hazardous Materials has been consolidated with HAZ-2 for clarity.
HAZ-4 To protect construction personnel from potential exposure to undiscovered hazardous materials, the contractor shall be required to follow the NFD SGWMP. The NFD SGWMP defines protocols to be implemented if suspected contamination is found during mass grading and excavation activities associated with site development. These protocols shall include identification of how soils and affected groundwater are to be managed and requiring hourly field measurements within active excavation areas. Hourly field measurements shall also be required within active soil stockpile areas and confined spaces. The Plan shall be implemented by a professional engineer registered in the State of California and shall include hourly field measurements for undiscovered contaminants using a photo ionization detector (PID) for measuring volatile organic compounds (VOCs), confined space monitor (oxygen, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, and, lower explosive
27 | P a g e
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AT POINT MOLATE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3.0 TEXT CHANGES TO THE DRAFT MND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
limit), and any other monitor deemed appropriate by the registered engineer. If deemed necessary by the engineer, soil samples shall be collected and analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons in areas of suspected contamination. If suspected contamination is found during construction activities, all work shall stop in the immediate area and a safe zone for construction personnel shall be established. The extent of contamination shall be assessed to determine whether there is a significant health risk to construction personnel working on- site. The SMP would also include construction personnel safety protocols according to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines to be implemented as part of the SMP. The contractor shall ensure through contractual obligations with the RWQCB that OSHA guidelines are followed during construction activity and any potential removal of affected soils.
Page Identification/Text Change: 45 Mitigation Measure HAZ-5 of Section IX. Hazards & Hazardous Materials has been renumbered to HAZ-4 to reflect the removal of the previous mitigation measure.
HAZ-54: The contractor shall adhere to and incorporate the relevant conditions contained in the 2012 NFD SGWMP. Prior to Project construction, a project specific soils management plan and or equivalent health and safety plan shall be prepared by the contractor under the direction of a certified industrial hygienist, and reviewed by the City of Richmond for consistency with existing contractual requirements.
Page Identification/Text Change: 46 The Findings for Section IX. Hazards & Hazardous Materials proposes minor text edits to reflect the removal of mitigation Measure HAZ-4.
Findings: The Project is located in an area where previous infrastructure and past land uses create the potential for contamination in areas containing abandoned infrastructure, contaminated soils within the railroad alignment, and in HBMs that may be on site. Implementation of HAZ-1, 2, and 3 would reduce or eliminate potential for exposure of trail users to areas of known contamination. There is potential for exposure of hazardous materials to construction workers during earth-moving construction activities, which can be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of HAZ-4 and HAZ-5. Direct and indirect impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials will be reduced to less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-45.
28 | P a g e
Distribution and Quality Control
Report Title for: Response to Comments on the San Francsico Bay Trail MND
Project Location: P:\Active Projects\East Bay Regional Park Dist - A567\567.04.55 - Bay Trail Segment A & B\Planning\CEQA\02 RTC and Final MND\Final Response to Comments v02.docx
Date: 4/25/18
Quality Control Reviewer:
Gretchen Taylor Principal Planner
29 | P a g e