RICHMOND FERRY TERMINAL PROJECT Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Draft

Prepared for WETA San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority Pier 9, Suite 111 The Embarcadero San Francisco, CA 94111

Prepared by Atkins 322 Pine Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104

May 2014

Draft Contents May 2014

Contents

SECTION 1. Introduction ...... 1 I. Purpose of this Document...... 1 II. Purpose and Need of the Project ...... 1 III. Project Background ...... 3 IV. Scope of this Document ...... 4 V. Impact Terminology ...... 7 VI. Organization of this Document ...... 8 VII. Summary of Environmental Impacts ...... 8 SECTION 2. Project Description ...... 17 I. Introduction ...... 17 II. Project Description ...... 20 III. Proposed Ferry Service and Ridership Potential ...... 29 IV. Required Permits and Coordination ...... 33 V. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Consideration ...... 33 SECTION 3. Environmental Checklist Form ...... 35 I. Evaluation of Environmental Impacts...... 40 II. Aesthetics ...... 41 III. Agriculture/Forestry Resources ...... 56 IV. Air Quality ...... 58 V. Biological Resources ...... 69 VI. Cultural Resources ...... 86 VII. Geology/Soils ...... 95 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 101 IX. Hazards/Hazardous Materials...... 107 X. Hydrology/Water Quality ...... 114 XI. Land Use/Planning ...... 125 XII. Mineral Resources ...... 140 XIII. Noise ...... 141 XIV. Population/Housing ...... 155 XV. Public Services ...... 158 XVI. Recreation ...... 162 XVII. Transportation/Traffic ...... 165 XVIII. Utilities/Service Systems ...... 191 XIX. Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... 195 SECTION 4. List of Preparers ...... 198 I. Lead Agency ...... 198 II. Contributing Agency ...... 198 III. EIR Consultants ...... 198 IV. Project Design Team ...... 199

San Francisco Bay Area i Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contents Draft May 2014

Appendices Appendix A Air Quality Analysis Assumptions Appendix B Special-Status Species Appendix C Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Assumptions Appendix D Noise Analysis Assumptions

Figures Figure 1 Project Area ...... 18 Figure 2 Project Site Plan ...... 21 Figure 3 Ferry Terminal Layout ...... 23 Figure 4 Proposed and Potential Future Parking Locations ...... 26 Figure 5 Kayak Launch Layout...... 28 Figure 6 Proposed Ferry Route ...... 30 Figure 7 Views of the Ferry Terminal Site ...... 42 Figure 8 Views of Existing and Proposed Future Parking Locations ...... 43 Figure 9 Views of Kayak Launch Location ...... 45 Figure 10 Views from the Ferry Terminal Project Site ...... 46 Figure 11 GHG Mitigation Option: Solar Array Carport—Viewpoint Location Map ...... 48 Figure 12a GHG Mitigation Option: Solar Array Carport—Views 1 and 2 across the Project Site ...... 49 Figure 12b GHG Mitigation Option: Solar Array Carport—Views 3 and 4 across the Project Site ...... 50 Figure 13 General Plan Land Use Designations ...... 126 Figure 14 Zoning ...... 128 Figure 15 Noise Monitoring Sites ...... 147 Figure 16 Existing Roadway Network ...... 166 Figure 17 Study Intersections ...... 170 Figure 18 Existing [2012] No Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ...... 174 Figure 19 Peak Hour Project Trips ...... 178 Figure 20 Existing [2012] Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes with Parking Option 1 ...... 180 Figure 21 Existing [2012] Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes with Parking Option 2 ...... 181 Figure 22 Cumulative [2035] No Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes ...... 184 Figure 23 Cumulative [2035] Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes with Parking Option 1 ...... 185 Figure 24 Cumulative [2035] Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes with Parking Option 2 ...... 186

Tables Table 1 2003 PEIR Applicable Mitigation Measures ...... 5 Table 2 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures ...... 9 Table 3 Project Demolition and Construction ...... 24 Table 4 Anticipated Permitting Requirements ...... 33 Table 5 Construction Phases...... 61

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project ii San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft Contents May 2014

Table 6 Unmitigated Construction Emissions ...... 62 Table 7 Mitigated Construction Emissions ...... 63 Table 8 Unmitigated Operational Emissions...... 65 Table 9 Habitat and Land Use Types Occurring within the Proposed Project Area ...... 70 Table 10 Construction GHG Emissions ...... 104 Table 11 Unmitigated Annual GHG Emissions ...... 105 Table 12 Summary of EDR Database Query ...... 110 Table 13 Representative Environmental Sound Levels ...... 142 Table 14 Maximum Allowable Exterior Noise Standards For Specified Land Uses, dBA ...... 145 Table 15 Maximum Allowable Receiving Noise Standards for Temporary Construction or Demolition Activities, dBA ...... 145 Table 16 Summary of Community Survey Noise Levels, July 17, 2012 ...... 146 Table 17 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ...... 148 Table 18 Noise Calculations for Ferry Arrival and Departure at the Shoreline ...... 150

Table 19 Modeled Motor Vehicle Noise Levels, Ldn, at Selected Locations in the Project Site Vicinity, dBA ...... 152 Table 20 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ...... 153 Table 21 Current [2015] and Future [2035] Population ...... 155 Table 22 Inventory of At-Grade Rail Crossing ...... 171 Table 23 Level of Service Criteria—Signalized Intersections Average Seconds of Delay ...... 172 Table 24 Level of Service Criteria—Unsignalized Intersections Average Seconds of Delay ...... 172 Table 25 Intersection Operations for Existing [2012] No Project Conditions ...... 173 Table 26 Trip Generation ...... 176 Table 27 Travel Mode Split ...... 177 Table 28 Project Trip Distribution ...... 177 Table 29 Intersection Operations for Existing [2012] Conditions ...... 182 Table 30 Intersection Operations for Cumulative [2035] No Project Conditions ...... 183 Table 31 Intersection Operations for Cumulative [2035] Conditions ...... 187 Table 32 Project Contribution to Cumulative Conditions ...... 188

San Francisco Bay Area iii Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Contents Draft May 2014

[THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project iv San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 1 Introduction May 2014

SECTION 1. Introduction

I. PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT

This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is a public document that assesses the environmental effects of the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority’s (WETA) Richmond Ferry Terminal Project (proposed project), as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and in compliance with CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Adm. Code Sections 1400 et seq.). It serves as an environmental document to be used in the local planning and decision-making process, and does not recommend approval or denial of the proposed project. As the CEQA lead agency for the proposed project, WETA will consider whether to adopt the related Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and whether to approve the project.

II. PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROJECT

The proposed Richmond/San Francisco ferry route is one of a number of ferry service options discussed in WETA’s Implementation and Operations Plan (IOP).1 The IOP was adopted by the State of California in October 2003, recognizing political and public support for expanded ferry services and to address a growing need for new Bay Area transportation options. The IOP demonstrates how Bay Area ferry service could be expanded to add more trips on existing routes and bring service to new destinations, including the City of Richmond and Contra Costa County. The IOP also demonstrates how ferries would strengthen the Bay Area’s disaster preparedness and how they would aid the region in the event of an emergency. The specific purpose and need for the Richmond Ferry Terminal Project is discussed in further detail in this section.

Relief of Traffic Congestion Residents of the nine-county Bay Area depend heavily on regionwide and transbay commuting. Despite the use of existing public transit services, including rail and buses, traffic congestion continues to rank highly among the public’s top concerns. Moreover, regardless of economic conditions, the severity of congestion is projected to increase in the future as population and employment in the Bay Area increase. According to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the worst congestion in the Bay Area occurs in the Bay Bridge corridor, which is used by commuters traveling between San Francisco and the East Bay.2 In its 2008 Travel Forecasts Data Study, MTC predicted that from 2006 to 2030, daily vehicle hours of delay will increase by approximately 54 percent on a regional basis. Examining the worst transbay corridors, MTC expects that Bay Bridge traffic will increase by 50 percent and be “at capacity” for nearly five hours a day during the morning and afternoon rush hours. MTC also predicts that in the

1 San Francisco Water Transit Authority, A Strategy to Improve Public Transit with an Environmentally Friendly Ferry System (July 2003). 2 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Travel Forecasts Data Summary, Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area (December 2008).

San Francisco Bay Area 1 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 1 Introduction Draft May 2014 future many more Bay Area workers, due to high housing costs, will be living far from their jobs, demanding that they spend more time commuting. It is projected that the number of daily worker trips travelling to and from San Francisco and Contra Costa County will be approximately 171,953 in 2030, a 53 percent increase over 2006 trips. The proposed Richmond/San Francisco ferry route would provide an alternative mode of transportation for commuters travelling the Bay Bridge corridor. Within the East Bay, Richmond ferry service could also reduce traffic congestion on Richmond Parkway, Interstate 80 (I-80), and I-580, as well as on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. It is anticipated that an expanded water transit system would primarily decrease car usage and its associated impacts, rather than divert riders from buses or Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). This is because overall demand for public transportation will continue to increase with population, faster than the development of actual transit capacity. In its 2008 Travel Forecasts Data Summary, MTC predicted that there would be an approximately 32 percent increase in daily transit boardings in the Bay Area between 2010 and 2030.3 Although there are several transbay transportation options in the Bay Area, each of these options faces physical, political, and/or funding constraints. For example, BART is running at capacity through the Transbay Tube during peak hours and has limited ability to substantially expand this capacity without major fleet and infrastructure improvements. Transbay bus service is dependent upon traffic flow; therefore, expansions in service require additional road capacity and dedicated High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. Ferry service would supplement existing transportation options, providing additional options to serve one of the Bay Area’s most congested travel corridors.

Support of Growing Population and Employment in the City of Richmond According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2009, total jobs in Contra Costa County could increase from 376,820 in 2010 to 555,650 in 20354. Richmond, specifically, is home to large industrial employers, such as Chevron, California Oils Corporation, the Levin-Richmond Terminal Corporation, Sims Metals Management, the Port of Richmond, and a growing number of businesses that employ thousands of people who live in San Francisco and the East Bay. Ford Peninsula, the proposed location for the ferry terminal, includes the Regatta Center, Westshore Business Park, the Ford Assembly Building, and Marina Center Research & Development (R&D) office parks. The City of Richmond General Plan Update envisioned the eastern section of the Ford Peninsula as a mixed-use waterfront district around the marina that takes advantage of the proposed ferry terminal.5 WETA, in conjunction with the City of Richmond prepared the Richmond Waterfront Transit-Oriented Development Plan (TOD Plan), in order to assist in the planning for the proposed ferry terminal. Total projected buildout at Ford Peninsula under the TOD Plan was projected to add up to 251,000 square feet (sf) of office uses, 88,000 sf of light industrial/office uses, 99,000 sf of light industrial uses, and

3 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Travel Forecasts Data Summary, Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area (December 2008). 4 Association of Bay Area Governments, Jobs Housing Connection Strategy, 2012. This report identifies growth for Contra Costa County from 2010 employment of 345,000 to 467,000 employed in 2040, a 35% increase; and Richmond growth from 2010 employment of 30,670 to 42,180 employed in 2040, a 38% increase. 5 City of Richmond, City of Richmond General Plan 2030, Land Use Element (August 2011).

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 2 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 1 Introduction May 2014

1,550 residential units.6 WETA ridership forecasts for 2035, as discussed in more detail in the Project Description, predict up to 1,715 total daily passenger trips between Richmond and San Francisco.

Emergency Operation following Disasters and Other Sudden Disruptions in Transbay Service In the case of a natural or man-made event that disables roads, other transit, bridges, and/or tunnels, an alternative form of transit that would be able to operate in such conditions is needed. In response to Hurricane Katrina, in 2007, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill 976 (SB 976), which created WETA as successor to WTA (Water Transit Authority), and as the name of the new agency indicates, put emergency preparation and coordinated-response readiness on a par with regionalized water transportation.7 Given the Bay Area’s susceptibility to earthquakes and its proximity to water, water transit provides a viable alternative to landside transportation options. The need for water-based services during disasters or disruptions in transit service in the Bay Area has been demonstrated multiple times in recent decades. Examples of events that caused ferry ridership to increase substantially include: the BART transbay tube fire in 1979, the Marin County mudslides that blocked access to the Golden Gate Bridge in 1982, the Loma Prieta Earthquake in 1989, the BART strike in 1997, a power outage that shut down BART in 1998, terrorism warnings for the Bay Bridge and Golden Gate Bridge in 2001, the June, 2012 fire near BART tracks in West Oakland that disrupted BART service between Oakland and San Francisco, and Bay Bridge closures for construction of the eastern span in 2008 and completed in September 2013. Recent experience shows that emergency ferry service provides immediate emergency capability, and operators can rapidly place additional vessels in service. While growth of Bay Area water transit to date has expanded the capacity to carry extra passengers on an emergency basis, the capacity is still well below potential need.8

III. PROJECT BACKGROUND

WETA is a regional agency authorized by the State of California to operate a comprehensive San Francisco Bay Area public water transit system. WETA was established by Senate Bill 976 and replaces the WTA. The intention of SB 976 is to improve the ability of ferries to respond in an emergency. As explained above, WETA’s 2003 IOP, adopted by the State of California in October 2003, proposes a ferry route between the cities of San Francisco and Richmond, as well as up to six additional ferry routes within the Bay Area. WETA released the TOD Plan in 2008, which includes a study of five locations in Richmond for a proposed new ferry terminal. The TOD Plan was developed following a series of meetings with stakeholders within the TOD Plan area, including local property owners and developers, City agency staff, local officials, and the public. Four of the five potential sites included in the TOD Plan are no longer being studied. Terminal Site 1 identified in the TOD Plan is evaluated in this document as the proposed project. Please see the Project Description for more details.

6 San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority, Richmond Waterfront Transit-Oriented Development Plan (January 2008). 7 San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority, Emergency Water Transportation System Management Plan (June 2009). 8 San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority, Emergency Water Transportation System Management Plan (June 2009).

San Francisco Bay Area 3 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 1 Introduction Draft May 2014

In addition to identifying a preferred site for the new ferry terminal, the TOD Plan discusses potential residential, commercial, and industrial buildout of the surrounding area. However, as the City of Richmond is responsible for implementing the land use vision set forth in the TOD Plan, the analysis presented in this IS/MND focuses only on environmental impacts associated with the construction of the ferry terminal and operation of the new ferry route; this document does not discuss the environmental impacts of surrounding potential land use buildout, which is not a part of this ferry terminal project. The most significant funding sources for a Richmond ferry are likely to be Regional Measure 2 (RM-2) and Contra Costa County Measure J. In 2004, voters passed RM2, which provides WETA with $18.3 million annually to support WETA’s ongoing operations. Of this amount, $3 million is specifically available to support WETA planning and administration, and $15.3 million is available to support service development and operation. On November 2, 2004, Contra Costa voters approved Measure J, which extended the half-percent cent local transportation sales tax first established by Measure C in 1988 for another 25 years to provide funding for continued and new transportation projects in the county. This program included an estimated $45 million to support capital development or transit operations for new ferry services for West Contra Costa County in Richmond and Hercules or Rodeo.

IV. SCOPE OF THIS DOCUMENT

In accordance with CEQA, this IS/MND “tiers” from the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR)—Expansion of Ferry Transit Service in the San Francisco Bay Area, certified in June 2003. As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15152, “tiering refers to the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower projects incorporating by reference the general discussion from the broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project.” CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines encourage the use of tiered environmental documents to reduce delays and excessive paperwork in the environmental review process. This is accomplished in tiered negative declarations by eliminating repetitive analyses of issues that were adequately addressed in the PEIR and by incorporating those analyses by reference. The tiering of the environmental analysis for the project allows this IS/MND to rely on the 2003 PEIR (incorporated by reference) for (1) a discussion of general background and setting information for environmental topic areas; (2) overall growth-related issues; (3) issues that were previously evaluated in sufficient detail in the 2003 PEIR and for which there is no significant new information or changed circumstances that would require further analysis; and (4) cumulative impacts. The 2003 PEIR evaluated the environmental impacts associated with expansion of ferry service on San Francisco Bay. The proposed Richmond/San Francisco ferry route was included in the analysis of potential ferry service options discussed in the 2003 PEIR. In addition, the IOP identifies the general proximity for future implementation of a ferry terminal in the City of Richmond, but does not identify a definite location. The 2003 PEIR addresses potential impacts associated with operation of the Richmond/San Francisco route and identifies mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts where feasible. As described above, this IS/MND tiers off the 2003 PEIR and, therefore, would adhere to all applicable mitigation measures identified in the 2003 PEIR as shown in Table 1 (2003 PEIR

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 4 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 1 Introduction May 2014

Applicable Mitigation Measures). Consistent with CEQA requirements, this IS/MND evaluates the potential site-specific impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Richmond Ferry Terminal in relation to the following: ■ Aesthetics ■ Land Use/Planning ■ Agricultural/Forestry Resources ■ Mineral Resources ■ Air Quality ■ Noise ■ Biological Resources ■ Population/Housing ■ Cultural Resources ■ Public Services ■ Geology/Soils ■ Recreation ■ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ■ Transportation/Traffic ■ Hazards/Hazardous Materials ■ Utilities/Service System ■ Hydrology/Water Quality

Table 1 2003 PEIR Applicable Mitigation Measures Richmond Applicable 2003 Ferry Terminal Applicable 2003 PEIR Impact PEIR Mitigation Resource Area Measure(s) Impact B-21: Wildlife behavior and susceptibility to predation may be adversely influenced by an increase in lighting from terminal facilities and associated vehicle Mitigation B-21.1 parking areas. Impact V-1: The construction and operation of new and enhanced ferry terminals along Aesthetics Mitigation V-1.1 the Bay shoreline could potentially impact land and water views of San Francisco Bay or degrade the visual character of the Bay. Mitigation V-1.2 Impact V-5: Expanded ferry service, including new terminals and additional ferries, could Mitigation V-5.1 result in light and glare impacts. Agricultural/Forestry N/A N/A Resources Impact A-2: Motor vehicles leaving ferry terminals during the evening commute period would produce cold-start emissions that could lead to localized violations of the short- Mitigation A-2.1 term carbon monoxide standard. Impact A-4: Air pollutants would be deposited in the Bay, which could increase the levels Mitigation A-4.1 of nitrates and sulfates in the water.

Impact A-5: Construction of ferry terminals would create emissions of fugitive dust from Mitigation A-5.1 excavation and grading, and emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, SO2, and PM10 from construction equipment exhaust. Mitigation A-5.2 Air Quality Impact A-6: Local concentrations of nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter could exceed Mitigation A-6.1 state and federal standards at the Ferry Building. Mitigation A-6.2 Impact A-7: The Proposed Project could result in increases of pollutants from ferry Mitigation A-7.1 exhaust deposited directly into the Bay. Impact A-8: Dredging for the Proposed Project would emit criteria air pollutants. These emissions would exceed the significance thresholds of 80 pounds per day for NOx, ROG, Mitigation A-8.1 and PM10 listed in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. The exceedances would occur for approximately 12 days every 3 to 6 years.

San Francisco Bay Area 5 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 1 Introduction Draft May 2014

Table 1 2003 PEIR Applicable Mitigation Measures Richmond Applicable 2003 Ferry Terminal Applicable 2003 PEIR Impact PEIR Mitigation Resource Area Measure(s) Mitigation B-3.1 Impact B-3: Project construction could result in the disturbance of “Special Aquatic Mitigation B-3.2 Sites,” including eelgrass beds, mudflats, and wetlands. Mitigation B-3.3 Mitigation B-7.1 Impact B-7: Dredging could adversely affect fish species near the construction activities. Mitigation D-4.1 Mitigation D-4.2 Impact B-9: Underwater noise from pile driving and other construction activities could Mitigation B-9.1 affect nearby fish. Impact B-13: Underwater pile driving noise could disturb marine mammals. Mitigation B-13.1 Impact B-16: Project construction and/or operation could result in the “take” of state or Mitigation B-16.1 federally listed species or loss or degradation of critical habitat.

Biological Resources Impact B-17: Construction and operation of terminal facilities could increase stormwater Mitigation B-17.1 pollutant discharges and affect receiving water quality. This, could in turn, affect local Mitigation W-1.1 biological resources. Mitigation W-1.2 Mitigation B-18.1 Impact B-18: Contaminated sediments could become resuspended during construction Mitigation D-2.1 and dredging operations and could potentially cause toxicity to Bay organisms Mitigation D-2.2 Mitigation D-2.3 Mitigation B-19.1 Mitigation W-3.1 Impact B-19: Increased numbers of ferry transits could bring an increased potential for Mitigation W-3.2 fuel spills and water quality degradation in the Bay. Mitigation W-3.3 Mitigation W-3.4 Mitigation W-3.5 Impact CUL-4: Project actions such as construction and related activities could impact Mitigation CUL-1.1 Cultural Resources previously unknown resources. Mitigation CUL-4.1 Impact G-2: Potential new terminals and other facilities could be exposed to strong ground shaking. There is a potential for substantial damage to facilities and risk of injury Mitigation G-2.1 or loss of life at incorrectly designed or constructed facilities. Geology/Soils Impact WW-1: Increased frequency of ferry trips across the Bay could increase the wake Mitigation WW-1.1 energy at some shorelines, causing increased erosion. Service to new areas of the Bay Mitigation WW-1.2 could lead to shoreline impacts from increased wave heights. Mitigation WW-1.3 Greenhouse Gas Impact E-2: The Proposed Project could result in higher energy per passenger miles Mitigation E-2.1 Emissions traveled value than other transit modes. Hazards/Hazardous N/A N/A Materials

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 6 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 1 Introduction May 2014

Table 1 2003 PEIR Applicable Mitigation Measures Richmond Applicable 2003 Ferry Terminal Applicable 2003 PEIR Impact PEIR Mitigation Resource Area Measure(s) Impact D-2: Dredging of new channels could locally reduce water quality by exposing Mitigation D-2.1 and suspending contaminated sediment. Impact W-1: Construction and operation of terminal facilities, including parking lots, access roads, and buildings, would increase the amount of impervious surface area, Mitigation W-1.1 Hydrology/Water causing increased storm water runoff. If runoff contained pollutants or eroded disturbed Mitigation W-1.2 Quality soil, discharge could impact receiving water quality. Mitigation W-3.1 Impact W-3: Increased ferry transits could increase the potential for fuel spills and water Mitigation W-3.2 quality degradation in the Bay. Although the probability of a spill is low, it still has the potential to occur. Mitigation W-3.4 Mitigation W-3.5 Impact LU-2: Installation of new ferry terminals could disrupt or divide established neighborhoods. This impact has the potential to be significantly negative or positive, Mitigation LU-2.1 depending on how much the community supports or opposes the location of the terminal. Land Use/Planning Impact LU-4: New or modified ferry terminals would be located along the shoreline, and Mitigation LU-4.1 could affect and/or enhance existing public use and access to and along the Bay shoreline. Mitigation LU-4.2 Mineral Resources N/A N/A Noise N/A N/A Population/Housing N/A N/A Public Services N/A N/A Recreation N/A N/A Impact T-1: At a regional level, expansion of the ferry service would result in a decrease of the total automobile VMT. At the local level, expansion of the ferry service could Mitigation T-1.1 facilitate changes in traffic patterns at new and existing ferry terminals. This could Transportation/Traffic potentially result in localized increases in traffic in the vicinity of the terminals.

Impact T-2: Additional car access to terminals would require parking. This could result in Mitigation T-2.1 potential localized parking problems and conflicts in the vicinity of the terminals. Mitigation T-2.2 Impact E-2: The Proposed Project could result in higher energy per passenger miles Utilities/Service System Mitigation E-2.1 traveled value than other transit modes. SOURCE: Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR)—Expansion of Ferry Transit Service in the San Francisco Bay Area, WETA, 2003

V. IMPACT TERMINOLOGY

The following terminology is used in this document to describe the levels of significance of impacts that would result from the proposed project. ■ The project is considered to have no impact if the analysis concludes that the proposed project would not affect a particular resource topic. ■ An impact is considered less than significant if the analysis concludes that the project would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment and that the impacts would not require mitigation.

San Francisco Bay Area 7 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 1 Introduction Draft May 2014

■ An impact is considered less than significant with mitigation if the analysis concludes that the proposed project would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment with the inclusion of mitigation measures to which WETA has agreed. ■ An impact is considered significant if the analysis concludes that the proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change to the environment that could not be mitigated by the inclusion of mitigation measures to which the WETA has agreed.

VI. ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT

The content and format of this document, described below, are designed to meet the requirements of CEQA. ■ Section 1 (Introduction) identifies the purpose, scope, and terminology of the document. ■ Section 2 (Project Description) identifies the location, background, and planning objective of the project; describes the project in detail; identifies the permits and approvals required for the project; and identifies public involvement procedures. ■ Section 3 (Environmental Checklist) presents the checklist responses for each resource topic. This section identifies the environmental setting, proposed project impacts on each resource, and provides a brief explanation for the determination of proposed project impacts. It also identifies mitigation measures to which the applicant has agreed. ■ Section 4 (List of Preparers) identifies the individuals involved in preparing this document and their areas of technical specialty.

VII. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The proposed project’s potential impacts and associated mitigation measures are summarized in Table 2 (Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures).

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 8 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 1 Introduction May 2014

Table 2 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; SU = significant and unavoidable Significance Impact Mitigation Measures After Mitigation AIR QUALITY Impact Air Quality (b) Violate any air quality MM-AIR-1 Implement recommended dust control measures. To reduce particulate matter emissions during project construction LTS standard or contribute substantially to an phases, the Project Sponsor shall require the construction contractors to comply with the dust control strategies developed by existing or projected air quality violation? BAAQMD. The Project Sponsor shall include in construction contracts the following requirements: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track-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. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. f. Idling times shall be minimized 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 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 13, Section 2485). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. h. Post a publically visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. MM-AIR-2 All marine based equipment shall be equipped with 2006 or newer engine models or after market emission reduction features such that the equipment exhaust is equivalent to that of a 2006 or newer engine model. MM-AIR-3 Land based construction activities cannot occur at the same time as marine based activities. The exception is that staging (i.e., brining equipment/supplies to the site in preparation of work commencing) may coincide with the previous construction phase. None of the marine based phases can overlap time frames. MM-AIR-4 All land based equipment greater than 50 hp shall be rated USEPA Tier 2 or better if land based construction phases will occur simultaneously. Even with USEPA Tier 2 equipment only the following phases can overlap in the construction schedule: a. Phases 1 and 2 b. Phases 1 and 3 c. Phases 1 and 4

San Francisco Bay Area 9 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 1 Introduction Draft May 2014

Table 2 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; SU = significant and unavoidable Significance Impact Mitigation Measures After Mitigation d. Phases 2 and 3 e. Phases 2 and 4 Impact Air Quality (c) Result in a cumulatively See MM-AIR-1 through MM-AIR-4. LTS considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact Biological Resources (a) Have a MM-BIO-1 Reduce Noise Related Impacts on ESA Listed Fish Species and Marine Mammals During In-Water Work. WETA will LTS substantial adverse effect, either directly or implement measures to reduce impacts associated with in-water work activities to listed fish species. These measures will through habitat modifications, on any species include, at a minimum, the following measures: identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special- ■ In-water work activities will occur June 1 to November 30 (the dredging window in the Central Bay), outside the peak juvenile status species in local or regional plans, policies, outmigration periods for ESA listed fish species. or regulations, or by the California Department of Bubble curtains will be used to attenuate pile driving sounds. Confined curtains will be used when feasible. Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife ■ Service? ■ A vibratory pile driver will be used when feasible. Geotechnical consultation would be necessary to determine if vibratory pile driving methods would meet applicable standards for pile installation. ■ Sound levels will be monitored. Real-time sound data will be used to adjust bubble curtains if necessary to minimize underwater noise from impact pile driving. ■ As a performance standard, the selected measures will represent the best available technology that is economically achievable, and will achieve maximum feasible reduction in underwater sound pressure levels (SPLs) and/or related impacts on listed fish species. MM-BIO-2 Conduct In-Water Construction Activities During the Dredging Window for the Central Bay to Avoid ESA Listed Fish Spawning and Migration Seasons. In water construction will be limited to the dredging window period (June 1 to November 30) to reduce the likelihood of adverse impacts on rearing juvenile steelhead, Chinook salmon, and green sturgeon, and on adult fish spawning and migration, unless otherwise approved by appropriate resource agencies. MM-BIO-3 Monitor for Turbidity during Dredging Activities. The San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) makes certain exceptions for dredging activities, and the typical Basin Plan standards for turbidity may not apply in the mixing zone of the dredging activities. However, outside of the mixing zone, which could be more than 500 feet, WETA or its contractor would monitor and ensure Basin Plan standards for turbidity are met. WETA would consult with the San Francisco RWQCB to determine if routine channel dredging within the Inner Richmond Harbor is exempted from turbidity monitoring requirements and

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 10 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 1 Introduction May 2014

Table 2 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; SU = significant and unavoidable Significance Impact Mitigation Measures After Mitigation to determine the extent of the mixing zone. If turbidity monitoring outside of the mixing zone is required, WETA or its contractor would conduct turbidity monitoring outside of the mixing area immediately prior to initiation of dredging activities to comply with Basin Plan standards. Basin Plan standards are as follows: ■ Where natural turbidity is between 0 and 5 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs), increases shall not exceed 1 NTU. ■ Where natural turbidity is between 5 and 50 NTUs, increases shall not exceed 20 percent. ■ Where natural turbidity is between 50 and 100 NTUs, increases shall not exceed 10 NTUs. ■ Where natural turbidity is greater than 100 NTUs, increases shall not exceed 1 percent. ■ The specific monitoring schedule including any additional timing information and quality assurance shall be determined by WETA in collaboration with the San Francisco RWQCB. In response to monitoring results, turbidity controls shall be implemented by WETA or its contractor to assure that the thresholds above are not exceeded. These may include one or more of the following: ■ Use of a silt curtain to isolate turbidity (if site conditions allow) ■ Use of operational controls, such as any of the following:  Increased cycle time / reduced bucket deployment (longer cycle times reduce the velocity of the ascending bucket through the water column, which reduces potential sediment wash from the bucket)  Conduct dredging activities at low tide to minimize travel distance of the ascending bucket through the water column  Use of an environmental bucket Impact Biological Resources (b) Have a MM-BIO-4 The Draft California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (DCEMP) contains recommendations for conducting eelgrass bed LTS substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat surveys, avoidance measures for potential impacts from shading and turbidity, assessment of project impacts, and mitigation or other sensitive natural community identified in measures. An eelgrass survey for the project area shall be conducted no more than 60 days prior to the start of construction. If local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or eelgrass is present, the survey shall evaluate the following five parameters indentified for use in assessment of effects of actions by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife on eelgrass. These parameters are (1) the spatial distribution of the bed; (2) the areal extent of the bed; (3) the percentage of or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? bottom cover within the bed; (4) the turion density within the bed; and (5) where available, the occurrence frequency and distribution of eelgrass beds through time. When evaluated in association with reference area response, these metrics provide definition to the bed that allows for assessment of eelgrass change related to an action. Preparation of the Biological Assessment including consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and ensuing Biological Opinion will determine the extent and location of required off-site mitigation When impacts to eelgrass could occur, the project sponsor shall develop a mitigation plan following the procedures in the DCEMP. The project sponsor is solely responsible for achieving the mitigation target. The location of eelgrass mitigation shall be in areas of similar condition to those where the initial impact occurs. Factors such as distance from action, depth, sediment type, distance from ocean connection, water quality, and currents are among those that shall be considered in evaluating suitable sites and making an ultimate site selection for mitigation.

San Francisco Bay Area 11 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 1 Introduction Draft May 2014

Table 2 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; SU = significant and unavoidable Significance Impact Mitigation Measures After Mitigation If avoidance and minimization measures are not practical and impact to an existing eelgrass bed may occur, off-site mitigation is required at a 3.01:1 ratio (mitigation to impact) at an approved site. Techniques for eelgrass mitigation shall be consistent with the best available technology at the time of mitigation implementation and shall be tailored to the specific needs of the mitigation site. Impact Biological Resources (d) Interfere MM-BIO-5 To avoid any direct impacts to raptors and/or any migratory birds, removal of habitat that supports active nests on the LTS substantially with the movement of any native proposed area of disturbance shall occur outside of the breeding season for these species (February 1 to August 31). If trimming resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or of trees or removal of shrubs on the proposed area of disturbance must occur during the breeding season, the project sponsor with established native resident or migratory shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds on the wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native proposed area of disturbance. The preconstruction survey shall be conducted within 10 calendar days prior to the start of wildlife nursery sites? construction activities (including removal of vegetation). The project sponsor shall submit the results of the preconstruction survey to CDFW for review and approval prior to initiating any construction activities. If nesting birds are detected, a letter report or mitigation plan as deemed appropriate by CDFW, shall be prepared and include proposed measures protocols to be implemented to ensure that disturbance of breeding activities is avoided. The report or mitigation plan shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval. MM-BIO-6 An Incidental Harassment Authorization from NMFS would be needed for pile driving and dredging activities, even though activities would not occur near known haul-out sites. To minimize harassment to marine mammals, the following avoidance measures are proposed: ■ Work shall occur only during daylight hours so that marine mammals are visible at all times during the pile installation and dredging activities. ■ A safe zone shall be enforced during dredging and pile driving operations. A marine mammal monitor shall survey the area prior to the startup of pile driving equipment. ■ Installation shall not begin until no marine mammals are sighted within a designated “safe zone” for at least 15 minutes prior to the initiation of the activity. ■ For dredging and pile driving activities, the proposed safety zone shall be a radius of 1,000 feet from the dredging or pile location. At 1,000 feet, sound levels from dredging or pile driving are expected to be below 180 dB. ■ Once activities begin, installation shall continue until completed. Before driving the next pile, the monitor shall again confirm that the safety zone is clear of marine mammals. ■ The construction contractor shall establish daily “soft start” or “ramp up” procedures for pile-driving activities. This technique shall be used at the beginning of each piling installation to allow any marine mammal that may be in the area to leave before pile driving activities reach full energy. The contractor shall provide an initial three strikes at reduced energy (40 percent), followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then subsequent 3-strike sets. ■ A qualified biological monitor shall visually survey the area one day prior to the start of dredging or dredging operations to establish a baseline.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 12 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 1 Introduction May 2014

Table 2 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; SU = significant and unavoidable Significance Impact Mitigation Measures After Mitigation CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact Cultural Resources (b) Cause a MM-CUL-1 Mitigate Potential Disturbance for Significant Archeological Resources Identified During Construction. A qualified LTS substantial adverse change in the significance of archeologist approved by WETA shall first determine whether a previously unidentified archeological resource uncovered during an archaeological resource pursuant to construction is a “unique archaeological resource” under 36 CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5, and/or Public Resources Code Section 15064.5? Section 21083.2. If the archeological resource is determined to be a “unique archaeological resource,” the archaeologist shall formulate a mitigation plan that satisfies the requirements of, 36 CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5, and/or Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. Work in the vicinity of the find may resume at the completion of a mitigation plan or recovery of the resource. If the archeologist determines that the archaeological resource is not a unique archaeological resource, work will resume, and the archaeologist may record the site and submit the recordation form to the California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center. The archeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a mitigation plan, following accepted professional practice. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the City and to the California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center. Impact Cultural Resources (d) Disturb any MM-CUL-2 Comply with State Regulations Regarding the Discovery of Human Remains at the Project Site. If human skeletal LTS human remains, including those interred outside remains are uncovered during project construction, the project sponsor shall immediately halt work, contact the County coroner of formal cemeteries? to evaluate the remains, and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e)(1). If the County coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the project sponsor shall contact the NAHC, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and PRC Section 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). In accordance with PRC Section 5097.98, the project sponsor shall ensure that, according to generally accepted cultural or archeological standards or practices, the immediate vicinity of the Native American human remains is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the project sponsor has discussed and conferred, as prescribed in PRC Section 5097.98, with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Impact Greenhouse Gas Emissions (a) MM-GHG-1 The proposed project shall implement a combination of the following measures, in whole or in part, such that project LTS Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either emissions are reduced by a minimum of 485.56 MT CO2e annually. directly or indirectly, that may have a significant 1. Increase the percent of biodiesel used in the ferry fuel mixture. Currently the fuel used is a B5 (5 percent biofuel) mixture impact on the environment? which reduces ferry emission by 3.57 percent and overall project emissions by 10.8 percent over use of a 0 percent biodiesel fuel. The following table provides examples of emission reductions based on varying levels of biofuel in the fuel mix. Additional ferry reduction and additional project reduction refer to the increase over current 5 percent biofuel mix.

San Francisco Bay Area 13 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 1 Introduction Draft May 2014

Table 2 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; SU = significant and unavoidable Significance Impact Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Biofuel Additional Ferry Additional Project Total Emission (% in Emission Reduction Emission Reduction Reduction (%) mixture) (%) (%) 5 3.75 0 0 6 4.50 0.75 2.42 20 15.00 11.25 36.31 50 37.50 33.75 108.93 The 50 percent biodiesel results in a greater than 100 percent offset because total project reductions take into account the VMT emissions avoided by the implementation of the project. 2. Install electrical charging stations in the parking lot. Implementation of charging stations will reduce transportation emissions based on the electrical vehicle population of the community and the number of available charging stations. In a commuter situation such as this, one car would occupy a charging station for the entire day. Based on the existing community a maximum of five charging stations have the potential to be occupied per day. Based on the average trip to the ferry terminal, a maximum annual metric ton CO2e reduction per charging station would be 0.089 for a total annual reduction assuming five stations of 0.44 MT CO2e. 3. Install on-site solar through covering on-site parking with photovoltaic. Based on maximum parking lot coverage that results in the installation of an 809 kW capacity system,9 electricity offsets would be approximately 1.24 million kWh per year. This would result in a savings of 297.56 MT CO2e annually. GHG emissions savings will vary based on the final coverage design implemented. If this reduction measure is implemented final GHG emissions reductions shall be calculated based upon the actual system to be installed. 4. If on-site emission reductions are not feasible or cannot be incorporated to a level that will reduce all remaining on-site emissions, then WETA shall offset all remaining project emissions. To the maximum extent feasible, as determined by WETA in conjunction with the BAAQMD, offsets shall be implemented locally. Implementation of this measure shall be completed by December 2015. Offsets may include, but are not limited to, the following (in order of preference): a. Funding of local projects, subject to review and approval by the BAAQMD that will result in real, permanent, verifiable, enforceable, and additional reduction in GHG emissions. If the BAAQMD or Contra Costa County develops a GHG mitigation fund, WETA may instead pay into this fund to offset GHG emission in excess of the significance thresholds. b. Purchase of carbon credits to offset emission below the significance threshold. Only carbon offset credits that are

9 SunPower parking coverage, offset values and emission reductions are included in Appendix C.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 14 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 1 Introduction May 2014

Table 2 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; SU = significant and unavoidable Significance Impact Mitigation Measures After Mitigation verified and registered with the Climate Action Reserve, or available through a County-approved local GHG mitigation bank or fund, may be used to offset project emission. Impact Greenhouse Gas Emissions (b) See MM-GHG-1. LTS conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

NOISE Impact Noise (a) Result in the exposure of MM-NOI-1 Notification of nearby property owners of project construction before construction begins. A notification packet will be LTS persons to or generation of noise levels in sent to property owners identifying intended construction schedule, duration of noise-generating construction activities, and a excess of standards established in the local telephone number hotline to use for communicating noise complaints. general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable MM-NOI-2 Use appropriate sound-control devices on construction equipment no less effective than those provided by the standards of other agencies? manufacturer. All equipment will be maintained to minimize noise generation and no equipment will have unmuffled exhausts. MM-NOI-3 To minimize effects of pile driving on nearby residents, WETA will restrict pile driving to between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM to ensure that driving occurs when residents are most likely to be away from home or able to leave if necessary to avoid noise effects. MM-NOI-4 WETA will ensure the contractor will use the best available technology to minimize noise from pile driving. This may include, but is not limited to pre-drilling pile holes, use of a vibratory hammer, and sound blankets installed around stationary equipment. Impact Noise (b) Result in the exposure of MM-NOI-5 Construction equipment generating the highest noise and vibration levels (pile driving) shall operate at the maximum LTS persons to or generation of excessive distance feasible from sensitive receptors. groundborne vibration or groundborne noise MM-NOI-6 A preservation director shall be designated. This person’s contact information shall be posted in a location near the levels? project site that it is clearly visible to the nearby receptors most likely to be disturbed. The director shall manage complaints and concerns resulting from activities that cause vibration. The severity of the vibration concern shall be assessed by the director and, if necessary, evaluated by a qualified noise and vibration control consultant. MM-NOI-7 The preexisting condition of all buildings within a 50-foot radius and historical buildings within the immediate vicinity of proposed construction activities shall be recorded in the form of a preconstruction survey. The preconstruction survey shall determine conditions that exist before construction begins and shall be used to evaluate damage caused by construction activities. Fixtures and finishes within a 50-foot radius of construction activities susceptible to damage shall be documented (photographically and in writing) before construction. All buildings damaged shall be repaired to their preexisting conditions. MM-NOI-8 On-site or adjacent historic features shall be covered or temporarily shored as necessary for protection from vibration, in consultation with the preservation director.

San Francisco Bay Area 15 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 1 Introduction Draft May 2014

Table 2 Summary of Proposed Mitigation Measures NI = no impact; LTS = less than significant; PS = potentially significant; SU = significant and unavoidable Significance Impact Mitigation Measures After Mitigation Impact Noise (d) Result in the exposure of See MM-NOI-1 through MM-NOI-8. LTS persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Impact Traffic/Transportation (a) Conflict with MM-TRA-1 The project sponsor shall contribute the fair share amount of funding towards the signalization of the Harbour Way LTS an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy South/Wright Avenue intersection. Signalization of this intersection would improve operating conditions to acceptable levels establishing measures of effectiveness for the (LOS A). Details on the actual improvements and determination of WETA’s fair share contribution will be addressed in the performance of the circulation system, taking Conditional Use Permit process and conditions of approval for the project. into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and nonmotorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including, but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 16 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 2 Project Description May 2014

SECTION 2. Project Description

I. INTRODUCTION

The San Francisco Bay Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) proposes to construct a ferry terminal in Richmond and provide new ferry service between the cities of San Francisco and Richmond. The City of Richmond is collaborating in this effort and WETA is the local lead agency under CEQA. WETA is responsible for implementation of the Richmond Ferry Terminal Project (proposed project). The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is the federal lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and will provide financial assistance to the project. FTA, in coordination with WETA, will prepare a separate NEPA document for the proposed project.

Project Setting The proposed project includes implementation of a new ferry route and installation of a ferry terminal, including demolition of an existing—and construction of a new—gangway and passenger float, as well as demolition and relocation of an existing kayak launch. The 2003 WTA PEIR for the expansion of ferry service in the Bay Area evaluated environmental impacts related to the Richmond/San Francisco ferry route. As this is a project-level analysis that tiers from and incorporates the 2003 WTA PEIR, this IS/MND evaluates the site-specific environmental impacts related to construction and operation of the Richmond Ferry Terminal. The proposed route would travel between the cities of San Francisco and Richmond. Passengers would embark/disembark at the existing Downtown San Francisco Ferry Terminal and at the proposed terminal in Richmond. The proposed terminal in Richmond would be constructed at the southwest end of the Ford Peninsula; approximately 1.5 miles south of the Richmond downtown core, as illustrated in Figure 1 (Project Area). The proposed terminal would be at the site of an existing passenger float and gangway, adjacent to the historic Ford Assembly Building and Craneway Pavilion. Orton Development, Inc. (ODI) controls these existing waterside facilities, which consist of a 103 sf private landing, a 403 sf gangway, and a 1,780 sf passenger float for transient vessels. The existing gangway and passenger float are accessible by a gate on the western side of the wharf that surrounds the Craneway Pavilion. The wharf also serves as a segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail (Bay Trail). The existing facilities are currently used for privately operated excursion vessels that shuttle visitors to events at the Craneway Pavilion. The facilities are also permitted and used for vessel storage. Per specifications outlined in an existing permit between ODI and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), transient vessels may be moored up to 30 days at a time for no more than a total of 120 days per year per vessel. As described later in this section, the existing gangway and passenger float would be removed during project construction. A portion of the project site (the parking lots that would serve the new ferry terminal) is within the Port Priority Use Area, as designated by the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan. The Port Priority Use Area is defined by port and water related uses including warehouses, storage tanks, shipbuilding slips, marine terminals for ship loading and unloading, truck loading and unloading areas, industrial businesses, auto uploading, ship repair, and private and public port areas. The area is traversed by numerous railroad spurs and is oriented around the Santa Fe Channel.

San Francisco Bay Area 17 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SAN PABLO

23rd St Castro St

HarbourWay RICHMOND

%&n RichmondOhio Pkwy Ave Cutting Blvd MarinaWay Carlson Blvd EL CERRITO Ú

Hall Ave Harbour Way Harbour

PROJECT SITE - Ferry Terminal ALBANY 580 !"c Aâ

CUTTING BLVD BERKELEY

B e r k

9 S. 23RD ST MARINA WY MARINA

NORTH

WRIGHT AVE

M A R I NA B A Y

P

K

W REGATTA BLVD Y HARBOUR WY

Marina Park REGATTA BLVD Santa Fe Channel Existing Public Boat Launch HALL AVE Port of Richmond Marina Bay Yacht Harbor

Ford Sheridan Assembly Point Park Building Lucretia Edwards Park Existing Kayak Launch Rosie the Riveter Visitor Center

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Existing Gangway and Float Existing Transient Craneway Boat Berthing Source: GIS ArcMap, basemap, 2012; Atkins, 2012. Pavilion NOT TO SCALE 100003254 | Figure 1 Project Area Draft SECTION 2 Project Description May 2014

Additional uses on the Ford Peninsula include the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park, Assemble Restaurant (located within the Ford Assembly Building), the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor, Lucretia Edwards Park, Sheridan Point Park, office/research and development (R&D), and parking. The Bay Trail travels along the eastern and southern perimeter of the Ford Peninsula and continues north along Harbour Way South. A spur of the Bay Trail continues along the southern perimeter of the Ford Peninsula to the east of Harbour Way South and terminates at Sheridan Point Park. In addition, a kayak launch ramp is directly northwest of the project site. Parking is currently provided in a lot at the southwest corner of the Ford Peninsula, adjacent to the terminal site. The existing lot accommodates employees of Ford Assembly Building tenants, Craneway Pavilion guests, and public users. The lot contains a total of 301 parking spaces, including 245 parking spaces for the Ford Assembly Building and 56 spaces designated for public access use. Land uses in the vicinity of the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor include the Marina Bay neighborhood with single-family and multi-family residential neighborhoods, parks, and other open space areas. The Marina Bay Yacht Harbor can accommodate up to 850 vessels and features various facilities including a public boat launch ramp, pump-out stations, guest berthing areas, shoreside storage units, boat washdown stations, and parking.10 The Marina Bay Yacht Harbor is currently dredged to a minimum depth of approximately -12 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW). Although Marina Bay depths remain relatively constant, the City of Richmond conducts periodic maintenance dredging of the entrance channel into the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor as sediment settles around the breakwater. Depths at this location (along the west side of the Ford Assembly Building Wharf) are as low as -6.5 feet MLLW.

Access and Circulation The project site is linked to Interstate-580 (I-580) via the Harbour Way South and Marina Bay Parkway exits. The ferry terminal would be an intermodal facility connecting to existing bus, automobile, pedestrian, and bicycle access. Three major north/south surface streets provide access to the Marina Bay neighborhood via bridge crossings over I-580, including Harbour Way South, Marina Way, and Marina Bay Parkway. Two of the north/south thoroughfares, Harbour Way South to the west and Marina Bay Parkway to the east, have full interchanges at I-580. At-grade railroad crossings with and without traffic control and warning devices exist at key intersections south of I-580 along Marina Bay Parkway, Marina Way South, and Harbour Way South. In the past, motorists could experience delays of up to 25 to 30 minutes waiting for trains to pass at-grade railroad crossings at intersections along Harbour Way South/Wright Avenue, Marina Way South between Wright Avenue and Regatta Road, and Marina Bay Parkway south of Meeker Avenue during times when Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) mile-long freight trains traverse the tracks of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)-owned railroads. However, according to an agreement

10 Marina Bay Yacht Harbor, Marina Amenities and Services, http://www.marinabayyachtharbor.com/amenities.htm (accessed June 29, 2012).

San Francisco Bay Area 19 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 2 Project Description Draft May 2014 between the City of Richmond and BNSF, trains are not permitted to continuously block crossings for longer than 10 minutes unless they are continuously moving through the crossing in the same direction or if no vehicle or pedestrian is waiting at the crossing. In response to delays at at-grade railroad crossings, the Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency sponsored a Rail Grade Separation Feasibility Study, which focused primarily on costs, visual impacts, and engineering constraints for four options for grade separation on major access roads into the Marina Bay neighborhood and the Ford Peninsula. In early 2007, the Richmond City Council passed a resolution authorizing City staff to pursue funding sources for an underpass on Marina Bay Parkway. Funding for the underpass has been approved and the 18-month construction period started in September 2013. Completion of the underpass would provide a route to the proposed ferry terminal that would avoid potential delays associated with at-grade railroad crossings. Public transit in the City of Richmond includes train and bus service. AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit, BART, Amtrak/Capitol Corridor, and San Joaquin Transit provide transit service to Richmond. The project site is approximately 2 miles south of the BART Richmond station, and 2.5 miles southwest of the BART El Cerrito del Norte station. In the vicinity of the project site, the Harbour Way South Ford Point AC Transit bus stop is approximately 180 feet north of the proposed terminal access gate. This bus stop is served by Bus Route 74 (Castro Ranch Road/Marina Bay), which provides direct access to the Richmond Intermodal Transit Station. As explained above, the Bay Trail follows the edge of the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor, providing nonmotorized public access to the waterfront. This portion of the Bay Trail provides a continuous off- street connection from the project site to Albany, Berkeley, and Emeryville.11 Additional bicycle facilities in the project area include those along Harbour Way South (which is part of the on-street Bay Trail to the north of the project site), Marina Way South, and Hall Avenue. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of Harbour Way South in the vicinity of the proposed project.

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposed Richmond Ferry Terminal would be located at the southwestern point of the Ford Peninsula, adjacent to the Ford Assembly Building and existing wharf. The proposed terminal would replace the existing facility. The proposed terminal would include landings, a new gangway, passenger float, ramping system, and piles adjacent to the existing wharf. The new passenger float would be approximately 10 percent larger than the existing passenger float and would accommodate one vessel at a time for passenger loading and unloading. All project features would be compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. Other project components include vehicle and bicycle parking and an access gate with informational signage, as well as the relocated kayak launch site. No new structures are proposed. Passengers would pay for their fares with Clipper cards or on board the vessels. Passenger waiting areas would be located within the existing Craneway Pavilion and in a designated outdoor queuing area adjacent to the proposed gangway entry gate. Restroom access would be provided at existing restrooms in the Craneway Pavilion. Figure 2 (Project Site Plan) depicts the overall site plan of

11 Association of Bay Area Governments, San Francisco Bay Trail: East Bay, Map (2011).

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 20 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority PROPOSED KAYAK LAUNCH

POTENTIAL PARKING AREAS

80’ GANGWAY

POTENTIAL PILES AS REQUIRED

PROPOSED UNATTACHED LOW FREEBOARD DOCK AND KAYAK LAUNCH

EXISTING PUBLIC BOAT LAUNCH

Proposed Kayak Launch

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project PROPOSED PARKING AREAS PROPOSED FERRY TERMINAL

NOT TO SCALE Source: Marcy Wong Donn Logan Architects, 2013. 100003254 | Figure 2 Project Site Plan SECTION 2 Project Description Draft May 2014 the proposed project while Figure 3 (Ferry Terminal Layout) depicts the layout of the ferry terminal. All of the project features are further described below. Implementation of the proposed project would require minor dredging (less than 500 cubic yards) to install the passenger float. Once the ferry is operational, no other channel or marina dredging, aside from the routine dredging activities already conducted by the City of Richmond to maintain access to the existing marina, would be required to accommodate vessels at the proposed ferry terminal. The new terminal would accommodate vessels up to approximately 39 feet in width (beam) by 140 feet in length, with a draft of up to 7 feet. However, the vessels operating at the proposed Richmond Ferry Terminal would likely be smaller with a width of approximately 28 feet to 33 feet. Initially, it is assumed that the vessel would only be berthed at the float during passenger loading and unloading during the standard commute hours. However, depending on WETA operational needs, a vessel could be docked at the facility overnight and on weekends. As described above, the existing gangway and passenger float would be removed during project construction. Table 3 (Project Demolition and Construction) summarizes the demolition and construction that would occur with implementation of the proposed project. Project construction is further described later in this section.

Gangway and Passenger Float As depicted in Figure 3, the project would include an entry gate south of the plaza at the end of Harbour Way South, a pile-supported landing, a fixed ramp to an intermediate pile-support landing, and a gangway leading to the passenger float. These facilities would be to the west of the wharf, oriented in a north/south direction. The fixed ramp and gangway would connect the entry gate to the new passenger float. The passenger float would be to the west of this area and a gangway leading to a new transient boat dock would be to the east. The new transient boat dock would be owned and operated by ODI and would have security access control not open to the public. ODI has a previously approved BCDC permit to develop this dock. As such, the proposed project would only include a gangway connection to the dock from the proposed ferry passenger float. The private transient boat dock is not included as part of the proposed project. The new ferry passenger float would be placed slightly to the west of the existing gangway and passenger float in order to limit the encroachment into the 175-foot-wide Marina Bay Channel. The new private transient boat pier (which is not part of the proposed project, as stated above) would be in the same location as the existing passenger float. The proposed ferry passenger float would be approximately 80 feet by 24 feet 5 inches with an area of approximately 1,953.4 sf.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 22 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Richmond Ferry Terminal Project

NOT TO SCALE Source: Marcy Wong Donn Logan Architects, 2013. 100003254 | Figure 3 Ferry Terminal Layout SECTION 2 Project Description Draft May 2014

Table 3 Project Demolition and Construction Length/Width Area

Demolition/Removal Upper Landing 9.8 feet/10.5 feet 103.3 sf Gangway 60.5 feet/6.7 feet 403.3 sf Float 80 feet/22.25 feet 1,780 sf Dolphin Piles (17±) 12-inch diameter each 13.4 sf Piles at Float (4) 18-inch diameter each 7.1 sf Piles under Landing (2) 16-inch diameter each 2.8 sf Kayak aluminum ramp 32 feet/8 feet 256 sf Kayak floating dock 60 feet/12 feet 720 sf Kayak concrete stiff arm 8 feet/2-foot diameter 16 sf Total Demolished/Removed — 3,301.9 sf Proposed Construction Upper Landing 15.5 feet/10 feet 155 sf Fixed Ramp to Intermediate Landing 30 feet/8 feet 240 sf Intermediate Landing 10 feet/10 feet 100 sf Gangway to Passenger Float 88 feet/8 feet 704 sf Passenger Float 80 feet/24 feet 5 inches 1,953.3 sf Gangway to Future Transient Boat Pier 29 feet/6 feet 174 sf Supporting Pile for Landings (8) 16-inch diameter each 11.2 sf Dolphin Piles at each end of Float (4) 36-inch diameter each 28.3 sf Rear Guide Piles (2) 24- to 30-inch diameter each 9.8 sf End Guide Piles (4) 30- to 36-inch diameter each 28.3 sf Kayak aluminum ramp 80 feet/4.5 feet 360 sf Kayak floating dock 40 feet/16 feet 8 inches 666.7 sf Kayak octagonal piles (4) 18-inch diameter each 7.1 sf Total Construction — 4,399.6 sf Difference — +1,097.7 sf SOURCE: Marcy Wong Donn Logan Architects (2012). Atkins 2014.

Passenger Queuing and Waiting Area As explained above, the entry gate to the proposed terminal would be included south of the plaza at the end of Harbour Way South. Queuing at the ferry gate for approximately 90 passengers would be parallel to the shoreline and would not encroach on the existing Bay Trail circulation. Clipper card readers would be installed near the terminal access gate. A portion of the Craneway Pavilion would be open as a passenger waiting area during inclement weather. However, to provide pedestrian access to gangway

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 24 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 2 Project Description May 2014 entrance, pedestrians would be required to cross an existing section of the Bay Trail. In order to avoid conflicts between trail users (especially faster moving users, such as cyclists) and ferry passengers, the segment of the trail near the vessel entrance would be marked with paint or decorative pavers and signs to indicate the pedestrian crossing. These features would be designed in coordination with BCDC and San Francisco Bay Trail Project staff.

Parking The proposed project would include automobile and bicycle parking for ferry passengers in the existing parking lot adjacent to the proposed terminal. This existing parking lot currently serves employees of the Ford Assembly Building and guests of the Craneway Pavilion. Parking for Ford Assembly Building tenants would be relocated to other existing parking areas to the north and east of the Ford Assembly Building where capacity exists. No improvements or modifications are proposed at these existing lots with implementation of the proposed project. As shown in Figure 2, the proposed project parking lots (WETA Lot 1 and WETA Lot 2) would be located in the southwestern corner of the Ford Peninsula, approximately 130 feet northwest of the proposed ferry entrance. In total, the parking lot with the proposed project would have the capacity for up to 319 vehicles. However, 53 spaces within the BCDC 100-foot shoreline band would be reserved for public-access parking only. As such, ferry service parking would consist of approximately 266 stalls. Improvements to the existing parking lot would involve minor installation of hardscape and some restriping. Minor ground disturbance may be necessary for hardscape improvements, but no grading would occur. Approximately 24 bicycle lockers would be installed in the southeast corner of the parking lot, adjacent to the Bay Trail.

Potential Parking Lot Expansion It is expected that ridership will increase in the future as the ferry service continues to provide access to San Francisco. When needed, parking would be expanded to one of two potential areas, as shown in Figure 4 (Proposed and Potential Future Parking Locations). The first option (Parking Option 1) would be the use of WETA Lot 3 on existing Port of Richmond property. This approximately 66,080 sf (1.5- acre) lot would be directly north of the proposed parking lot and could accommodate up to 199 additional parking spaces. The addition of Lot 3 would increase the total number of parking stalls to approximately 518 parking spaces, including 465 parking stalls for ferry passengers and 53 parking stalls for public access. The option to expand parking to the Port of Richmond property would be dependent on whether the Port is actively using or pursuing a tenant for this property. Currently, this area is underutilized by the Port, and could be used for expansion of WETA parking. Parking expansion onto Port property would only occur if no Port activity or business is active at the time of potential parking expansion. Implementation of this parking expansion option would require coordination and approval with BCDC for temporary use of an area designated for port priority use.

San Francisco Bay Area 25 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration POTENTIAL PARKING AREAS

LOT 3A 196 SPACES

PROPOSED KAYAK LAUNCH

POTENTIAL PARKING AREAS

LOT 3 199 SPACES

LOT 2 193 SPACES

LOT 1 126 SPACES PROPOSED PARKING AREAS PROPOSED PARKING

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project PROPOSED FERRY TERMINAL

NOT TO SCALE Source: Marcy Wong Donn Logan Architects, 2013. 100003254 | Figure 4 Proposed and Potential Future Parking Locations Draft SECTION 2 Project Description May 2014

If expansion of parking into Port property is not feasible, then WETA would expand parking in an area north of the Ford Assembly Building (Parking Option 2). As shown in Figure 4 and Figure 8 (Views of Existing and Proposed Future Parking Locations), below, Lot 3A would be located to the south of Hall Avenue, approximately 0.25 mile north of the proposed ferry terminal. This lot would be able to accommodate up to 196 parking stalls. The addition of optional Lot 3A would provide 515 total parking spaces, including 462 parking stalls for ferry passengers and 53 parking stalls for public access.

Relocated Kayak Launch Ramp The existing kayak launch ramp located directly to the west of the project site would be removed due to potential conflict with ferry operations. WETA proposes to locate a new kayak launch at an area northeast of the proposed project terminal site, adjacent to the existing small boat launch located in the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor. The relocated kayak launch would include a new 80-foot-long ADA accessible gangway and an approximately 40-foot-long, 17-foot-wide (approximately 680 sf total area) fiberglass kayak float. The kayak float would include four 18-inch diameter octagonal precast concrete piles to support the float. Figure 5 (Kayak Launch Layout) illustrates the proposed kayak launch ramp; Figure 2 shows the location of the proposed kayak launch in relation to the ferry terminal.

Other Area Improvements The proposed project would also include improvements to the Bay Trail in the vicinity of the project. Currently, the Bay Trail travels along the eastern perimeter of Ford Point, through Lucretia Edwards Park, and then in an east/west direction along the southern portion of the Peninsula. After the wharf, the designated Bay Trail extends in a north/south direction along Harbour Way South. A Bay Trail spur continues along the southern shoreline and terminates at Sheridan Point Park at the southwest corner of the Ford Peninsula. The proposed project would extend the Bay Trail spur past Sheridan Point Park in a north/south direction. This path would be located along the shoreline between Parking Lots 1 and 2 to the east and the Port of Richmond navigation channel to the west. The Bay Trail spur extension would include amenities such as benches, trash receptacles, signage, lighting, and landscaping per the standards outlined in the Bay Trail Design Guidelines. In addition, a turnaround at the terminus of the trail would be added and the trail would be accessible from the northwestern corner of Lot 2.

GHG Mitigation Option: Solar-Array Carport As provided in Section 3.VIII (Greenhouse Gas Emissions), the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions. One mitigation measure under consideration to reduce such impacts is the development of solar-array carports. The carports would be a noticeable feature of the parking area between the Ford Assembly Building and the Bay Trail. The proposed carports would be approximately 15 to 18.5 feet high and would consist of six solar-arrays, ranging from about 208 feet to 243 feet in length and 20 feet to 41 feet in width. The carports would also include six to eight pier supports each with footings up to 25 feet deep. The concrete base would have a diameter of 36 inches. If constructed, the solar array carports would include design features like anti-glare

San Francisco Bay Area 27 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Richmond Ferry Terminal Project

NOT TO SCALE Source: Marcy Wong Donn Logan Architects, 2013. 100003254 | Figure 5 Kayak Launch Layout Draft SECTION 2 Project Description May 2014 material and paint that would help to reduce glare associated with solar-array carports. It should be noted that the GHG Mitigation option would require removal of the eucalyptus trees on the south and west sides of the parking lots alongside the Bay Trail. Potential impacts associated with the GHG mitigation option for solar-array carports are evaluated in this IS/MND under the following topics: aesthetics; air quality, biological resources; geology/soils; hazard/hazardous materials; hydrology/water quality; land use/planning; and noise. The proposed mitigation measure of constructing a solar-array carport to help offset GHG emissions may conflict with the goals outlined for the Bay Trail Improvement Area for the proposed project. However, implementation of this mitigation option would require coordination with BCDC for temporary use of an area designated for port priority use, and incorporation of any design changes recommended by BCDC prior to approval.

III. PROPOSED FERRY SERVICE AND RIDERSHIP POTENTIAL

WETA would purchase up to two new vessels to operate the proposed Richmond service. The vessels would be designed to offer up to 299 passenger seats. Facility and vessel access and functional needs areas for disabled users are designed to meet ADA standards. Passengers would board from the starboard or port side as well as on the bow. It is anticipated that a crew of up to three personnel would be needed to operate the vessel, similar to other WETA vessels. The normal operating speed of the new vessels at full load condition would be approximately 25 to 35 knots. Between the Richmond Harbor Channel Marker #7 (0.25 mile east of Point Richmond) to the Richmond Ferry Terminal, vessel speeds would be limited to a no-wake speed. The new vessels would be approximately 140 feet long, 39 feet wide, and less than 45 feet tall above the light-loaded waterline, with a full-load navigation draft of a maximum of 7 feet. The vessels are expected to have a maximum output of 2,900 horsepower (hp). The proposed ferry route from Richmond to San Francisco would provide a relatively short commute (25 to 30 minutes, not including passenger loading and unloading) and would likely reduce congestion on the Bay Bridge and Richmond-San Rafael Bridge as described in the 2003 PEIR. It is anticipated that the proposed ferry service would begin in 2017/2018 and would start as a commute-period only service. Commute-only service would provide approximately two to three trips during each AM and PM peak period. WETA Ridership projections estimate approximately 700 to 800 total daily trips. However, by 2035, the Richmond-San Francisco route could potentially accommodate midday, weekend, and special event services. By 2035, ridership potential is projected to increase to between 1,083 riders per day (assuming commute period only) to 1,715 riders per day (assuming off-peak hours and weekends). The total anticipated trip time between Richmond and San Francisco would be approximately 30 to 40 minutes, including passenger loading and unloading. Actual arrivals and departures would be dependent on ridership, weather, and tides, but would generally not be expected to exceed this time.

San Francisco Bay Area 29 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

approximate route Richmond Ferry Terminal Project

Source: Google, basemap, 2013. NOT TO SCALE 100003254 | Figure 6 Proposed Ferry Route (Illustrative Purpose Only) Draft SECTION 2 Project Description May 2014

Proposed Ferry Route The proposed ferry route would provide service between the Downtown San Francisco Ferry Terminal and the proposed Richmond Ferry Terminal, as depicted in Figure 6 (Proposed Ferry Route). The Downtown San Francisco Ferry Terminal is located on the Embarcadero in downtown San Francisco and serves other WETA ferry routes travelling from Oakland, Alameda, and Vallejo. Other ferry services using the Downtown San Francisco Ferry Terminal include Golden Gate Ferry and Blue & Gold Fleet. No alterations or expansions of the Downtown San Francisco Ferry Terminal are proposed as part of the project. The proposed ferry route from Downtown San Francisco to Richmond would travel through established navigational channels in the inner San Francisco Bay and would turn east upon reaching the entrance of the Point Potrero Reach at Point Richmond. After travelling through Point Potrero Reach, the vessel would turn north at the Port of Richmond, until reaching the main access channel for the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor, just south of Ford Peninsula. The service route would be reversed in the opposite direction but would remain essentially the same, with slight modifications for currents and other navigational constraints. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Regulated Navigation Areas that enhance navigational safety by organizing traffic flow patterns on San Francisco Bay pertain to large cargo vessels but not ferries. USCG maintains the Office of Vessel Traffic Safety (VTS) that applies to all vessels 40 meters or greater in length, all vessels certified to carry 50 or more passengers, and all commercial vessels 8 meters or more that are towing another vessel. The VTS issues direction to enhance vessel safety during conditions of vessel congestion, restricted visibility, adverse weather, or other dangerous conditions. WETA is working with the USCG to establish navigational channels for vessels plying into and out of the Richmond terminal area.

Demolition and Construction Implementation-level planning and final design of the proposed project would require approximately six to nine months. Construction of the proposed project would require up to 10 months with no nighttime construction necessary. Fabrication of the float, gangway, ramping, and piles would require approximately five to six months and would be completed off site. Generally, site preparation, and ground improvements would occur over one month and could overlap with waterside work; construction of landside improvements would require approximately one month; in-water work (demolition/removal of existing facility and installation of proposed terminal components) would be completed in approximately two weeks; and the overwater work to install ramping and utilities would occur over three weeks. All in-water construction work activities (i.e., pile driving) would occur between the period from July 31 to November 30. Construction of the relocated kayak launch would occur concurrent with construction of the ferry terminal site. It is anticipated that ferry service from Richmond to San Francisco would commence as early as 2017. Minor construction activities would occur in and out of the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor, along the waterfront, and in the proposed parking lots. No buildings would be demolished as a result of construction, as the terrestrial portion of the proposed site does not contain any existing buildings. However, prior to construction of the proposed ferry terminal, the existing gangway, ramp, floats, dock,

San Francisco Bay Area 31 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 2 Project Description Draft May 2014 and adjacent kayak launch ramp would be demolished by WETA. In addition, all existing wood piles in the water portion of the project site would be removed as summarized above in Table 3. Demolition of the existing facility would be required prior to installation of any new waterside terminal components. The demolition work includes removal of the piles, gangway, and float. This work would be conducted from barges, one for materials storage and one outfitted with demolition equipment (crane and clamshell bucket or vibratory pile driver for pulling of piles and a crane for gangway removal). Diesel power tugboats would bring the barges to the project site, where the barges would be anchored. Piles would be removed by either pulling the pile or cutting the piles off below the mud line. The demolition waste from these activities would be disposed of at the nearest waste and recycling facility. Timber piles that have been treated with creosote, or that contain other potentially hazardous substances, would be handled properly and disposed of at a facility permitted to handle hazardous waste. Construction of the proposed project would require 2 to 15 workers for the duration of the construction period. At any given time, up to 15 workers would be on the site. Parking for construction workers could be made available by the City and ODI in the adjacent parking lot or in the parking lot north of the Ford Assembly Building. Major landside construction activities include site preparation, minor demolition, ground improvements, and utility installation. Construction equipment would include a small backhoe and bulldozer/bobcat, haul trucks, material delivery trucks, a crane, and delivery and support trucks. All equipment would be powered by diesel or gasoline. Minor excavation would be required to install the underground utilities including water and electricity. Striping or concrete pavers would be installed to identify the passenger queuing area. Construction of the proposed Bay Trail extension along the west edge of the parking lot would require some excavation and grading. Landside construction would also include installation of WETA informational and public access signage. Approximately 18 new piles would be installed, consisting of fixed pier supporting piles, guide piles at the floats, fender piles, and freestanding dolphins. The piles for the terminal float and access pier and gangway platform would be installed by a barge-mounted crane using a vibratory pile driver or impact hammer. The pile supported concrete access landing would be installed from the plaza and wharf. To the extent feasible, piles for the landing would be installed from land with a crane. The existing access gate from the wharf would be removed and replaced with new railings similar to what exists or is planned as part of ODI improvements. A new covered entry gate structure with associated lighting and signage would be constructed at the plaza. All ramps and platforms would be designed to conform to ADA standards. The proposed facility would be in compliance with WETA’s own security requirements as well as security requirements established by the U.S. Coast Guard (CFR 33 Parts 101–106) regarding vessel and terminal security regulations and guidance. The major waterside construction activities include marine pile installation, marine float installation, fixed pier construction, minor dredging, and marine utility and outfitting. The marine pile installation would

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 32 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 2 Project Description May 2014 require the use of a support and material barge, a barge-mounted pile driver, a support boat, and an occasional tug. The marine float installation would require workboats, a tugboat, support barges, and a barge-mounted crane. Construction of the access landing could require workboats, a support barge, a barge-mounted crane, a wheeled crane, and support and haul trucks. Marine utility and outfitting would require a wheeled crane and support trucks. A relatively small amount of initial dredging (less than 500 cubic yards) would be required for the part of the proposed passenger float that would lie outside of the entrance channel. The City of Richmond conducts periodic maintenance dredging of the entrance channel into the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor as sediment settles around the breakwater. If feasible, WETA would schedule the required dredging with the City’s periodic maintenance dredging.

IV. REQUIRED PERMITS AND COORDINATION

The list of anticipated consultations or permits and the project activities subject to the regulation are provided in Table 4 (Anticipated Permitting Requirements).

Table 4 Anticipated Permitting Requirements Agency Type of Permit/Authority Subject Project Activity San Francisco Bay Conservation Administrative or Major Permit Development within 100 feet from the Bay and Development Commission Amendments to Existing City and ODI Permits shoreline and placement of fill within the Bay

Regional Water Quality Control Clean Water Act Section 402 Impacts on waters of the state and stormwater Board, San Francisco Region Clean Water Act Section 401 discharge during construction

Clean Water Act Section 404 Discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Letter of Permission or Individual Permit or waters of the U.S. and placement of structures Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 in navigable waters Marine Mammal Protection Act Potential impacts on federally listed species and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Endangered Species Act Section 7 marine mammals Federal Endangered Species Act Section 7 Potential impacts on federally listed marine National Marine Fisheries Service Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation species and essential fish habitat Management Act Use Permit City of Richmond Approval for short- and long-term use of the site Lease Approval SOURCE: WETA (2014).

V. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM CONSIDERATION

Ferry service in the City of Richmond was discussed in the Richmond Waterfront Transit-Oriented Development Plan (TOD). Several terminal locations along the Richmond waterfront were identified and evaluated. Most locations that were considered included a covered ferry terminal structure with a fixed pier, gangway, and passenger float. In addition, these locations included passenger amenities such as arrival/departure platforms, passenger drop-offs, terraces with vending machines, picnic tables, control and ticketing booths, and parking. However, all alternatives that were considered, except for the

San Francisco Bay Area 33 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 2 Project Description Draft May 2014 proposed project outlined above, are no longer being studied. The following locations were considered and rejected: ■ North Terminal Site—Along the terminus of Northshore Drive ■ South Terminal Site—Located approximately 200 yards south of the North Terminal Site on the east side of the Ford Peninsula ■ Marina Site—The Marina Site is located in the southeastern portion of the Ford Peninsula on the eastern edge in the vicinity of Lucretia Edwards Park ■ Site A—Site A is located approximately 400 feet west of the currently proposed project

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 34 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014

SECTION 3. Environmental Checklist Form

Introduction This checklist is based on the sample form to be completed for all projects that are subject to environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The information, analysis, and conclusions contained in the checklist form the basis for deciding whether an environmental impact report (EIR), a negative declaration (ND), or a mitigated negative declaration (MND) is to be prepared. Additionally, the checklist shall be used to focus an EIR on the effects determined to be potentially significant.

1. Project title: Richmond Ferry Terminal Project

2. Lead agency name and address: San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) Pier 9, Suite 111 The Embarcadero San Francisco, CA 94111

3. Contact person and phone number: Chad Mason (415) 291-3377

4. Project location: The project site would be located at the southern end of the Ford Peninsula, adjacent to the Ford Assembly Building and Craneway Pavilion in the City of Richmond.

5. Project sponsor’s name and address: WETA Pier 9, Suite 111 The Embarcadero San Francisco, CA 94111

6. General plan designation: Port and Business/Light Industrial

7. Zoning: The project site is zoned as a mix of M-1 Research & Development; M-2 Light Industrial; and CRR Community and Regional Recreation

San Francisco Bay Area 35 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft May 2014

8. Description of project (describe the whole action involved, including, but not limited to, later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation): The proposed project would install a new ferry terminal to replace the existing facilities along the southern end of the Ford Peninsula. The proposed terminal would include landings, a new gangway, passenger float, ramping system, and piles adjacent to the existing wharf. The new passenger float would be approximately 10 percent larger than the existing passenger float and would accommodate one vessel at a time for passenger loading and unloading. The vessels would be designed to offer up to 299 passenger seats providing a relatively short commute (25 to 30 minutes, not including passenger loading and unloading) between Richmond and San Francisco. It is anticipated that the proposed ferry service would begin as a commute-period only service, providing approximately two to three trips during each AM and PM peak period. An existing kayak launch would be demolished and relocated adjacent to the public boat launch ramp.

9. Surrounding land uses and setting (briefly describe the project’s surroundings): The project site is located at the southern end of the Ford Peninsula. Uses at the Ford Peninsula include the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park, the Boiler House Restaurant (located within the Ford Assembly Building), the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor, Lucretia Edwards Park, Sheridan Point Park, office/research and development (R&D), and parking. The Port of Richmond lies to the west of the project site.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): ■ San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission ■ Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Region ■ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ■ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ■ National Marine Fisheries Service ■ City of Richmond ■ West Contra Costa County Transportation Advisory Committee (Measure J funding) Legal Authority This IS for the proposed project has been prepared in accordance with CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c) lists the following purposes of an Initial Study: (1) Provide the lead agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or negative declaration; (2) Enable an applicant or lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a negative declaration; (3) Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required … (4) Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project; (5) Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a negative declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment; (6) Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; (7) Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 36 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 (Decision to Prepare a Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration) of Article 6 (Negative Declaration Process): A public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when: (a) The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or (b) The initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. WETA has prepared an IS to determine the level of environmental review necessary for the proposed project. Based on the analysis in the IS, it has been determined that all project-related environmental impacts are less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures; a Mitigated Negative Declaration will meet the requirements of CEQA.

Public Review In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a 30-day public review period for this IS commenced on May 6, 2014, and will conclude on June 4, 2014. The Draft IS has specifically been distributed to interested or involved public agencies, organizations, and private individuals for review. In addition, the Draft IS is available for general public review at: City of Richmond Engineering Services Department 450 Civic Center Plaza, 2nd Floor Richmond CA, 94804 The Draft IS is also available on the WETA website: www.watertransit.org. During the public review period, the public will have an opportunity to provide written comments on the information contained within this Draft IS. The public comments on the Draft IS and responses to public comments will be incorporated into the Final IS. WETA will use the Final IS for all environmental decisions related to this project. In reviewing the Draft IS, affected public agencies and interested members of the public should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing potential project impacts on the environment, and ways in which the significant effects of the project are proposed to be avoided or mitigated. Comments on the Draft IS should be submitted in writing prior to the end of the 30-day public review period and must be postmarked or emailed by June 4, 2014. Please submit written comments to:

San Francisco Bay Area 37 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft May 2014

Chad Mason WETA Pier 9, Suite 111 The Embarcadero San Francisco, CA 94111 415.291.3377 [email protected] Please submit e-mailed comments to [email protected].

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 38 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture/Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance

Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “less than 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.

May 6, 2014 Signature Date

Chad Mason Senior Planner | Planning and Development Name Title

San Francisco Bay Area 39 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION I Evaluation of Environmental Impacts May 2014

I. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Evaluation Process 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less-Than-Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, “Earlier Analyses,” may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question. b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 40 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION II Aesthetics

II. AESTHETICS

Setting

Local The City of Richmond provides an urban context within a coastal and mountainous backdrop that typifies many cities in the San Francisco Bay Area. Richmond is oriented along the eastern edge of the San Francisco/San Pablo Bay and to the west of the Sobrante Ridge, a portion of the San Pablo/Potrero Hills Range within Contra Costa County. The City is relatively flat and low-lying, with gradual elevation increases occurring towards the eastern portions of the City. Richmond is a predominately built-out environment, with the majority of natural open space areas limited to the City edges. The City’s proximity to San Francisco Bay, combined with the gradual topographic changes from the coastal edge to the mountain ranges, provide a wide range of natural hillside and Bay views from various areas. Long- range views within the City are generally expansive because of the flat terrain throughout the City. However, due to the flat terrain, existing mature trees and buildings often block views.

Project Site The project site is located at the southern end of the Ford Peninsula, which is along the San Francisco Bay (Bay) in the southern part of the City. Over the past 30 years, the Ford Peninsula and the Marina Bay neighborhood area have undergone a transition from predominantly heavy industrial uses to a mix of residential, recreational, commercial, and light industrial uses. The project site is accessible via Harbour Way South and is bound by the Port of Richmond to the north, Harbour Way South and the Ford Assembly Building to the east, the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor and Sheridan Point to the south, and Santa Fe Channel to the west. The port uses to the north include warehouses, storage tanks, shipbuilding slips, marine terminals for ship loading and unloading, truck loading and unloading areas, industrial businesses, auto uploading, ship repair, and private and public port areas. The port area is traversed by numerous railroad spurs and is oriented around the Santa Fe Channel. In general, the project site can be characterized by its surroundings, particularly by the historic Ford Assembly Building to the east, the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor to the east and south, and Santa Fe Channel to the west. Views of San Francisco Bay and surrounding areas are expansive, as discussed in more detail below. Due to the recent Ford Assembly Building renovation, the area is well-maintained and landscaped with vegetation and decorative pavement.

Visual Character As shown in Figure 7 (Views of the Ferry Terminal Site) and Figure 8 (Views of Existing and Proposed Future Parking Locations), the project site consists of an existing berthing facility, kayak launch, surface parking lots, and an unmaintained landscape buffer. Figure 7, Photo A, depicts the proposed location of the ferry terminal entrance and Figure 7, Photo B, shows the proposed location of the ferry terminal gangway and passenger float. An existing passenger float and gangway is located at the project site within the waters of the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor, adjacent to the Craneway Pavilion wharf (Figure 7, Photo C). Orton Development, Inc. (ODI) maintains and controls these facilities, which consist of a

San Francisco Bay Area 41 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration A. Proposed Ferry Terminal Entrance Location B. Proposed Ferry Terminal Location

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project C. Existing ODI Float and Gangway D. BCDC Shoreline Band and Santa Fe Channel

Source: Atkins, 2012. 100003254 | Figure 7 Views of the Ferry Terminal Site A. WETA Lot 1 Facing Southwest B. WETA Lot 1 Facing Southeast

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project C. WETA Lot 2 (Foreground) and WETA Lot 3 (Background) D. Potential Future WETA Lot 3A (Parking Option 2) Facing South Facing Northwest

Source: Atkins, 2012. 100003254 | Figure 8 Views of Existing and Proposed Future Parking Locations SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION II Aesthetics May 2014

103 sf private landing, a 403 sf gangway, and a 1,780 sf passenger float. The existing gangway and passenger float is accessible by a gate on the western side of the wharf around the Craneway Pavilion (which also serves as a segment of the Bay Trail). This dock is currently used for privately operated excursion vessels that shuttle visitors to events at the Craneway Pavilion and for vessel storage. Berthed vessels are frequently visible in this location from the Bay Trail and Harbour Way South. In addition, the project site includes the 100-foot-wide open space area to the west of the parking lot, as depicted in Figure 7, Photo D. This area consists of mature large eucalyptus trees and natural groundcover. Large rocks cover the slope between the relatively flat shoreline area and Santa Fe Channel. As shown in Figure 8, the project site contains a surface parking lot that would serve the ferry terminal. As shown in Figure 8, Photo A, and Figure 8, Photo B (WETA Lot 1), the existing parking lot consists of evenly paved surfaces and designated parking stalls. WETA Lot 2 is depicted in the foreground of Figure 8, Photo C. As shown, WETA Lot 2 is separated from WETA Lot 1 by a slight change in elevation and a short chain-linked fence. Although vegetation is nonexistent within these parking lots, large eucalyptus trees are adjacent to the south and west. Lighting poles are located within and in the vicinity of the parking lot. The project site also includes the two potential parking lot expansion areas. One area (WETA Lot 3, Parking Option 1) is on Port of Richmond property directly to the north of WETA Lot 2. This potential parking area can be seen in the background of Figure 8, Photo C. The other area is an existing parking lot that is bound by Hall Avenue to the north, the Ford Assembly Building to the south, and Harbour Way South to the west, as depicted in Figure 8, Photo D (Parking Option 2). Both potential parking areas consist of large, paved and gravel surfaces with parking markers and lighting. Figure 9 (Views of Kayak Launch Location) shows the location site of the proposed relocated kayak launch. As shown, the relocated kayak launch location includes the existing boat ramp and Marina Bay Yacht Harbor moorings. The proposed kayak launch would be located to the northeast of the existing boat ramp. In addition, the area includes a portion of the Bay Trail that would allow for pedestrian access to the kayak launch area. As shown, the staging area would be located adjacent to established landscape associated with the adjacent parking lot, while street lighting and pedestrian amenities, such as benches and railings, are located along the Bay Trail. Views. Due to the relatively flat topography of the project site and limited development in the immediate vicinity, expansive background views are visible throughout the project site. The Ford Peninsula affords scenic panoramic views from on-site vantage points of San Francisco Bay, the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor, and Brooks Island to the south of the project site. The project site, along with public vantage points within the vicinity (including the Bay Trail and Sheridan Point Park), includes background views to the south, southeast, and southwest of the East Bay Hills, downtown Oakland, downtown San Francisco, San Francisco Bay Bridge, Treasure Island, Alcatraz, and Mount Tamalpais. Views from the project site are depicted in Figure 10 (Views from the Ferry Terminal Project Site). As shown in Figure 10, Photo D, the Ford Assembly Building, a former auto assembly plant built in 1930, blocks the majority of views from the project site to the east. However, the historic Ford Assembly Building was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1988 and was recently renovated,

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 44 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority A. Existing Public Boat Ramp and Marina Bay Yacht Harbor B. Potential Staging Area Looking North

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project C. Potential Staging Area Looking South D. Proposed Kayak Gangway and Float Site

Source: Atkins, 2012. 100003254 | Figure 9 View of Kayak Launch Location A. Views Facing West from Roundabout and Existing Bay Trail Spur B. View facing South, from existing Bay Trail Spur

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project C. View Facing Southeast, from Existing Bay Trail Spur D. View Facing Northeast towards Assembly Ford Building Roundabout

Source: Atkins, 2012. 100003254 | Figure 10 Views from the Ferry Terminal Project Site Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION II Aesthetics creating an historic and architectural asset in the area. The existing building structure consists of a steel and concrete framework with brick veneer and glass walls. The Ford Assembly Building is topped by a saw tooth structure providing rows of north-facing light monitors across the roof. The southern portion of the building includes the 45,000 sf Craneway Pavilion with expansive interior space and clear-span windows (Figure 7, Photo A). The wharf wraps around the Craneway Pavilion, and serves as a segment of the Bay Trail. The Port of Richmond is located to the north and west of the project site and includes a large surface lot for storage of shipping containers and other port uses. Port floodlights and two large cranes are visible from the project site. However, views generally tend to focus away from the Port, and instead towards the south, where views encompass panoramic and expansive scenery of San Francisco Bay.

GHG Mitigation Option: Solar-Array Carports Figure 11 (GHG Mitigation Option: Solar Array Carport—Viewpoint Location Map), Figure 12a (GHG Mitigation Option: Solar Array Carport—Views 1 and 2 across the Project Site), and Figure 12b (GHG Mitigation Option: Solar Array Carport—Views 3 and 4 across the Project Site) provide view locations and visual simulations of the proposed GHG mitigation option alongside existing views of the project site, respectively. As shown, the proposed mitigation measure could be implemented within established parking lots (WETA Lots 1 and 2), which currently consist of paved surfaces and features typical of parking lots (such as lighting and fencing). The GHG mitigation option would require removal of the eucalyptus trees on the south and west sides of the parking lots alongside the Bay Trail. Other lighting and pedestrian amenities, such as benches and railings, would remain located along the Bay Trail. If an additional parking lot is established in the future, the GHG mitigation option would be extended into that area. As noted above, the additional parking lot, WETA Lot 3, is currently Port of Richmond property. The GHG mitigation option would not block views of the waterfront from the Bay Trail. It would however, reduce views from the far west extent of the Bay Trail across the parking lots to the Ford Assembly Building.

Applicable 2003 PEIR Mitigation Measures The 2003 WTA PEIR included many impacts and mitigation measures that are either addressed in this document or are not applicable to this project. A table of impacts and mitigation measures from the PEIR is included as Table 1 of this document. The following 2003 PEIR mitigation measures would be applicable to aesthetic resources for the proposed project: Mitigation B-21.1, Mitigation V-1.1, Mitigation V-1.2, and Mitigation V-1.5.

San Francisco Bay Area 47 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1

2

3 4 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project

Source: Google Earth Pro, basemap, 2014; Atkins, 2014. NOT TO SCALE 100003254 | Figure 11 GHG Mitigation Option: Solar Array Carport—Viewpoint Location Map Existing View 1 Existing View 2

Looking southwest towards San Francisco Bay from Looking southeast from Bay Area Trail towards Ford Harbour Way South Assembly Building

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Proposed View 1 Proposed View 2

Source: Atkins, 2014. 100003254 | Figure 12a GHG Mitigation Option: Solar Array Carport—Views 1 and 2 across the Project Site Existing View 3 Existing View 4

Looking northeast towards Ford Assembly Building Looking northwest towards proposed WETA parking on Port Lot from Bus Drop-Off

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Proposed View 3 Proposed View 4

Source: Atkins, 2014. 100003254 | Figure 12b GHG Mitigation Option: Solar Array Carport—Views 3 and 4 across the Project Site Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION II Aesthetics

Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? For the purpose of this analysis, a scenic vista is defined as a vantage point with a broad and expansive view of a significant landscape feature (e.g., a mountain range, lake, or coastline) or of a significant historic or architecture feature (e.g., views of a historic tower or in this case the Ford Assembly Building). A scenic vista is a location that offers a high quality, harmonious, and visually interesting view. Under this definition, scenic vistas in the vicinity of the project site include views from the Bay Trail and Sheridan Point Park. Proposed Project. Scenic vistas of San Francisco Bay and its environs are visible from public vantage points in the vicinity of the project site. Such views are also visible from the project site. The proposed project would involve the replacement of an existing gangway and passenger float and would include landings, a new gangway, passenger float, ramping system, and piles adjacent to the existing wharf. The new passenger float would be approximately 10 percent larger than the existing passenger float and would not adversely affect these existing views and would improve public access to such views by extending the Bay Trail spur in a north/south direction along the Santa Fe Channel. As under existing conditions, the public would be able to enjoy the views from this area across the Bay that would be provided by the proposed project. Views onto the project site and vicinity are not considered scenic vistas as they are mostly of parking lots and industrial uses. Views of the Ford Assembly Building could be considered scenic vistas. The building is best viewed from Harbour Way South and at the roundabout; these views would not be affected by the proposed project. The proposed project would introduce a similar, but more prominent visual element in the project area associated with project features including the passenger gate, landings, gangways, and passenger float. However, the only portion of the project visible from public vantage points along Harbour Way South would be proposed gate and vessel (only when docked). It should be noted that under project buildout, the terminal would provide approximately two to three trips during each AM and PM peak period, and the vessels would be docked an average of 5 to 7 minutes. The remaining project features would only be visible from the edge of the shoreline and would not block views. The project vicinity has historically been used as a harbor and a port, and the existing facilities are currently used for privately operated excursion vessels that shuttle visitors to events at the Craneway Pavilion. As such, the addition of a ferry terminal would be consistent with the existing and past uses. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the obstruction or degradation of existing scenic vistas. Thus, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects on scenic vistas, resulting in no impact. Potential Parking Lot Expansion. If the proposed project required additional parking in the future, this could be expanded to either the Port property to the north of the proposed parking lot, or to the parking lot to the north of the Ford Assembly Building. However, both sites currently consist of paved surfaces and features typical of parking lots (such as lighting and fencing). The proposed project would likely require minor grading and resurfacing if either site is occupied. However, no structures would be

San Francisco Bay Area 51 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION II Aesthetics May 2014 built that could block views of San Francisco Bay from public areas. As such, the potential parking lot expansion would result in no impacts to scenic vistas. Relocated Kayak Launch Ramp. The relocated kayak launch ramp would be located adjacent and to the east of the existing public boat ramp. The relocated kayak launch ramp would not include any elevated structures; however, the 80-foot-long gangway and launch float would introduce new visual elements to this area of the Ford Peninsula. The gangway would be the most visible feature of the kayak launch ramp, but would generally be below the view-line of pedestrian and cyclists along the Bay Trail. Additionally, the relocated kayak launch ramp would be consistent with the existing uses for this portion of the Ford Peninsula, as the kayak launch ramp would be located adjacent to the existing boat ramp and would serve a similar purpose. As the relocated kayak ramp would not include features that would block views of San Francisco Bay from public areas, no impact to scenic vistas would occur.

GHG Mitigation Option: Solar-Array Carports Implementation of the GHG mitigation option would not have a substantially adverse effect on a scenic vista. Views of the Bay, which are considered scenic vistas, would remain visible from the Bay Trail. Given that the proposed solar-array carports would be situated within the parking areas such that any obstruction of views of the Bay would be minimized, impacts to scenic vistas would be reduced. Some of the eucalyptus trees along the Bay Trail would be removed for construction of the solar-array carports. WETA would be required by law to comply with Municipal Code Chapter 10.08 by obtaining the necessary permits prior to trimming or removal of any trees related to development. Additionally, applicants would be required to place protective structures around any trees that would remain after construction to protect them from harm during construction of development projects. The Project Sponsor would be required to comply with all applicable provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 10.08. Further, implementation of this mitigation option would require coordination with and approval from BCDC, as it would require temporary use of an area designated for port priority use. As final design of the solar-array carports would require BCDC input and approval, the proposed mitigation option is not expected to significantly impede views of the Bay. Therefore, this impact is considered to be less than significant.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

The closest officially designated State Scenic Highways are Interstate 580, approximately 7 miles southeast, and State Route 24, approximately 8 miles southeast. As such, there are no scenic highways in the vicinity of the project site. In addition, due to distance and topography, no portion of the project site is visible from these highways. Therefore, no impacts related to scenic resources within a state scenic highway corridor would occur.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 52 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION II Aesthetics

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

Proposed Project. Due to the recent renovation of the Ford Assembly Building and its surroundings (including, but not limited to, the Bay Trail extension to Sheridan Point Park, landscaping, informational signage, benches, and new paving), plus the expansive views of San Francisco Bay, the existing visual character of the project site is relatively high, except perhaps WETA Lot 3 and 3A which are older parking lots. The proposed terminal would extend into San Francisco Bay as a linear visual element. The terminal design includes landings, gangways, and a passenger float, which would lay close to the water thereby not obstructing existing views of San Francisco Bay and its environs. The vessel itself could be docked at the terminal for certain periods of time (five to seven minutes during most arrivals/departures), blocking a minor portion of views immediately adjacent to the project site. However, the presence of a vessel along the waterfront is consistent with other uses within the existing visual character of the project site. Numerous vessels are present in the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor to the east of the project site and large freight vessels frequently enter and leave the harbor to the west of the project site. A WETA vessel would be consistent with these existing uses and would not substantially alter the visual character of the area. The existing berthing facility (operated and controlled by ODI) is located directly to the south of the wharf and just east of the proposed ferry terminal (Figure 7, Photo D). This dock is currently used for privately operated excursion vessels that shuttle visitors to events at the Craneway Pavilion, and for vessel storage. Per specification outlined in a permit between ODI and BCDC (BCDC Permit No. M2002.069.02), the transient vessels may be moored up to 30 days at a time for no more than a total of 120 days per year per vessel. As such, vessels that are similar in size to WETA vessels are currently docked in this area. Therefore, if a vessel were to be moored at the project site, it would be consistent with existing conditions and would not impact the visual character of the area. Extension of the Bay Trail along the Santa Fe Channel would require limited removal of the existing groundcover and potentially some of the large eucalyptus trees, as seen in Figure 7, Photo A. However, the Bay Trail extension under the proposed project would include the installation of paved hardscape and new landscaping to replace the removed trees. City of Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 10.08 (Trimming, Pruning, Care, Planting, Removal and Moving of Trees, Shrubs or Plants) prohibits trimming or removing trees in or on any “street, park, pleasure ground, boulevard, alley or public place” without first obtaining a permit from the Recreation and Parks Director of the City of Richmond or any of his or her authorized deputies. Applicants for development permits under the updated City of Richmond General Plan would be required by law to comply with Municipal Code Chapter 10.08 by obtaining the necessary permits prior to trimming or removal of any trees related to development. Additionally, applicants would be required to place protective structures around any trees that would remain after construction to protect them from harm during construction of development projects. The Project Sponsor would be required to comply with all applicable provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 10.08.

San Francisco Bay Area 53 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION II Aesthetics May 2014

The Project Sponsor would also adhere to BCDC Public Access Design Guidelines and ABAG Bay Trail Plan Design Guidelines, as discussed in more detail in Section 3.XI (Land Use/Planning). The purpose of the BCDC Public Access Design Guidelines is to provide the San Francisco Bay region with a design resource for development projects along the shoreline of San Francisco Bay. These guidelines provide suggestions for site planning, as well as recommendations for designing and developing attractive and usable public access areas. In addition, the Bay Plan Design Guidelines include the minimum width, surface type, slope, and grading for proposed segments of the Bay Trail. The proposed project would comply with these guidelines in order to minimize visual impacts along the shoreline. Although the proposed extension of the Bay Trail could result in the removal of existing trees and other vegetation, the extension would include new landscaping and visual access to an area that currently serves as a buffer between the existing parking lot and San Francisco Bay. New paving and benches would allow Bay Trail users and ferry passengers to enjoy an area that is currently not maintained and that provides a visual barrier from the parking lot to San Francisco Bay. As such, the extension of the Bay Trail would help improve the visual character of Ford Peninsula. In addition, the construction of a ferry terminal would be consistent with the existing surroundings of an active port and marina, resulting in no impact. Potential Parking Lot Expansion. As discussed above, both potential parking lots currently consist of paved surfaces and other features typical of parking lots, as depicted in Figure 8, Photo C, and Figure 8, Photo D. The proposed project would likely require minor grading and resurfacing if either site is occupied. However, the existing use would be similar to the potential future use; therefore, the proposed project would not significantly alter the character of the sites. The potential parking lot expansion would be consistent with the existing visual quality, resulting in no impact. Relocated Kayak Launch Ramp. As discussed above, the relocated kayak launch ramp would be located adjacent and to the east of the existing boat ramp. The relocated kayak launch ramp would be consistent with the existing uses for this portion of the Ford Peninsula, as the kayak launch ramp would be located adjacent to the existing boat ramp and would serve a similar purpose. Furthermore, the relocated kayak launch would be below the line of sight of most pedestrians and bicyclists, resulting in minimal change in views. The relocated kayak launch ramp would be consistent with the existing visual quality, resulting in no impact.

GHG Mitigation Option: Solar-Array Carport Implementation of the GHG mitigation option would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. As noted above, the solar-array carport would not block views of the Bay as the Bay Trail occurs on the outer edge of the parking lots. Views across the parking lots would be of the WETA lot 3 and some portions of the Ford Assembly Building. The Ford Assembly Building and Craneway Pavilion are historic resources and therefore scenic vistas. However, most views of the Ford Assembly Building are maintained throughout the project area. Also, the GHG mitigation option would require the removal of trees along the west waterfront. As described previously, the City of Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 10.08 prohibits trimming or removing trees in or on any “street, park, pleasure ground, boulevard, alley or public place” without first obtaining a permit from the Recreation and Parks Director of the City of Richmond. Applicants would be required by law to obtain the necessary permits and would be required to place protective structures around any trees that would

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 54 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION II Aesthetics remain after construction to protect them from harm during construction of development projects. Additionally, as implementation of this mitigation option would require BCDC approval, including incorporation of any recommended design changes, for temporary use of an area designated for port priority use, it is not expected to significantly degrade the existing visual character. Therefore, this impact is considered to be less than significant.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Proposed Project. The ferry terminal would not create a substantial new source of light and glare in the area. No reflective elements (such as glass) would be included in the design of the ferry terminal. Glare could potentially be created when the vessel is docked due to on board lighting or the reflection of light off of vessel surfaces; however, this would be a temporary impact. In addition, only a portion of the vessel would be visible to motorists on Harbour Way South; therefore, most of the reflective surfaces would not create a major source of glare in this area. The light from the terminal and parking area would not significantly add to the nighttime lighting that is already present at Ford Peninsula. The parking lot is currently lit at night and the proposed project would not add a substantial new lighting element. In addition, the Port use to the north of the project site occasionally uses floodlights for loading and unloading of vessel freight at night, which creates a major existing source of light in the area. The Ford Assembly Building and Craneway Pavilion also provides a considerable light source due to the extensive windows and glass throughout the building. As such, any additional light from the ferry terminal would be consistent with the existing light sources and would not significantly increase lighting. Although most minor lighting impacts of the project would originate along the shoreline, the vessels would travel across San Francisco Bay during morning and evening hours, producing new lighting on San Francisco Bay during the winter. The additional lighting would be similar to the light emanating from other vessels on San Francisco Bay. Due to the transitory nature of ferry operation, the incremental and temporary effect of light emanating from the ferries would not be a substantial source of light and glare to the existing receptors. As such, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact with regards to light and glare. Potential Parking Lot Expansion. As discussed above, both potential parking lots currently consist of paved surfaces and other features typical of parking lots. At this time, it is unknown if additional light sources would need to be added. However, lighting currently exists at these sites, including floodlights at the Port of Richmond. Even if additional lighting is added, it is not expected to result in a substantial increase in lighting conditions on the Ford Peninsula over current conditions, resulting in no impact. Relocated Kayak Launch Ramp. The relocated kayak launch ramp would not include light sources and is anticipated to be utilized during daytime hours. Even if additional lighting is added, it is not expected to result in a substantial increase in lighting conditions on the Ford Peninsula over current conditions, resulting in no impact.

San Francisco Bay Area 55 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION III Agriculture/Forestry Resources May 2014

GHG Mitigation Option: Solar-Array Carport The proposed solar-array carport mitigation option would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The solar-array carports would be located within existing parking areas that contain nighttime lighting as well as paving and striping that produce some daytime glare. The proposed modules feature an anti-reflective glass coating that reduces the amount of glare by about two-thirds compared to standard glass. The proposed cells also have a unique solid copper foundation that entirely avoids the need for lines of silver metal paste as seen on the front of conventional solar cells, thereby allowing for a sleek, dark, and uniformly colored look. As such, this impact is considered to be less than significant.

III. AGRICULTURE/FORESTRY RESOURCES

Setting The project site is in an urbanized area characterized by commercial and industrial land uses. According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Survey12, the soil type present at the project site is urban land. Further, the project site and surrounding area is situated atop Bay mud (fill) that does not support agricultural practices.

Applicable 2003 PEIR Mitigation Measures The 2003 WTA PEIR included many impacts and mitigation measures that are either addressed in this document or are not applicable to this project. A table of impacts and mitigation measures from the PEIR is included as Table 1 of this document. For Agricultural Resources, no impacts were identified in the PEIR and are therefore not listed in Table 1.

12 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm (accessed July 18, 2012).

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 56 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION III Agriculture/Forestry Resources

Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: (a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?

As described above, the project site is characterized by Bay mud and urban land, and there is no prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance. The proposed project would not change the existing land use at the project site and would result in limited ground disturbing activities. The majority of project activities would occur within San Francisco Bay. Therefore, the proposed project would not convert prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance to nonagricultural uses, resulting in no impact.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or with a Williamson Act contract? (c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? (d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? (e) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to nonforest use?

According to the City of Richmond General Plan Land Use Map (see Section 3.XI [Land Use/Planning]), the project site is designated for business/light industrial, parks and recreation, and high- intensity mixed use land uses. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, conflict with existing zoning for forest land or timberland, or otherwise convert forest land or timber land, resulting in no impact.

San Francisco Bay Area 57 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION IV Air Quality May 2014

IV. AIR QUALITY

Setting The City of Richmond is located in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area in west Contra Costa County. It is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The proposed project includes the installation of a new ferry terminal, and relocation of a kayak launch, in the City of Richmond. The proposed Richmond ferry terminal would be at the southern point of the Ford Peninsula, adjacent to the Ford Assembly Building along an existing wharf. The operation of the ferry itself was analyzed in WETA’s Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR)—Expansion of Ferry Transit Service in the San Francisco Bay Area. Because the project is to replace the existing ferry terminal facilities and the proposed operation of the ferry has not changed since the FEIR, this analysis discusses the operation of the ferry and ferry terminal emissions along with construction emissions. Air pollutant emissions within the SFBAAB are generated from stationary, mobile, and natural sources. Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point and area sources. Point sources occur at an identified location and are usually associated with manufacturing and industry. Area sources are widely distributed and produce many small emissions. Construction activities that create fugitive dust, such as excavation and grading, also contribute to area source emissions. Mobile sources refer to emissions from on- and off-road motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Mobile sources account for the majority of the air pollutant emissions within the air basin.13 To protect the health and welfare of people, the federal and state governments have identified five criteria air pollutants and a host of air toxics, established through the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act ambient air quality standards. The air pollutants for which federal and state standards have been promulgated and that are most relevant to air quality planning and regulation in the air basins include ozone, carbon monoxide, suspended particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and lead. BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the Bay Area Air Basin, including Contra Costa County. To that end, BAAQMD, a regional agency, works directly with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and local governments and cooperates actively with all federal and State government agencies. BAAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emissions sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. Although BAAQMD is responsible for regional air quality planning efforts, it does not have the authority to directly regulate the air quality issues associated with plans and new development projects within the Bay Area. Instead, BAAQMD has used its expertise and prepared the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines to address these issues in accordance with the projections and programs of the Ozone Attainment Plan and Clean Air Plan. The purpose of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines is to assist lead agencies, as well as

13 California Air Resources Board, ARB Almanac 2009, Chapter 5 (Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions, Air Quality, and Health Risk) (2009).

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 58 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION IV Air Quality consultants, project proponents, and other interested parties, in evaluating potential air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Bay Area. In January 2012, the Superior Court for the Court of Alameda County issued a minute order granting a petition for writ of mandate and determined that BAAQMD failed to comply with CEQA in adopting its revised Guidelines, and decided that the 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines14 are invalid on procedural grounds. The BAAQMD issued revised CEQA Guidelines in 201215 (2012 Guidelines) which maintains the methodology applied in the 2011 Guidelines but does not recommend specific thresholds of significance for lead agencies to use in evaluating air quality impacts. The 2012 Guidelines provide numerous sources of potential significance thresholds. In 2009 the BAAQMD published the Air District’s CEQA Thresholds Options and Justifications Report.16 This document outlines substantial evidence that supports a variety of significance thresholds applicable to air quality analysis. Under CEQA, it is ultimately up to the lead agency to determine which thresholds of significance and methodology to apply. Therefore, this analysis incorporates thresholds identified in the 2009 CEQA Thresholds Options and Justifications Report to determine the level of significance for air quality impacts from the construction, localized carbon monoxide, and toxic air contaminants of the proposed project. Because the proposed project is a transportation project, the 2009 CEQA thresholds17 are not appropriate. The 2009 thresholds are representative of only land use projects. In order to adequately compare emissions from the project to emissions thresholds, the project uses the 1999 BAAQMD thresholds that take into account regional transportation as well as land use emissions.

Applicable 2003 PEIR Mitigation Measures The 2003 WTA PEIR included many impacts and mitigation measures that are either addressed in this document or are not applicable to this project. A table of impacts and mitigation measures from the PEIR is included as Table 1 of this document. The following 2003 PEIR mitigation measures would be applicable to air quality for the proposed project: Mitigation A-2.1; A-4.1; A-5.1; A-5.2; A-6.1; A-6.2; A-7.1; and A-8.1.

14 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines (updated May 2011). 15 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines (updated May 2012). 16 BAAQMD, Revised Draft Options and Justification Report California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance (October 2009). 17 2009 CEQA thresholds are used to represent the thresholds found in the BAAQMD’s Revised Draft Options and Justification Report dated October 2009.

San Francisco Bay Area 59 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION IV Air Quality May 2014

Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

The most current air quality plan for the region is the recently adopted 2010 Clean Air Plan, which updates the 2005 Ozone Strategy and represents a unique approach to air planning by including greenhouse gases, as well as criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs). For the 2010 Clean Air Plan, the travel activity adjustments used in preparing the on-road mobile source inventory are the same as those used in the Transportation Air Quality Conformity Analysis for MTC’s regional transportation plans.18 The MTC travel demand model utilizes regional demographic forecasts from ABAG’s socioeconomic and population projections. Under BAAQMD methodology, for consistency with the 2010 Clean Air Plan a project must demonstrate that the population or VMT assumptions contained in the Clean Air Plan would not be exceeded and that the project or plan implements transportation control measures as applicable. The proposed project is intended to provide an alternative to driving over the Bay Bridge for commuting and recreational purposes. The proposed project is anticipated to reduce VMT by 11,343 miles per day.19 Because the proposed project would reduce VMT from what was planned in the 2010 Clean Air Plan, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts with respect to the applicable plans.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

The proposed project has the potential to violate air quality standards from both construction and operational activities. Because significance with respect to air quality violations for construction and operational emissions are evaluated independent of each other, the two topics are discussed separately herein.

Construction Project construction activities include two stages: the landside improvements and the terminal facility/waterside improvements. The proposed activities summary, assumptions, and construction schedule are included in Appendix A. For the purposes of modeling, the activities were broken down into seven phases. Table 5 (Construction Phases) provides a brief description of each of the phases.

18 BAAQMD, Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (adopted September 15, 2010). 19 G. Shearin, personal communication with Atkins (September 25, 2012). VMT is anticipated to be reduced from 14,041 miles per day in 2035 without the ferry service to 2,698 miles per day with the ferry service.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 60 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION IV Air Quality

Construction activities would require the use of heavy trucks, excavating and grading equipment, and other mobile and stationary construction equipment. Emissions during construction would result from material handling, traffic on unpaved or unimproved surfaces, use of paving materials, exhaust from construction worker vehicle trips, and exhaust from diesel-powered construction equipment. Although it is not anticipated that any of the parking lots will be resurfaced, the modeling assumed resurfacing to establish a conservative baseline of emissions. Overall, when considered in the context of long-term project operations, construction-related emissions would be short-term and temporary, but these activities still can result in significant effects on local air quality.

Table 5 Construction Phases Phase Description Phase 1: Landside Site Prep Clearing land for trail expansion Phase 2: Landside Trenching Installation of utilities for water and electric as necessary Phase 3: Landside Paving—Parking Lot Asphalt paving and striping of parking lot Phase 4: Landside Paving—Trail Resurface Replacing decomposed granite Phase 5: In-water Demolition Removal of existing pier and pilings Phase 6: In-water Installation Installation of new pier and kayak launch support structure Phase 7: Overwater Construction Installation of new kayak launch, pier and gangway facilities.

GHG Mitigation Option: Solar-Array Carport If implemented, construction activities associated with the GHG mitigation option would contribute to a temporary increase in emissions. However, given the scale of such activities and the limited timeframe in which they would occur, construction activities associated with the carports would result in only a slight increase in emissions over what is assumed for the project as a whole. Land based construction activities were calculated using the CalEEMod model. The CalEEMod model does not currently provide emissions estimates for marine based equipment; therefore, marine-based construction activities were calculated separately using emission factors from the California Air Resources Board’s OFFRoad Model. Table 6 (Unmitigated Construction Emissions) shows the unmitigated emissions associated with the construction of the proposed project. As indicated, two of the seven phases have the potential to result in significant impacts for NOX emissions. Given the emissions estimates, only certain land based construction phases would be able to overlap without exceeding unmitigated emissions. Those phases include: a. Phases 1 and 2 b. Phases 1 and 3 c. Phases 2 and 3 d. Phases 2 and 4 e. Phases 3 and 4

San Francisco Bay Area 61 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION IV Air Quality May 2014

Table 6 Unmitigated Construction Emissions

Phase ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10* PM2.5* Landside Site Prep 3.15 25.49 14.57 0.02 1.21 1.21 Landside Trenching 2.23 15.26 9.99 0.02 1.04 1.04 Landside Paving—Parking Lot 3.38 16.98 11.06 0.02 1.47 1.47 Landside Paving—Trail Resurface 4.35 34.46 20.66 0.03 1.71 1.71 In-Water Demolition 6.62 51.43 38.92 0.11 3.85 3.85 In-Water Installation 8.84 64.08 48.95 0.14 4.99 4.99 Overwater Construction 9.52 62.79 56.93 0.15 4.86 4.86 BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 — — 82 54 Individual Phase Significant? No Yes — — No No SOURCE: Atkins, CalEEMod Modeling (2012). — = not applicable The demolition and relocation of the kayak launch are assumed within the parameters of the much larger ferry terminal development.

* PM10 and PM2.5 represent exhaust emissions only, as per BAAQMD methodology.

To minimize dust emissions, the BAAQMD has identified a set of PM10 control measures for all construction activities in the air basin as identified by MM-AIR-1. The remaining mitigation measures have been identified to reduce exhaust emissions from the land and marine based equipment. MM-AIR-1 Implement recommended dust control measures. To reduce particulate matter emissions during project construction phases, the Project Sponsor shall require the construction contractors to comply with the dust control strategies developed by BAAQMD. The Project Sponsor shall include in construction contracts the following requirements: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track-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. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. f. Idling times shall be minimized 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 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 13, Section 2485). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. h. Post a publically visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 62 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION IV Air Quality

The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. MM-AIR-2 All marine based equipment shall be equipped with 2006 or newer engine models or after market emission reduction features such that the equipment exhaust is equivalent to that of a 2006 or newer engine model. MM-AIR-3 Land based construction activities cannot occur at the same time as marine based activities. The exception is that staging (i.e., bringing equipment/supplies to the site in preparation of work commencing) may coincide with the previous construction phase. None of the marine based phases can overlap time frames. MM-AIR-4 All land based equipment greater than 50 hp shall be rated USEPA Tier 2 or better if land based construction phases will occur simultaneously. Even with USEPA Tier 2 equipment only the following phases can overlap in the construction schedule: a. Phases 1 and 2 b. Phases 1 and 3 c. Phases 1 and 4 d. Phases 2 and 3 e. Phases 2 and 4 f. Phases 3 and 4 g. Phases 1, 2, and 3 h. Phases 1, 3, and 4 i. Phases 2, 3, and 4 Table 7 (Mitigated Construction Emissions) shows the emissions associated with the proposed project after the implementation of MM-AIR-1 through MM-AIR-4. As indicated, implementation of these measures would reduce the construction impacts to less than significant.

Table 7 Mitigated Construction Emissions

Phase ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10* PM2.5* Landside Site Prep 13.93 16.11 11.85 0.02 0.56 0.56 Landside Trenching 3.85 13.45 9.63 0.02 0.78 0.78 Landside Paving—Parking Lot 8.06 12.65 10.12 0.02 0.77 0.77 Landside Paving—Trail Resurface 15.13 25.07 17.95 0.03 1.06 1.06 In-Water Demolition 3.54 42.22 19.67 0.11 2.57 2.57 In-Water installation 4.30 52.38 25.52 0.14 3.26 3.26 Overwater Construction 10.53 51.72 39.52 0.15 3.26 3.26 BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 — — 82 54 Individual Phase Significant? No No — — No No SOURCE: Atkins, CalEEMod Modeling (2012). — = not applicable

* PM10 and PM2.5 represent exhaust emissions only, as per BAAQMD methodology.

San Francisco Bay Area 63 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION IV Air Quality May 2014

Operation The majority of project operational emissions would result from motor vehicles (i.e., ferry users driving to and from the terminal) and ferry operations, however additional emissions result from minor landscaping activities and energy use associated with the patrons increasing use of existing restroom facilities. While the project will still result in emissions from the vehicles accessing the site, by operating the ferry the project will reduce total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the Bay Area by 11,343 miles per day. Motor vehicle and stationary source emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod model assuming the project would be operational in 2015. While it is anticipated that opening year would not have the same level of service as 2035 (project buildout year), as a conservative analysis the modeling assumed that in opening year (2015) the project would operate with the maximum expected trips under the buildout scenario. The operational analysis includes the emissions from the operation of the ferry as that is part of the overall emissions inventory for the project. The ferries are intended to be U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Tier 3 engines with a minimum emissions reduction of 85 percent below USEPA

Tier 2 emissions for NOX and PM. The 85 percent below USEPA Tier 2 emission levels is a commitment that WETA currently meets and will continue to meet in the operation of this terminal. Therefore, Ferry emissions are based on meeting this requirement. Because the purpose of the project is to reduce VMT through the introduction of increased ferry service, net project emissions are determined by summing the area, energy, and mobile emissions (including ferry operations) from the operation of the new ferry terminal, then subtracting out the mobile emissions from the vehicle trips avoided by the implementation of this project. Detailed assumptions and inputs used with the CalEEMod model are included in Appendix A. Table 8 (Unmitigated Operational Emissions) shows the unmitigated emissions associated with the operation of the proposed project. As indicated, the operation of the proposed project is anticipated to result in a less-than-significant impact and no mitigation is required.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 64 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION IV Air Quality

Table 8 Unmitigated Operational Emissions

a a ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Source lb/day Area 8.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.11 1.04 0.87 0.01 0.00 0.00 Mobile 3.91 5.19 30.27 0.03 0.15 0.15 Facility Subtotal 12.84 6.23 31.14 0.04 0.15 0.15 Ferry Emissions 3.71 12.86 60.27 2.95 0.77 0.69 Reduced VMTb 9.49 6.18 67.10 0.10 0.34 0.34 Net Totalc 7.06 12.91 24.31 2.89 0.58 0.50 BAAQMD Threshold (1999) 80.00 80.00 — — 80.00 — Significant? No No — — No — BAAQMD Threshold (2009) 54.00 54.00 — — 82.00 54.00 Tons/year

Area 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.02 0.19 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mobile 0.60 0.91 5.09 0.01 0.03 0.03 Facility Subtotal 2.23 1.10 5.25 0.01 0.03 0.03 Ferry Emissions 0.68 2.35 11.00 0.54 0.14 0.13 Reduced VMTb 1.63 1.05 11.83 0.02 0.06 0.06 Net Totalc 1.28 2.40 4.42 0.53 0.11 0.10 BAAQMD Threshold (1999) — — — — — — BAAQMD Threshold (2009) 10.00 10.00 — — 15.00 10.00 SOURCE: Atkins, CalEEMod Modeling (2013). 2009 thresholds are shown for comparative purposes only and are not used to determine project significance.

a. PM10 and PM2.5 represent exhaust emissions only b. Emissions that the project is replacing through reduction in VMT. c. Net total = Facility Subtotal + Ferry Emissions—Reduced VMT.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

Construction Construction of other projects in the general vicinity concurrent with construction of the proposed project could generate daily emissions that would result in potentially significant impacts on an individual project basis. If construction phases overlap these projects could result in significant cumulative impacts

San Francisco Bay Area 65 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION IV Air Quality May 2014 to air quality. As discussed under Section 3.IV(b) above, construction-related emissions associated with project development would be potentially significant without mitigation. However, with implementation of MM-AIR-1 through MM-AIR-4 the proposed project’s impact would be reduced to a less-than- significant level. Based on BAAQMD methodology20 a project that does not exceed the project level significance thresholds would not be anticipated to represent a cumulatively considerable impact. Therefore the project’s cumulative contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts would therefore be less than significant with mitigation.

GHG Mitigation Option: Solar-Array Carport As discussed under Section 3.IV(b) above, construction-related emissions associated with project development would be potentially significant without mitigation. However, with implementation of MM-AIR-1 through MM-AIR-4 the proposed project’s impact would be reduced to a less-than- significant level. This would include construction of the solar-array carport, which would be constructed concurrently with the other project components, and would not result in any substantial increase in emissions, compared to what is assumed for the project as a whole.

Operation Operation of other new projects within the vicinity of the proposed project could result in daily emissions that would exceed BAAQMD thresholds on an individual project basis. The combined effect of emissions from each of these individual projects could result in significant cumulative impacts to air quality. However, operation of the proposed project would not generate emissions that exceed the thresholds of significance on a project level. Based on BAAQMD methodology21 a project that does not exceed the project level significance thresholds would not be anticipated to represent a cumulatively considerable impact. As discussed under Section 3.IV(a) and Section 3.IV(b) above, and Section 3.IV(d) and Section 3.IV(e) below, the proposed project does not result in project level significant impacts. Thus, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant cumulative impact.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Sensitive receptors are impacted more by localized releases in pollutants than by regional emissions. Construction activities, carbon monoxide from intersection congestion, and toxic air contaminants from operational activities are the main sources that are considered to result in localized impacts. Therefore, impacts to sensitive receptors are analyzed based on these three pollutant sources. These sources are discussed individually below.

20 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines (updated May 2012). 21 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines (updated May 2012).

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 66 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION IV Air Quality

Construction Based on BAAQMD methodology,22 construction activities from a commercial development site of between 4 and 13 acres would be anticipated to result in health impacts if construction activities are within 200 meters of existing sensitive receptors. The closest sensitive receptors would be located at Lucretia Edwards Park (296 meters east), Marina Bay Harbor Slip, Barbara and Jay Vincent Park (630 meters east), and a residential development 800 meters to the east of the project site. Based on the screening distance, the proposed project, including construction of the optional solar-array carports, does not have the potential to result in substantial pollutant impacts to sensitive receptors. Therefore, the proposed project results in a less-than-significant impact.

Carbon Monoxide Operational emissions of CO are considered to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations if they cause or contribute to violations of the federal or State ambient air quality standards for CO (i.e., 35 ppm and 20 ppm, respectively, for one-hour averages; 9 ppm for eight-hour averages). A project that meets the following conditions would not have the potential to violate State or federal standards. ■ A project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. ■ The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. ■ The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway). The intent of the proposed project is to provide a transit alternative for commuter and recreational traffic between Richmond and San Francisco. By increasing transit ridership, personal vehicles are removed from the Bay Bridge during rush hour periods, thereby providing a reduction in congestion anticipated without the implementation of the proposed project. By its nature, including the VMT reduction, the project would be consistent with the congestion management programs within the County. At buildout with maximum projected 2035 ridership, the intersection of Marina Bay Parkway and the I-580 WB Ramp is anticipated to have the greatest hourly traffic at 2,246 trips during the AM peak hour.23 The 2,246 vehicles are well below the 24,000 and 44,000 vehicle criteria identified in the screening level analysis. Therefore the proposed project results in a less-than-significant impact as it would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial CO concentrations or result in a violation of the CO standards.

Toxic Air Contaminants Toxic air contaminants (TACs) result from both construction and operational emissions. TACs of potential concern within the project area include diesel particulate matter, a form of PM emitted mostly

22 BAAQMD, Screening Tables for Air Toxics Evaluation During Construction (May 2010). 23 G. Shearin, personal communication with Atkins (September 2012).

San Francisco Bay Area 67 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION IV Air Quality May 2014 from diesel-powered equipment and chemicals emitted from industrial uses. Discussion of construction impacts on sensitive receptors is discussed above. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) identifies the most notable sources of TAC emissions are from dry cleaners, auto body repair services, gasoline dispensing stations, manufacturing, distribution centers, rail yards, chrome platers, ports, petroleum refineries, and freeways or major roadways. ARB recommends buffer distances of up to 1,000 feet around stationary sources, and 500 feet from high- volume roadways, which are identified as having 100,000 daily trips or more on urban roadways. For projects within these buffer distances the ARB recommends that a health risk assessment be completed. Harbour Way South, just north of the project site, currently has 30,700 trips per day.24 According to the Traffic Study, average daily trips for the proposed project are less than 1,400. Therefore, even with the addition of project related trips, traffic would not come close to the 100,000 daily trip screening levels. The proposed project includes construction and operation of a ferry terminal that does not rely on a stationary power source or process that would generate TAC emissions. Further, the proposed project does not represent a sensitive receptor. Because the operation of the proposed project does not have the potential to increase traffic to a substantial level, does not include a stationary source of TAC emissions, nor is the proposed project a sensitive receptor, the project, including the optional solar-array carports, does not have the potential to impact nearby sensitive receptors. The project would result in a less-than- significant impact with respect to the generation of or proximity to TAC emissions.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

The occurrence and severity of potential odor impacts depend on several factors: the nature of the source, the frequency and strength of the emissions, the presence/absence of odor-sensitive receptors near the source, and the local pattern of wind speeds and directions. While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be unpleasant and cause distress among the public and generate citizen complaints. Odor impacts can result from siting a new odor source near existing receptors or siting a new sensitive receptor near an existing odor source. Some land uses that have the potential to generate considerable odors include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants. Construction activities occurring in association with the proposed project, including implementation of the optional solar-array carports, would generate airborne odors from the operation of construction vehicles (i.e., diesel exhaust) and paving activities. These emissions would occur during daytime hours only and would be isolated to the immediate vicinity of the construction site and activity. The nearest sensitive receptors that could be affected by odors from construction activities are the Lucretia Edwards

24 California, CEHTP Traffic Linkage Service Demonstration, http://www.ehib.org/traffic_tools.jsp (accessed September 2012).

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 68 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION V Biological Resources

Park, Barbara and Jay Vincent Park, and the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor (which could have residential uses as people may reside on a boat docked/moored there), and the residential development. The closest receptor is the Lucretia Edwards Park approximately 296 meters to the east. Because of the distance and the fact that construction odors would be temporary and limited to the daytime hours, this impact would be considered less than significant. After construction, the only potential for objectionable odors from the project site would be from mobile sources. As such, the typical commuter vehicles and ferry operations are not considered a potential source of objectionable odors. Therefore, there the operation of the proposed project would not be a significant source of potentially objectionable odors. This is a less-than-significant impact.

V. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Setting This section is based on information contained in the Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Biological Resources Technical Report prepared for the proposed project. The project area is at the southern end of the Ford Peninsula, adjacent to the Ford Assembly Building and Craneway Pavilion. For the purposes of this analysis, the project area includes the existing vessel facilities adjacent to the Craneway Pavilion wharf; the new terminal gate, landings, gangways, and passenger float; the existing parking lots (including the two parking option sites); the portion of the San Francisco Bay Trail and Bay Trail spur along Sheridan Point Park and west of the existing parking lot; the area west of the public boat ramp where the kayak launch would be relocated; and the nearshore waters and shoreline of the San Francisco Bay as depicted in Figure 1. The project vicinity includes areas within a one-mile radius of the project area. Historically, the project area and much of the surrounding San Francisco Bay shoreline consisted of vast areas of tidal marshes, mudflats, and shallow water habitats that supported abundant foraging, shelter, and breeding habitat for numerous fish and wildlife species (Beesley 1996, Nichols 1971, Skinner 1962). Beginning in the mid 1800’s, anthropogenic factors such as landfill, levee construction, and hydraulic mining activities resulted in losses of tidal marsh and mudflat habitats of over 80 percent and 40 percent, respectively. The project area and vicinity is now comprised of industrial and commercial buildings, parking areas, and associated landscape vegetation and is surrounded by industrial and urban development to the north and the waters of San Francisco Bay to the south, east, and west. The habitat types occurring in the project area include developed land and nearshore waters of San Francisco Bay. No naturally occurring vegetation communities or wetlands are present in the project area or in the immediate vicinity. Table 9 (Habitat and Land Use Types Occurring within the Proposed Project Area) lists the approximate acreage of each habitat type in the project area. These habitats are further described below.

San Francisco Bay Area 69 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION V Biological Resources May 2014

Table 9 Habitat and Land Use Types Occurring within the Proposed Project Area Habitat Type Existing Acres Developed 9.17 Nearshore waters of San Francisco Bay 0.25 Total 9.42 SOURCE: Atkins (2012).

Terrestrial Habitat Approximately 9.17 acres of developed areas were mapped within the project area. Developed land generally includes areas that have been permanently altered due to the construction of aboveground developments such as buildings, roads, and parking lots. Developed land is characterized by a high percentage of sparsely or nonvegetated bare earth, asphalt, concrete, and other permanent surfaces. For the purposes of this assessment, developed land may also include isolated stands of nonnative ornamental vegetation planted for landscaping improvements and weedy species occupying areas of mostly nonvegetated, barren soil. Landscape vegetation present in the project area consists of tree, shrub and turf grass species including blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), juniper (Juniperus sp.), false heather (Cuphea hyssopifolia), photinia (Photinia villosa), and fescue (Festuca sp.). Scattered patches of nonnative ruderal herbaceous species such as ice plant (Carpobrotus edulis), wild oats (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), plantain (Plantago major), cheeseweed mallow (Malva parviflora), and black mustard (Brassica nigra) occur on mostly barren soil on the southwest part of the project area. Developed land provides minimal, if any, wildlife habitat. The landscape vegetation in the project area could provide limited nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for passerine bird species commonly encountered in urban and industrialized settings, such as house sparrow (Passer domensticus), Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), and Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna). Small mammals, such as California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and black rat (Rattus rattus) could find shelter and forage within the landscaped areas and shoreline rock riprap. Wildlife species observed in the project area during the general biological resources survey included rock pigeon (Columba livia), house sparrow, mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), California gull (Larus californicus), and domestic cat (Felis catus). Bird species observed foraging in the waters of San Francisco Bay within approximately 100 meters of the project area included California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus), osprey (Pandion halieatus), and Caspian tern (Hydroprogne caspia).

Intertidal and Aquatic Habitats The aquatic habitat within the project area includes waters of San Francisco Bay beginning at the mean low tide line and extending to the project boundary. Approximately 0.25 acre of nearshore aquatic habitat was mapped within the project area during the general biological survey. A small eelgrass (Zostera marina) bed approximately 50 square meters (m²) in size was observed immediately west of the existing gangway. Relative to other known eelgrass beds in the project vicinity, the existing eelgrass bed is of low quality

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 70 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION V Biological Resources due to small size and susceptibility to disturbance. Additional discussion of the eelgrass found within the project area is provided later in this section. Fish species likely to occur within the nearshore aquatic habitat and immediate vicinity include both resident species and special-status anadromous species commonly found in San Francisco Bay, such as topsmelt (Athinerops affinis), leopard shark (Triakis semifasciata), Pacific staghorn sculpin (Cottus armatus), striped bass (Mornone saxatilis), shiner surfperch (Cymatogaster aggregata), Northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris). Anadromous species such as steelhead and green sturgeon would be expected to use the project area aquatic habitat primarily as migration routes and possibly short-term foraging habitat.

Special-Status Species Queries of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), California Native Plant Society (CNPS), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) databases identified 63 special-status plant and animal species as occurring (extant or extirpated) within the Richmond, Mare Island, Oakland, West, and San Quentin, California, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles. For the purposes of this assessment, special-status plant species include plants that are federally listed as threatened or endangered by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and USFWS; state listed as threatened or endangered or considered sensitive by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); CNPS List 1A, 1B, or 2 species, as recognized in the CNPS’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Special-status wildlife species include wildlife that are listed as threatened or endangered, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing by the NMFS and USFWS; state listed as threatened or endangered or considered sensitive by the CDFW. Special-status species with a moderate to high potential to occur in the vicinity of the project area are further discussed below. A complete list of special-status species identified by the CNDDB, CNPS, and USFWS queries is included in Appendix B.

Special-Status Plants Due to the lack of naturally occurring vegetation communities and suitable habitat within the project area or vicinity, none of the 32 special-status plant species identified in the CNDDB and CNPS queries were determined to have the potential to occur within the project area. The entire terrestrial habitat in the project area consists of developed areas, and all plant species identified on-site during the general biological resources survey were either landscape vegetation or nonnative ruderal herbaceous species.

Special-Status Wildlife Species The following provides a description of the special-status wildlife species with the potential to occur within the project area. California Sea Lion (Zalophus californianus). The California sea lion is protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). California sea lions breed in Southern California and along the Channel Islands. After the breeding season, males migrate up the Pacific Coast and enter San Francisco Bay. In San Francisco Bay, sea lions are known to haul out at Pier 39 in the Fisherman’s Wharf area of the San Francisco Marina. No other repeatedly used haul-out site for California sea lions, other than Pier 39, has been observed in San Francisco Bay. California sea lions forage on a wide range of fish species; particularly schooling species such as Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii) and northern anchovy.

San Francisco Bay Area 71 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION V Biological Resources May 2014

Pacific Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina). The harbor seal is protected by the MMPA. Harbor seals are nonmigratory and can be found along shorelines and in estuaries throughout North America. Pacific harbor seals use San Francisco Bay year-round where they engage in limited seasonal movements associated with foraging and breeding activities. Harbor seals haul out in groups ranging in size from a few individuals to several hundred seals. Habitats used as haul-out sites include tidal rocks, bay flats, sandbars, and sandy beaches. Haul-out sites are relatively consistent from year to year and are important habitats for harbor seals In San Francisco Bay; pupping occurs from March to May, and molting in June and July. These activities correspond to the greatest number of harbor seals counted at major haul-out sites in San Francisco Bay. Haul-out sites that support some of the largest concentrations of seals include: Corte Madera Marsh and Castro Rocks in the Central Bay; Mowry Slough south of Dumbarton Bridge; and Yerba Buena Island. California Least Tern (Sternula antillarum browni). The California least tern is listed as endangered by the USFWS and CDFW. The California least tern nests along the California Coast, including shoreline areas of San Francisco Bay. It is a colonial breeder and requires sparsely vegetated flats substrates such as sandy beaches, alkali flats, and levees for nesting sites. Nests are constructed of shell fragments, gravel, and other debris. The closest documented nesting site for California least tern is the former Alameda Naval Air Station in Alameda. The California least tern forages on small fish in shallow marshes and bays. No suitable nesting habitat occurs on or in the immediate vicinity or the project area for the California least tern. The nearshore habitat within the project area provides suitable foraging habitat for this species; therefore it has a moderate potential to occur within the project area and vicinity.

Special-Status Fish Species Several special status species listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) have the potential to occur in the waters within and immediately adjacent to the project area, including winter-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Central Valley fall/late-fall run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Central California coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and green sturgeon southern (Acipenser medirostris). Winter-run Chinook Salmon. The winter-run Chinook salmon Sacramento River Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) is listed as endangered by NMFS. Adult winter-run Chinook salmon enter San Francisco Bay from November through May or June, reaching the Red Bluff Diversion Dam on the Sacramento River between January and May. Spawning occurs in the Sacramento River upstream of the Red Bluff Diversion Dam from Redding to Tehama from mid-April through August. Fry emergence occurs from mid-June through mid-October. Juvenile (pre-smolt/smolt) emigration begins in September, and emigration through the Lower Sacramento River Delta and San Francisco Bay occurs from September through June. Designated critical habitat for winter-run Chinook salmon includes the Sacramento River downstream from Keswick Dam, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and all waters of Suisun, San Pablo, and San Francisco Bays west to the Golden Gate Bridge. As such, the project area is within the designated critical habitat for this species. Winter-run Chinook salmon smolt may pass through and forage within the

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 72 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION V Biological Resources project area during emigration to the Pacific Ocean, and therefore have a moderate potential to occur within the project area and vicinity. Central Valley Spring-Run Chinook Salmon. The Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon ESU is listed as threatened by NMFS. Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon probably enter San Francisco Bay between late January and mid-February, based on their return to natal tributaries as immature adults between March and July. They hold in deep pools for up to several months before spawning. Spawning occurs between September and October and fry emergence occurs between November and February. Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon emigration is highly variable, with some juveniles spending up to 13 months in freshwater habitat. The pre-smolt/smolt emigration period typically extends from November to early May, with the majority of smolt emigrating through San Francisco Bay between mid- November and February. Designated critical habitat for Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon does not include the waters of San Francisco Bay. As such, the project area does not lie within designated critical habitat for this species. However, Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon smolt may pass through and forage within the project area during emigration to the Pacific Ocean, and therefore have a moderate potential to occur within the project area and vicinity. Central Valley fall/late-fall-run Chinook Salmon. The Central Valley fall/late-fall-run Chinook salmon ESU is not listed as threatened or endangered under federal or state ESAs; however it is classified as a federal species of concern by NMFS and California species of special concern. This ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of Central Valley fall/late fall-run Chinook salmon in the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and their tributaries east of Carquinez Strait. Central Valley fall/late-fall-run Chinook salmon enter San Francisco Bay between July and November and spawn in the Sacramento River basin between September and December. Juvenile emigration through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay occurs between March and July. Central Valley fall/late-run Chinook salmon smolt may pass through and forage within the project area during emigration to the Pacific Ocean, and therefore have a moderate potential to occur within the project area and vicinity. Central Valley Steelhead. The Central Valley steelhead is listed as threatened by the NMFS. The Central Valley steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS) includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and their tributaries below natural and manmade impassable barriers (excluding steelhead from San Francisco and San Pablo Bays and their tributaries) as well as two artificial propagation programs: the Coleman National Fish Hatchery and the Feather River Hatchery steelhead hatchery programs. Central Valley steelhead adults migrate from the Pacific Ocean through San Francisco Bay through much of the year, with the peak migration period through San Francisco Bay occurring from September through December. Spawning occurs from November through April, and emergence of fry occurs between January and June. Juvenile steelhead spend 1 to 3 years in freshwater before emigrating as smolts. In general, juvenile emigration through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay occurs from December through July. Designated critical habitat for Central Valley steelhead includes all river reaches accessible to listed steelhead in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries, all river reaches and riparian

San Francisco Bay Area 73 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION V Biological Resources May 2014 zones of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and all waters of Suisun, San Pablo, and San Francisco Bays west to the Golden Gate Bridge. As such, the project area is within the designated critical habitat for this species. Central Valley steelhead smolt may pass through and forage within the proposed project during emigration to the Pacific Ocean, and therefore have a moderate potential to occur within the project area and vicinity. Central California Coast Steelhead. The Central California Coast steelhead DPS is listed as threatened by NMFS. This DPS includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead from the Russian River to Aptos Creek, and includes the populations spawning in streams and rivers tributary to San Francisco Bay (including San Pablo, and Suisun Bays) eastward to Chipps Island. In general, adult Central California Coast steelhead spawning in streams tributary to San Francisco Bay migrate from the Pacific Ocean through San Francisco Bay from November through February. Spawning occurs from December through April, and fry emergence occurs from January through May. Juvenile Central California Coast steelhead rear in freshwater for 1 to 3 years (usually 2 years) before emigrating as smolts through San Francisco Bay to the Pacific Ocean, generally from January through June. Designated critical habitat for Central California Coast steelhead includes all river and stream reaches accessible to listed steelhead tributary to the Pacific Ocean from the Russian River to Aptos Creek, and all river and stream reaches accessible to listed steelhead tributary Suisun, San Pablo, and San Francisco Bays, and all waters of Suisun, San Pablo, and San Francisco Bays west to the Golden Gate Bridge. As such, the project area is within the designated critical habitat mapped for this species. Although Central California Coast steelhead smolt and adults may pass through and possibly forage within the project area during emigration to the Pacific Ocean, the project area lacks the primary constituents of estuarine habitat such as side channels, large woody debris, natural cover, and other features that would make it productive rearing habitat for steelhead. Therefore, the site does not support any of the primary constituent elements to be considered critical habitat. Green Sturgeon Southern. The green sturgeon DPS is listed as threatened by USFWS. The Southern DPS includes all green sturgeon south of the Eel River (Humboldt County) including those inhabiting all waters of Suisun, San Pablo and San Francisco Bays, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and the Sacramento, Feather and Yuba Rivers. Adult green sturgeon begin their spawning migrations into San Francisco Bay in March, and spawn in the Sacramento River from the Hamilton City area and upstream to possibly Keswick Dam (Brown 2007). Spawning occurs from April through June. Juvenile green sturgeon rear in freshwater and estuarine habitat of the Sacramento River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for 1 to 4 years before emigrating through San Francisco Bay and eventually into the Pacific Ocean. However, some adult and juvenile green sturgeon may be present in San Francisco Bay throughout the year. Designated critical habitat for the green sturgeon within California includes the Sacramento River downstream from Keswick Dam, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Suisun, San Pablo, and San Francisco Bays, and all waters of Suisun, San Pablo, and San Francisco Bays west to the Golden Gate Bridge. As such, the project area is within the designated critical habitat for this species. Green sturgeon may spend considerable time foraging within San Francisco Bay during immigration and emigration to the Pacific Ocean. Suitable foraging habitat exists within the project area (e.g., soft bottom

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 74 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION V Biological Resources substrates with benthic fish and invertebrate species). Therefore, green sturgeon has a high potential to occur within the project area and vicinity.

Special Aquatic Habitat Eelgrass (Zostera marina) is a native marine vascular plant indigenous to the soft-bottom shallow bays and estuaries of the Northern Hemisphere. The species’ range extends from Baja California to northern Alaska along the West Coast of North America. In San Francisco and San Pablo Bays, eelgrass beds occur on soft bottom substrate in shallow areas (typically less than -1.5 m depth at mean low tide level). Eelgrass beds are extremely dynamic, expanding and contracting seasonally and annually depending on the quality of the site. Consequently, they serve as an indicator community for the overall health of an estuary. Eelgrass plays many roles within the estuary system. It clarifies water through sediment trapping and habitat stabilization. It also provides benefits of nutrient transformation and water oxygenation. Eelgrass serves as a primary producer in a detrital based food-web and is further directly grazed upon by invertebrates, fish, and birds. It supports epiphytic plants and animals that, in turn, are grazed upon by other invertebrates, larval and juvenile fish, and birds. Eelgrass is a nursery area for many commercially and recreationally important finfish and shellfish species including those that are resident within bays and estuaries, nearly all of the anadromous fish species found along the Pacific coast, and oceanic species, which enter the estuaries to breed or spawn. Besides providing important habitat for fish, eelgrass habitat also is considered to be an important resource supporting migratory birds during critical life stages, including migratory periods. Although not listed as a Sensitive Habitat by USFWS or CDFW, vegetated shallows that support eelgrass are considered “special aquatic sites” under the 404(b)(1) guidelines of the Clean Water Act (40 C.F.R. Section 230.43). Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), eelgrass is designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for various federally managed fish species within the Pacific Coast Groundfish and Pacific Coast Salmon Fisheries Management Plans (FMP) (PFMC 2008). Eelgrass is also designated as a Habitat Area of Particular Concern (HAPC) by NMFS. A small (approximately 50 m2) eelgrass (Zostera marina) bed was observed within the project area during the general biological survey. The eelgrass bed was located directly west of the existing gangway. Eelgrass beds have been documented at various times within the project vicinity, although not within the project area (Merkel 2011). Eelgrass beds are considered “special aquatic sites” and are protected under the 404(b)(1) guidelines of the Clean Water Act.

Wildlife Corridors Wildlife corridors link together areas of suitable wildlife habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. The project area is surrounded on the west, east, and north by urbanization, and is bordered to the south by the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor and San Francisco Bay. There are no terrestrial movement corridors that connect the project area with any pristine or occupied wildlife habitat. Birds from the nearby Brooks Island area could potentially move to and from the project area; however, there is little foraging habitat available to attract these species. There are no streams supporting anadromous fish species within the project area or immediate vicinity. However, anadromous fish species have the potential to migrate through the nearshore waters occurring

San Francisco Bay Area 75 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION V Biological Resources May 2014 within the project area, particularly salmonid smolts and juvenile green sturgeon emigrating from their natal waters through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and ultimately to the Pacific Ocean.

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands In the context of this assessment, jurisdictional waters and wetlands generally include those resources regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) pursuant to federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404; the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to CWA Section 401 and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act; and the CDFW pursuant to California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) Sections 1600 et seq. The proposed project involves removal of the existing gangway, passenger float, and associated pilings, and construction of new landings, gangways, passenger float, and associated pilings for the ferry terminal, and for the kayak launch, within the waters of San Francisco Bay. San Francisco Bay is a designated Waters of the US as a navigable waterway under the jurisdiction of USACE. However, the terrestrial habitat within the project area is characterized by developed land, and no wetlands are present.

Habitat Conservation Plans No Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) or Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs) have been designated within the City boundaries. The closest HCP/NCCP is the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan, which is a joint venture between the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg and Contra Costa County. The City of Richmond is not a part of this plan. Other nearby adopted habitat conservation plans include the San Francisco Bay Plan, the Suisun Marsh Protection Plan, and a variety of regional habitat and park plans by the East Bay Regional Park District, but the City of Richmond is outside the scope of these plans.

Regulatory Framework

Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). The FESA of 1973 provides legal protection for threatened and endangered plant and animal species and requires definitions of critical habitat and development of recovery plans for specific species. FESA Section 7 requires federal agencies to make a finding on the potential to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species potentially impacted by all federal actions, including the approval of a public or private action, such as the issuance of a permit pursuant to Sections 10 and 404 of the U.S. CWA. FESA Section 9 prohibits the take of any member of an endangered species. Take is defined by the FESA as “... to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” FESA Section 10(a) permits the incidental take of listed species if the take is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Projects adversely affecting federally listed threatened or endangered species are required to obtain take permission from the USFWS prior to project implementation. If a federal agency is involved (i.e., if a wetlands permit is required, project has federal funding, etc.), take permission can be obtained through FESA Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. Consultation will determine whether the project would result in “take” of a protected species or designated critical habitat and identify mitigation measures that

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 76 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION V Biological Resources would be required to avoid or reduce impacts on the species or its habitat. Following this consultation, the USFWS issues a Biological Opinion (BO), which dictates the conditions of take that are allowed for the project. If no federal agency is involved, project applicants are required to obtain an Incidental Take Permit through FESA Section 10, which requires preparation of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and results in the issuance of an Incidental Take Permit. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918. The MBTA regulates or prohibits the taking, killing, possession of, or harm of migratory bird species listed in Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 10.13. It is an international treaty for the conservation and management of bird species that migrate through more than one country, and is enforced in the United States by the USFWS. Hunting of specific migratory game birds is permitted under the regulations listed in Title 50 CFR 20. Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404. The objective of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. Section 401 prohibits the discharge of any pollutant into the Nation’s waters without a permit, and Section 402 establishes the permit program. CWA Section 404 regulates activities that result in discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. USACE is responsible for permitting certain types of activities affecting wetlands and other waters of the United States. Under CWA Section 404, USACE has the authority to regulate activity that could discharge fill or dredge material or otherwise adversely modify wetlands or other waters of the USACE implements the federal policy embodied in Executive Order 11990, which, when implemented, is intended to result in no net loss of wetland values or acres. Federal CWA Section 401. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has authority over wetlands through CWA Section 401, as well as the Porter-Cologne Act, California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 3831(k), and California Wetlands Conservation Policy. The CWA requires that an applicant for a Section 404 permit (to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States) first obtain a certificate from the appropriate state agency stating that the fill is consistent with the State’s water quality standards and criteria. In California, the authority to either grant certification or waive the requirement for permits is delegated by the SWRCB to the nine regional boards. A request for certification is submitted to the regional board at the same time that an application is filed with USACE.

State California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The CDFW administers a number of laws and programs designed to protect fish and wildlife resources. Principal among these is the California Endangered Species Act of 1984 (CESA) (CFGC Section 2050), which regulates the listing and take of state- endangered and state-threatened species. The CESA declares that deserving species will be given protection by the state because they are of ecological, educational, historical, recreational, aesthetic, economic, and scientific value to the people of the state. The CESA established that it is state policy to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance endangered species and their habitats. Species listed under the CESA cannot be “taken” without adequate mitigation and compensation. The definition of take under CESA is the same as described above for the FESA. However, based on findings of the California Attorney General’s Office, take under CESA does not prohibit indirect harm by way of habitat modification. Typically, the CDFW implements endangered species protection and take

San Francisco Bay Area 77 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION V Biological Resources May 2014 determinations by entering into management agreements (CFGC Section 2081 [Management Agreements]) with project applicants. California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. CFGC Section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nests or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. CFGC Section 3503.5 protects all birds-of-prey (raptors) and their eggs and nests. CFGC Section 3513 states that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA. These regulations could require that elements of the proposed project (particularly vegetation removal or construction near nest trees) be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle unless surveys by a qualified biologist demonstrate that nests, eggs, or nesting birds will not be disturbed, subject to approval by CDFW and/or USFWS. CFGC Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515. Sections 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and 5515 (fish) designate certain species as “fully protected.” Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time, and no provision of the CFGC or any other law may be construed to authorize the issuance of permits of licenses to take any fully protected species.

Applicable 2003 PEIR Mitigation Measures The 2003 WTA PEIR included many impacts and mitigation measures that are either addressed in this document or are not applicable to this project. A table of impacts and mitigation measures from the PEIR is included as Table 1 of this document. The following 2003 PEIR mitigation measures would be applicable to Biological Resources for the proposed project: Mitigation B-3.1, Mitigation B-3.2, Mitigation B-3.3, Mitigation B-7.1, Mitigation D-4.1, Mitigation D-4.2, Mitigation B-9.1, Mitigation B-13.1, Mitigation B-16.1, Mitigation B-17.1, Mitigation W-1.1, Mitigation W-1.2, Mitigation B-18.1, Mitigation D-2.1, Mitigation D-2.2, Mitigation D-2.3, Mitigation B-19.1, Mitigation W-3.1, Mitigation W-3.2, Mitigation W-3.3, Mitigation W-3.4, and Mitigation W-3.5.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: (a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Special-Status Plant Species. As described above, due to a lack of suitable habitat it is unlikely that special-status plant species could exist within the project area. Additionally, no special-status plant species were observed in the project area or vicinity during the general biological survey. Vegetation present at the project area consists entirely of plant species typical of ornamental landscaping and a scattering of nonnative ruderal species found in disturbed areas, which do not provide suitable conditions for special- status plants. The underlying soils within the project area are highly disturbed and not known to be specifically associated with any special-status plant species. The proposed project would occur entirely

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 78 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION V Biological Resources within existing developed areas. Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to impact special-status plant species based on the existing conditions and findings. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on special status plant species. Special-Status Wildlife Species. As described above, there is one special-status species with the potential to occur within the project area. The California least tern, a federally and state-listed endangered species has the potential to forage in the waters of the project area. California least tern that forage in San Francisco Bay are considered sensitive to disturbance, especially during the breeding season. Successful foraging is critical to California least tern recovery, and increased turbidity caused by construction dredging could lead to decreased foraging success. The 2001 Long-Term Management Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region Management Plan (LTMS) establishes guidelines to ensure that dredging activities do not adversely affect least tern foraging. The proposed project would adhere to LTMS avoidance guidelines, specifically that dredging activities within the project area should not occur during the tern foraging period (March 15-July 31). Therefore, potential impacts to California least tern foraging associated with construction dredging would be less than significant. Due to ongoing anthropogenic disturbances including automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic, the project area is not considered suitable terrestrial habitat for wildlife species. Aside from the California least tern, all other special-status wildlife species indentified in the CNDDB and USFWS queries are considered to be absent from the project area based on the highly disturbed nature of the project area. As such, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to impact special-status animal species based on the current existing conditions and findings, resulting in a less-than-significant impact. Special-Status Fish Species. Special-status fish species with a moderate to high potential to occur within the project area include Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley fall/late-fall-run Chinook salmon, Central California Coast steelhead, Central Valley steelhead, and green sturgeon southern. During construction of the proposed project, underwater noise and acoustic pressure resulting from pile driving could affect special-status fish species by deterring fish from the construction area and/or direct sublethal or lethal effects. The severity of adverse effects on fish (e.g., behavioral avoidance) is dependent upon a number of factors, including the concentration and location of fish within the area, species specific differences in sensitivity to acoustic pressures, the depth of water, bottom and surface water characteristics, and the type of pile (e.g., steel or concrete), pile size, and pile driving method (e.g., hammer or vibratory). Exposure to sound pressure levels associated with pile driving decreases in water exponentially as a function of the distance from the source. Sound pressure levels of 180 dB (referenced to 1 µPa) are known to cause permanent injury to the lateral line and inner ear of fishes. Damage to these organs results in disorientation and the inability to locate food and avoid predators. Delayed mortality may also occur. Therefore, construction of the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact associated with an increase in acoustic pressure resulting from pile driving. In addition, construction of the proposed project would require minor dredging for the section of the passenger float outside of the existing entrance channel (along the west side of the Ford Assembly Building Wharf), where depths are as low as -6.5 feet. The initial amount of dredging required to install the float would be less than 500 cubic yards. Construction dredging could adversely affect fish species

San Francisco Bay Area 79 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION V Biological Resources May 2014 through (1) removal/burial of organisms; (2) turbidity/siltation effects (i.e., the relative clarity of water that may be reduced by suspended sediment), including light attenuation from turbidity; (3) contaminant release and uptake, including nutrients, metals, and organics; (4) release of oxygen-consuming substances; (5) entrainment; (6) noise disturbances; and (7) alteration to hydrodynamic regimes and physical habitat. However, implementation of MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-2, and MM-BIO-3 would reduce these impacts to less than significant. MM-BIO-1 Reduce Noise Related Impacts on ESA Listed Fish Species and Marine Mammals During In-Water Work. WETA will implement measures to reduce impacts associated with in- water work activities to listed fish species. These measures will include, at a minimum, the following measures: ■ In-water work activities will occur June 1 to November 30 (the dredging window in the Central Bay), outside the peak juvenile outmigration periods for ESA listed fish species. ■ Bubble curtains will be used to attenuate pile driving sounds. Confined curtains will be used when feasible. ■ A vibratory pile driver will be used when feasible. Geotechnical consultation would be necessary to determine if vibratory pile driving methods would meet applicable standards for pile installation. ■ Sound levels will be monitored. Real-time sound data will be used to adjust bubble curtains if necessary to minimize underwater noise from impact pile driving. ■ As a performance standard, the selected measures will represent the best available technology that is economically achievable, and will achieve maximum feasible reduction in underwater sound pressure levels (SPLs) and/or related impacts on listed fish species. MM-BIO-2 Conduct In-Water Construction Activities During the Dredging Window for the Central Bay to Avoid ESA Listed Fish Spawning and Migration Seasons. In water construction will be limited to the dredging window period (June 1 to November 30) to reduce the likelihood of adverse impacts on rearing juvenile steelhead, Chinook salmon, and green sturgeon, and on adult fish spawning and migration, unless otherwise approved by appropriate resource agencies. MM-BIO-3 Monitor for Turbidity during Dredging Activities. The San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) makes certain exceptions for dredging activities, and the typical Basin Plan standards for turbidity may not apply in the mixing zone of the dredging activities. However, outside of the mixing zone, which could be more than 500 feet, WETA or its contractor would monitor and ensure Basin Plan standards for turbidity are met. WETA would consult with the San Francisco RWQCB to determine if routine channel dredging within the Inner Richmond Harbor is exempted from turbidity monitoring requirements and to determine the extent of the mixing zone. If turbidity monitoring outside of the mixing zone is required, WETA or its contractor would conduct turbidity monitoring outside of the mixing area immediately prior to initiation of dredging activities to comply with Basin Plan standards. Basin Plan standards are as follows: ■ Where natural turbidity is between 0 and 5 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs), increases shall not exceed 1 NTU. ■ Where natural turbidity is between 5 and 50 NTUs, increases shall not exceed 20 percent. ■ Where natural turbidity is between 50 and 100 NTUs, increases shall not exceed 10 NTUs. ■ Where natural turbidity is greater than 100 NTUs, increases shall not exceed 1 percent.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 80 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION V Biological Resources

The specific monitoring schedule including any additional timing information and quality assurance shall be determined by WETA in collaboration with the San Francisco RWQCB. In response to monitoring results, turbidity controls shall be implemented by WETA or its contractor to assure that the thresholds above are not exceeded. These may include one or more of the following: ■ Use of a silt curtain to isolate turbidity (if site conditions allow) ■ Use of operational controls, such as any of the following:  Increased cycle time / reduced bucket deployment (longer cycle times reduce the velocity of the ascending bucket through the water column, which reduces potential sediment wash from the bucket)  Conduct dredging activities at low tide to minimize travel distance of the ascending bucket through the water column  Use of an environmental bucket

GHG Mitigation Option: Solar-Array Carport Implementation of the solar-array carports would require 41 piles to support the structures. This would occur in existing parking lots without any on-site or adjacent habitat and would not be in-water work; therefore no impacts related to special-status plants, wildlife or fish species would occur. Impacts would be less than significant.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (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 California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Special Aquatic Sites. A small (approximately 50 m2 or 160 sf) eelgrass bed was documented within the project area during the general biological resources survey conducted in July 2012. Eelgrass beds have also been mapped in the project vicinity during separate eelgrass mapping surveys. Eelgrass distribution fluctuates and can expand, contract, disappear, and recolonize beds within suitable environments. While eelgrass presence within these areas may not always be consistent, habitats that are suitable to support eelgrass are generally definable based on history of eelgrass presence, and/or physical characteristics of the potential habitat. Replacement of the existing gangway with a larger gangway has the potential to adversely impact the eelgrass bed by disrupting the bed during gangway replacement construction activities. Installation of the new gangway would result in an increase of shade, which could limit the extent of available eelgrass habitat and reduce photosynthetic capabilities of the existing bed. In addition, WETA vessel arrivals and departures could result in a potentially significant impact to the eelgrass bed by causing direct injury (e.g., uprooting or pruning of plants) and increasing turbidity plumes and sediment deposition. Impacts to existing eelgrass beds mapped within the project area would likely be unavoidable. However, implementation of MM-BIO-4 (off-site mitigation) would reduce this impact to less-than- significant with mitigation. MM-BIO-4 The Draft California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (DCEMP) contains recommendations for conducting eelgrass bed surveys, avoidance measures for potential impacts from shading and turbidity,

San Francisco Bay Area 81 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION V Biological Resources May 2014

assessment of project impacts, and mitigation measures. An eelgrass survey for the project area shall be conducted no more than 60 days prior to the start of construction. If eelgrass is present, the survey shall evaluate the following five parameters indentified for use in assessment of effects of actions on eelgrass. These parameters are (1) the spatial distribution of the bed; (2) the areal extent of the bed; (3) the percentage of bottom cover within the bed; (4) the turion density within the bed; and (5) where available, the occurrence frequency and distribution of eelgrass beds through time. When evaluated in association with reference area response, these metrics provide definition to the bed that allows for assessment of eelgrass change related to an action. Preparation of the Biological Assessment including consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and ensuing Biological Opinion will determine the extent and location of required off-site mitigation When impacts to eelgrass could occur, the project sponsor shall develop a mitigation plan following the procedures in the DCEMP. The project sponsor is solely responsible for achieving the mitigation target. The location of eelgrass mitigation shall be in areas of similar condition to those where the initial impact occurs. Factors such as distance from action, depth, sediment type, distance from ocean connection, water quality, and currents are among those that shall be considered in evaluating suitable sites and making an ultimate site selection for mitigation. If avoidance and minimization measures are not practical and impact to an existing eelgrass bed may occur, off-site mitigation is required at a 3:1 ratio (mitigation to impact) at an approved site. Techniques for eelgrass mitigation shall be consistent with the best available technology at the time of mitigation implementation and shall be tailored to the specific needs of the mitigation site. Aquatic Habitat and Water Quality. As described in Section 3.X (Hydrology/Water Quality), no landside permanent structures would be constructed or modified as a result of the project. Landside improvements would be minor and would be limited to installation of hardscaping and some restriping in the existing parking lots, which are paved surfaces where no soil is subject to erosion. Therefore, the proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern on land, and there would be no erosion or siltation. Waterside improvements would consist of installation of piers to support the float. There would be no modification to existing shoreline protection features that would temporarily or permanently modify the shoreline such that it could be susceptible to erosion or cause siltation. As such, the proposed project would not adversely impact aquatic habitat through degradation of water quality associated with increased erosion or siltation. Aquatic habitat impacts related to erosion and siltation would be less than significant.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

As described in above, there are no federally protected wetlands within the project area. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have no impact on wetlands.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 82 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION V Biological Resources

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

Nesting Birds. Although no special-status wildlife species are expected to occur at the project area, there are a number of trees, shrubs, and man-made structures (e.g., buildings) that provide suitable nesting habitat for common (nonsensitive) birds, including raptors, protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and CFGC. Construction of the proposed project could result in the removal or trimming of trees and shrubs during the general bird nesting season (February 1 through August 31) and, therefore, could result in impacts to nesting birds in violation of the MBTA and CFGC. The proposed parking lots are currently paved and contain no structures or vegetation, the disturbance of which could result in impacts to nesting birds. Direct impacts could occur as a result of removal of vegetation supporting an active nest. Indirect impacts could occur as a result of construction noise and vibration in the immediate vicinity of an active nest, such that the disturbance results in a nest failure. These impacts would be considered potentially significant in violation of MBTA and CFGC. MM-BIO-5 would require preconstruction surveys and implementation of avoidance measures to prevent construction-related impacts to nesting birds, thereby reducing impacts to less than significant. MM-BIO-5 To avoid any direct impacts to raptors and/or any migratory birds, removal of habitat that supports active nests on the proposed area of disturbance shall occur outside of the breeding season for these species (February 1 to August 31). If trimming of trees or removal of shrubs on the proposed area of disturbance must occur during the breeding season, the project sponsor shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds on the proposed area of disturbance. The preconstruction survey shall be conducted within 10 calendar days prior to the start of construction activities (including removal of vegetation). The project sponsor shall submit the results of the preconstruction survey to CDFW for review and approval prior to initiating any construction activities. If nesting birds are detected, a letter report or mitigation plan as deemed appropriate by CDFW, shall be prepared and include proposed measures protocols to be implemented to ensure that disturbance of breeding activities is avoided. The report or mitigation plan shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval. Marine Mammals. Underwater disturbances related to pile driving and construction dredging could result in temporary disturbance to foraging or migrating marine mammals. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (amended in 1994), it is forbidden to intentionally harass marine mammals. Harassment is defined under the Act as “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment) or has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption to migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).” Pile driving activities would be considered Level B harassment. Because pile driving noise levels are expected to exceed the 160 dB NMFS guideline, pile driving could produce a temporary, potentially significant impact on marine mammals.

San Francisco Bay Area 83 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION V Biological Resources May 2014

Further, construction dredging would have the potential to generate sediment plumes. The mobilization and transport of sediment results in turbidity, affecting the behavior, growth, reproduction, and movement of fish and other aquatic organisms and may consequently affect foraging of birds and marine mammals. However, implementation of MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-4 and MM-BIO-6 would reduce pile driving and dredging-related impacts on marine mammals to less than significant. MM-BIO-6 An Incidental Harassment Authorization from NMFS would be needed for pile driving and dredging activities, even though activities would not occur near known haul-out sites. To minimize harassment to marine mammals, the following avoidance measures are proposed: ■ Work shall occur only during daylight hours so that marine mammals are visible at all times during the pile installation and dredging activities. ■ A safe zone shall be enforced during dredging and pile driving operations. A marine mammal monitor shall survey the area prior to the startup of pile driving equipment. ■ Installation shall not begin until no marine mammals are sighted within a designated “safe zone” for at least 15 minutes prior to the initiation of the activity. ■ For dredging and pile driving activities, the proposed safety zone shall be a radius of 1,000 feet from the dredging or pile location. At 1,000 feet, sound levels from dredging or pile driving are expected to be below 180 dB. ■ Once activities begin, installation shall continue until completed. Before driving the next pile, the monitor shall again confirm that the safety zone is clear of marine mammals. ■ The construction contractor shall establish daily “soft start” or “ramp up” procedures for pile- driving activities. This technique shall be used at the beginning of each piling installation to allow any marine mammal that may be in the area to leave before pile driving activities reach full energy. The contractor shall provide an initial three strikes at reduced energy (40 percent), followed by a 1-minute waiting period, then subsequent 3-strike sets. ■ A qualified biological monitor shall visually survey the area one day prior to the start of dredging or dredging operations to establish a baseline. Fish and Wildlife Migration Corridors. The project area is bordered on the north by urbanization, and is bordered to the west, south, and east by the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor and San Francisco Bay. There are no terrestrial movement corridors that connect the project area with any pristine or occupied wildlife habitat. Birds from the nearby Brooks Island area could potentially move to and from the site; however, there is little foraging habitat available to attract these species. There are no streams supporting anadromous fish species within the proposed project area or immediate vicinity. However, anadromous fish species have the potential to migrate through the nearshore waters within the project area, particularly salmonid smolts and juvenile green sturgeon emigrating from their natal waters through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and ultimately to the Pacific Ocean. A Biological Assessment (BA) proposing mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-3 will be prepared for a Section 7 consultation with the NMFS to obtain a Biological Opinion (BO). Compliance with the terms and conditions set forth within the BO will result in impacts that are less than significant.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 84 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION V Biological Resources

GHG Mitigation Option: Solar-Array Carport There are forty-one piles associated with the solar-array carports. Direct impacts could occur as a result of removal of vegetation supporting an active nest. Pile driving, if necessary, could result in indirect effects from construction noise and vibration in the immediate vicinity of an active nest, such that the disturbance results in a nest failure. These impacts would be considered potentially significant in violation of MBTA and CFGC. MM-BIO-5 would require preconstruction surveys and implementation of avoidance measures to prevent construction-related impacts to nesting birds, thereby reducing impacts to less than significant. No effects on fish and wildlife migration corridors would occur with implementation of carports across the existing parking lots.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

A number of Eucalyptus trees are present within the project area and construction of the proposed project could result in the trimming or removal of some of these trees. However, removal or trimming of the Eucalyptus trees would require a permit from the City of Richmond Parks and Recreation Department in accordance with City Municipal Code Chapter 10.08. WETA would be required to obtain a permit for tree trimming or removal, and therefore, with approval from the City Parks and Recreation Department, removal or trimming of trees present on-site would result in no impact.

GHG Mitigation Option: Solar-Array Carport Similarly, implementation of this mitigation option would require the removal of eucalyptus trees along the perimeter of the parking lots. WETA would obtain a permit from the City of Richmond, and would be consistent with Richmond policies regarding tree trimming, resulting in no impact.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

The City of Richmond does not participate in an HCP or NCCP due to the lack of unprotected natural habitat areas. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of such plans and no impact would result.

San Francisco Bay Area 85 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION VI Cultural Resources May 2014

VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES

Setting25,26 Prehistoric and Ethnographic Setting. People have lived along the San Francisco Bay shoreline for thousands of years. Native Americans lived in the current Richmond area from 4000 B.C. to A.D. 1803. The Huchiun, part of the larger Ohlone tribe, lived in what is now Richmond from Temescal Creek to Rodeo Creek. They established villages and subsisted primarily on acorns, nuts, seeds, berries, game, fish, and shellfish. The Ohlone created massive shellmounds containing burials, ceremonial and household artifacts, and the remains of fish, birds, and other animals. As a result, a number of archeological sites are known to exist in Richmond adjacent to the Bay shoreline and along inland creeks. Many of the midden findings associated with these sites date to as early as 100 B.C. At the time of contact with Europeans, there were an estimated 7,000 to 10,000 Native Americans living in the coastal area between Point Sur in Monterey County and the Bay. In the latter half of the eighteenth century, Spanish pioneers began moving into the Bay Area, displacing the Huchiun and other Ohlone tribelets. By 1850, few Native Americans remained in the Richmond area. Historic Setting. During the Spanish Mission period, the Huchiun were forced to convert to Christianity and move to Mission San Francisco de Asís (Dolores) where many died of disease or were absorbed into other tribes. After Mexico won independence from Spain, Don Francisco Castro was given 17,000 acres of land in Contra Costa in 1823, which became known as Rancho San Pablo. The Castros also operated a ferry-shuttle freight service from Point Isabel (Richmond) to Yerba Buena Village (San Francisco). The City of Richmond was established on a portion of Castro’s land grant about 70 years after his death. In 1846, California broke away from Mexico after the Mexican-American War. The Castro’s ferry-shuttle at Point Isabel provided a service for gold miners in 1849. By 1859, the San Francisco market was made readily accessible to West Contra Costa ranchers by cargo shuttle ferry service at Ellis Landing, where Captain George Ellis ferried freight aboard his two sailing vessels, the Sierra and the Mystery. More people started to settle on the lands surrounding the Bay, contributing to the multicultural identity that still characterizes Richmond today. The City of Richmond incorporated August 6, 1905, launching a period of substantial industrial growth. In 1915, the formation of the Richmond-San Rafael Ferry and Transportation Company was established, which offered the first direct steamer passenger service across the Bay to San Rafael. Marshland was filled in, effectively converting Point Richmond from an island to a peninsula. With the authorization of harbor dredging and tideland filling as part of a large-scale shipping port terminal construction effort, many well-known industries were located in the area. The City of Richmond rapidly increased in population during World War II when thousands migrated to work in the Kaiser Shipyards. During the three-year period from 1940 to 1943, the population soared from 23,600 to over 93,700. As increasing numbers of men joined the armed forces, women began to

25 City of Richmond, Richmond General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (August 2011). 26 City of Richmond, Ford Assembly Building Reuse Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (May 2004).

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 86 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION VI Cultural Resources make crucial contributions to the shipbuilding effort. Many buildings and sites were developed to support the home front workforce, including structures associated with the shipyards, factory buildings, housing, and other community-serving facilities. A significant number of these sites and landmarks still exist today, linking the City to this wartime era. Richmond’s Redevelopment Agency was created in 1949 to plan the City’s post-war transformation. In the 1950s, Richmond expanded by annexing land in and around El Sobrante to encourage growth in the hills. By 1956, the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge linked the East Bay with Marin County, expanding access to northern destinations and signaling the end of an era for the once-popular Richmond-San Rafael passenger ferry system. Starting in the 1980s, the waterfront was revitalized by the Harbour Redevelopment Project bringing a new marina green space, housing, walkways, parks, lagoons, restaurants, and office space. The Richmond Parkway connecting Point Richmond to the Hilltop area encouraged housing developments along this corridor. Today, Richmond includes four marinas, two country clubs, dozens of parks and beaches, and performing arts centers. Known Historic Resources. While there are no known historic resources within the project site, there are several known historic resources in the vicinity of the project site including the Ford Assembly Building and the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park. The Ford Assembly Building was built in 1930 as a Model A auto assembly plant and was the largest automobile assembly plant in the western United States. Due to the Great Depression, the plant closed until World War II, during which time the building was used to assemble and prepare jeeps and tanks for the war effort. After the war, the plant resumed auto production and remained open until 1955. The University of California subsequently purchased the facility and converted it to use as a book depository. The University sold the building to the City of Richmond Redevelopment Agency in 1984. The building was added to the National Register of Historic Places on June 23, 1988. The Ford Assembly Building, designed by the architect Albert Kahn, was identified as an outstanding example of twentieth century industrial architecture. The building was found significant under National Register Criteria A and C. The Ford Assembly Building is significant under Criterion A because of its involvement in the production of jeeps and tanks during World War II and because of its contribution to the development of the Port of Richmond. The Ford Assembly Building is also significant under Criterion C due to its innovative industrial building design and is the only remaining Kahn-designed factory. Orton Development, Inc. (ODI) purchased the Ford Assembly Building in 2004 and, together with the Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency, renovated and revitalized it. The building was transformed into a center of modern mixed-uses, including entertainment, dining, office, and a visitor center. Today the building serves a mix of public and private uses and accommodates a range of commercial tenants with offices, R&D facilities, light industrial, retail functions, the Craneway Pavilion event center, and the National Park Service Visitor Center.27 Several resources have become part of the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Park, including resources in the vicinity of the project site such as the Ford Assembly Building, Sheridan Park, Lucretia Edwards Park, and the Bay Trail. Together, these resources are recognized as having

27 The Craneway Pavilion, History, www.craneway.com/Venue/History/ (accessed October 2, 2012).

San Francisco Bay Area 87 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION VI Cultural Resources May 2014 outstanding historic value and significance in relation to the World War II home front effort. The resources range from waterfront parks, structures associated with the shipyards, factory buildings, housing, and other community serving facilities. In 2000, the National Park Service determined that Richmond retained one of the largest collections of World War II–era sites and structures with which to tell the home front story of the government, industry, and citizen efforts that led to victory in World War II. The United States Congress passed legislation to establish Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park to commemorate the millions who worked on the wartime home front. Known Archeological Resources. In general, submerged and sub-bottom resources are known to exist within the Bay. Prehistoric resources, such as submerged shellmounds, settlement sites, ceremonial artifacts, and possibly watercraft, are known to exist in these settings. Known historic resources in these environs could include maritime vessels, wharf or pier remnants, shrimp farm remnants, refuse dumps, ammunition dumps, airplane fuselages, and materials related to these or other historical activities. Previously unknown resources could also be encountered. Known Paleontological Resources. Richmond is underlain by an assemblage of basement rocks known as the Franciscan Complex, which consists of sedimentary and volcanic rocks (sandstone, serpentine, chert, greenstone) that probably accumulated in a deep oceanic basin during Late Jurassic to Late Cretaceous time (from about 163 to about 66 million years ago). Fossil localities in Contra Costa County occur in the marine and nonmarine formations. Many of the vertebrate fossils are fragments of extinct bison, camels, boney fish, mammoths, and horses. Marine invertebrates include bivalves (clams) and microfossils (foraminifera). The distribution of fossil localities and the location of corresponding geologic units indicate that most of the vertebrate paleontological resources in the County are in the upland foothills of the Diablo Range and includes the rocks of the Orinda formation and some unnamed siltstone and sandstone formations in the northeastern part of Richmond. Vertebrate fossil localities diminish west of Interstate 680 because much of that area is underlain by young alluvial and basin deposits that do not contain abundant fossil remains. Late Pleistocene and Holocene fossils have been recovered from marine sediments (older Bay mud) in Contra Costa County, including remains of petrified wood, marine mollusks and mammals, bony fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, a diversity of extinct land mammals such as ground sloths, mammoth, mastodon, deer, horse, camel, and bison, and microfossils such as radiolaria, foraminifera, diatoms, pollen, and spores. The project site is underlain by fill and Bay mud to a depth of 20 feet, which overlies 25 to 40 feet of alluvium and older Bay clay (see Section 3.VII [Geology/Soils]). Bay muds and estuarine deposits, such as those at the project site, are known to contain some invertebrate remains such as gastropods (e.g., snails) and bivalves (e.g., clams), but these are typically submerged, not yet fossilized, not yet extinct, and occur extensively throughout similar deposits around San Francisco Bay. Such remains are, therefore, not considered a significant paleontological resource, and bay muds are considered as having a low paleontological potential per Society of Vertebrate Paleontology criteria.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 88 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION VI Cultural Resources

Plans and Policies

CEQA and the California Register of Historical Resources Under CEQA, public agencies must consider the impacts of their actions on both historical resources and unique archaeological resources. Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21084.1, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” Section 21083.2 requires agencies to determine whether proposed projects would have effects on unique archaeological resources. Historical resource is a term with a defined statutory meaning (refer to PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) and (b)). The term applies to any resource listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR. The CRHR includes California resources listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, as well as certain California Historic Landmarks (CHLs) and California Points of Historical Interest (PHIs). Properties of local significance that have been designated under a local preservation ordinance (local landmarks or landmark districts) or that have been identified in a local historical resources inventory may be eligible for listing in the CRHR and are presumed to be historical resources for purposes of CEQA unless a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise (PRC Section 5024.1 and CCR Title 14, Section 4850). Unless a resource listed in a survey has been demolished, lost substantial integrity, or there is a preponderance of evidence indicating that it is otherwise not eligible for listing, a lead agency should consider the resource to be potentially eligible for the CRHR. In addition to assessing whether historical resources potentially impacted by a proposed project are listed or have been identified in a survey process, lead agencies have a responsibility to evaluate them against the CRHR criteria prior to making a finding as to a proposed project’s impacts to historical resources (PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3)). In general, an historical resource, under this approach, is defined as any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that: (a) Is historically or archeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political or cultural annals of California; and (b) Meets any of the following criteria: 1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; 2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or 4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3)) Archaeological resources can sometimes qualify as historical resources (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(c)(1)). In addition, PRC Section 5024 requires consultation with the Office of Historic Preservation when a project may impact historical resources located on state-owned land.

San Francisco Bay Area 89 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION VI Cultural Resources May 2014

For historic structures, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(3) indicate that a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, or the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, shall mitigate impacts to a level of less than significant. Potential eligibility also rests upon the integrity of the resource. Integrity is defined as the retention of the resource’s physical identity that existed during its period of significance. Integrity is determined through considering the setting, design, workmanship, materials, location, feeling, and association of the resource. As noted above, CEQA also requires lead agencies to consider whether projects will impact unique archaeological resources. PRC Section 21083.2(g) states that ‘unique archaeological resource means an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: ■ Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. ■ Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. ■ Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.(PRC Section 21083.2(g)) Treatment options under PRC Section 21083.2 include activities that preserve such resources in place and in an undisturbed state. Other acceptable methods of mitigation under Section 21083.2 include excavation and curation, or study in place without excavation and curation (if the study finds that the artifacts would not meet one or more of the criteria for defining a unique archaeological resource). Advice on procedures to identify cultural resources, evaluate their importance, and estimate potential effects is given in several agency publications such as the series produced by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). The technical advice series produced by OPR strongly recommends that Native American concerns and the concerns of other interested persons and corporate entities, including, but not limited to, museums, historical commissions, associations, and societies, be solicited as part of the process of cultural resources inventory. In addition, California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods regardless of their antiquity and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains.

Methodology California Historical Resources Information System Records Search. Record searches were conducted within the project area for both historic and archeological resources, as summarized below. Historical Resources. The record search identified no historical resources within the project area; however, several were identified within the vicinity of the project area. As explained above, the Ford Assembly Building was built in 1930 for the assembly of Model A automobiles. In addition, the Cannery Building and Shaper Lighting are two other buildings that have been noted as historic industrial buildings in the area. The Art Deco style Cannery Building is located on Harbour Way north of Hall Avenue. The Shaper

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 90 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION VI Cultural Resources

Lighting Building is a red brick building also in the Art Deco style and from the same period as the Ford Assembly Building. Several buildings and structures associated with the Richmond Shipyards are located within a few miles of the project site. The project site is located near the boundaries of Shipyard No. 2; however, the area has been redeveloped and now consists of a marina in place of the shipways (structures where ships are built or repaired) and primarily commercial buildings in place of the previous Shipyard No. 2 support buildings and structures. Buildings and sites part of the Richmond Shipyards that still exist to the west of the project area include Shipyard No. 3, the SS Red Oak Victory Ship (docked at Shipyard No. 3), Kaiser Hospital, Maritime and Ruth Powers Child Development Centers, and Atchison Village. Shipyard No. 3 and the SS Red Oak are part of the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historic Park, while the other buildings that still exist and were originally connected to the operations of the Shipyard are not part of the park. Archaeological Resources. The record search for archeological resources was conducted on August 1, 2012, by Atkins Archaeologist Lora Holland at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) located at Sonoma State University. The search included a review of previously documented resources and surveys for the project area and all lands within a 0.5-mile radius. The search included a review of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources, Office of Historic Preservation Historic Properties Directory, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest, California State Lands Commission Shipwreck Database, and historic maps. The results of the records search indicated that two previous archaeological studies have been conducted within the APE. These studies cover approximately 95 percent of the project area. In addition, the NWIC identified two studies within a 0.25-mile radius of the project area. The records search did not identify any previously recorded archaeological sites within the project area, but did identify a prehistoric buried shellmound site, CA-CCO-295 Ellis Landing Shellmound, within a 0.25-mile radius of the project area and approximately 1,000 feet north of the project area. Busby and Nissen conducted an archaeological survey for the City of Richmond Port Re-Development project in 1974. They did not encounter any previously unrecorded archaeological resources. They did, however, prepare site record updates for seven previously recorded sites, including CA-CCO-295 (Busby and Nissen 1974). Banks and Orlins conducted an archaeological survey in 1981 for the Richmond Harbor Redevelopment Project (Banks and Orlins 1981). They did not encounter any previously unrecorded archaeological resources. They also provided updates for the same seven previously recorded sites as Busby and Nissen (1974). Two studies were conducted within 0.25 mile of the project area. Basin Research Associates (Garaventa et al. 1987) performed an historic study for the Marina Bay Project. Only a literature research of the study area was performed; no archaeological survey or assessment of previously recorded archaeological sites was conducted. The second study was conducted by LSA Associates (Thompson and Gerike 2000) north of the project area. The study consisted of a literature review and subsurface testing, but no cultural resources were identified as a result of the survey and testing.

San Francisco Bay Area 91 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION VI Cultural Resources May 2014

Native American Correspondence. On September 21, 2012, Atkins archaeologist Lora Holland sent a letter to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) requesting a search of their Scared Lands File (SLF) database as well as a list of Native American representatives who may have information regarding cultural resources within the project area. The response from the NAHC was received on November 21, 2012 and indicated that no SLF listed resources were known within the project area. The response letter also provided a listing of Native American contacts that might have knowledge about the project area and the presence or absence of any properties of religious or cultural significance not listed in the SLF. For this reason, letters to each of the listed tribal contacts were sent on December 28, 2012. The purpose of the letters are for information scoping purposes only, and do not constitute formal consultation. These information request letters described the proposed project, contained a project map, the results of the NAHC SLF search, and a request for any cultural resource data pertinent to the project area. As of the date of this report, no written responses have been received at the Atkins office. Pedestrian Survey. On July 17, 2012, a pedestrian survey of the project site was conducted by an Atkins archaeologist Lora Holland. The field survey revealed that the project site has been extensively altered through development. All nonpaved surface areas were visually inspected. Open areas have been graded, landscaped, and paved; no native vegetation or soils were identified during the survey. All soils that were observed appear to be imported, with copious amounts of fresh shell scattered on the surface. Reconnaissance methods were employed in areas exhibiting asphalt paving, structures, or other features, which obscure the ground surface.

Applicable 2003 PEIR Mitigation Measures The 2003 WTA PEIR included many impacts and mitigation measures that are either addressed in this document or are not applicable to this project. A table of impacts and mitigation measures from the PEIR is included as Table 1 of this document. The following 2003 PEIR mitigation measures would be applicable to Cultural Resources for the proposed project: Mitigation CUL-1.1 and Mitigation CUL-4.1.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5?

As discussed above, there are no historical resources within the project area; however, there are several resources within close proximity to the project site (Ford Assembly Building and Craneway Pavilion). The proposed project would include a gangway, passenger float, an entrance gate, parking lot improvements (including minor surface paving and relocation of a kayak launch), and a Bay Trail extension. Although the proposed project would not have a direct impact on the adjacent historical resources, changes to the visual character of Ford Peninsula could conflict with the historic integrity of these resources. The proposed changes would be in keeping with the existing setting as an active marina and port.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 92 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION VI Cultural Resources

The Ferry itself could be docked at the terminal for certain periods of time, changing the existing visual character of the project site. However, this is consistent with other uses in the harbor. Personal vessels are used in the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor to the east of the project site and large freight vessels frequently enter and leave the harbor to the west of the project site. A ferry vessel would be consistent with these existing uses and would not conflict with the historic integrity of the Ford Peninsula. As such, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts regarding historical resources.

GHG Mitigation Option: Solar-Array Carport If implemented, the solar-array carports would change views of historic resources like the Ford Assembly Building and Craneway Pavilion. The changes would be across a street, and would occur in existing surface parking lots. Most views of the Ford Assembly Building and Craneway Pavilion would be preserved from the Bay Trail coming down Harbour Way South, at the roundabout, and certainly from the Bay. Views across the parking lots from the Bay Trail spur would change. As these changes would occur in an existing parking lot across the street, as most views would be maintained, these impacts are considered less than significant.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

The results of the CHRIS records search indicated that no known and previously recorded archaeological resources are located in the project area. The project area soils have likely been previously disturbed through decades of development. No evidence of midden or anthropogenic soils was observed in the project area, which would indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources. No prehistoric or historic archaeological sites or isolated artifacts were observed during the survey. Based on the close proximity of CA-CCO-295, the Ellis Landing Shellmound site to the project area, and since the depth of previous ground disturbance is unknown, there is a possibility that the project area could contain previously undocumented archaeological resources. In addition, dredging may be required for the installation of the proposed passenger float. Submerged and sub-bottom resources are known to exist within the Bay and previously unknown resources could also be encountered. As such, the proposed project could result in a potentially significant impact with regards to archeological resources. Nonetheless, implementation of MM-CUL-1 would reduce the impact to less than significant. MM-CUL-1 Mitigate Potential Disturbance for Significant Archeological Resources Identified During Construction. A qualified archeologist approved by WETA shall first determine whether a previously unidentified archeological resource uncovered during construction is a “unique archaeological resource” under 36 CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5, and/or Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. If the archeological resource is determined to be a “unique archaeological resource,” the archaeologist shall formulate a mitigation plan that satisfies the requirements of, 36 CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5, and/or Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. Work in the vicinity of the find may resume at the completion of a mitigation plan or recovery of the resource.

San Francisco Bay Area 93 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION VI Cultural Resources May 2014

If the archeologist determines that the archaeological resource is not a unique archaeological resource, work will resume, and the archaeologist may record the site and submit the recordation form to the California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center. The archeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a mitigation plan, following accepted professional practice. Copies of the report shall be submitted to the City and to the California Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center.

GHG Mitigation Option: Solar-Array Carport If approved, implementation of the solar-array carports would require 41 piles. Similar to excavation for the ferry terminal, there is a possibility that the project area could contain previously undocumented archaeological resources. However, implementation of MM-CUL-1 would reduce the impact to less than significant.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

The project site and the immediate surrounding area are composed of Bay fill and other fill materials that typically do not preserve or contain unique paleontological resources. Removal of existing piles and installation of 18 new piles, as well as installation of the four piles required for the relocated kayak launch ramp, would disturb Bay Mud and other geologically young deposits that are submerged. These activities would be limited to individual, discrete, small-diameter borings beneath the water and would not involve excavation. Although the sediment disturbed by pile removal and installation is likely to contain invertebrate remains of shelled animals, the resources are ubiquitous throughout the Bay Area and are not considered unique or significant paleontological resources. In addition, past dredging and filling activities associated with the creation and operation of the Craneway Pavilion, Bay Trail, Marina, Channel, existing boat dock and the existing boat ramp, would likely have destroyed or compromised the integrity of fossils if they were present. There would be no landside activities that would disturb fill or native materials. Impacts would be less than significant.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

There are no known formal cemeteries present within the project area; however, the results of the CHRIS records search did indicate that human remains are present at the previously recorded cultural resource site CA-CCO-295 the Ellis Landing Shellmound Site. There is the possibility that ground- disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously unknown and buried human remains, resulting in a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of MM-CUL-2 regarding disturbance of human remains would result in less-than-significant impacts.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 94 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION VII Geology/Soils

MM-CUL-2 Comply with State Regulations Regarding the Discovery of Human Remains at the Project Site. If human skeletal remains are uncovered during project construction, the project sponsor shall immediately halt work, contact the County coroner to evaluate the remains, and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e)(1). If the County coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the project sponsor shall contact the NAHC, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and PRC Section 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). In accordance with PRC Section 5097.98, the project sponsor shall ensure that, according to generally accepted cultural or archeological standards or practices, the immediate vicinity of the Native American human remains is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the project sponsor has discussed and conferred, as prescribed in PRC Section 5097.98, with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains.

GHG Mitigation Option: Solar-Array Carport If approved, implementation of the solar-array carports would require 41 piles. Similar to excavation for the ferry terminal, there is the possibility that ground-disturbing activities during construction may uncover previously unknown and buried human remains, resulting in a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of MM-CUL-2 regarding disturbance of human remains would result in less- than-significant impacts.

VII. GEOLOGY/SOILS

Setting The City of Richmond is within the San Francisco Bay Area, which is located within the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province. The geology of the San Francisco Bay Area is dominated by the Franciscan Complex, a mixed assemblage of different bedrock types that are layered and have been deformed by tectonic activity. This tectonic activity, which occurred 65 to 165 million years ago during the Cretaceous and Jurassic geologic time periods, folded and faulted the bedrock, creating the regional topography characterized by northwest-trending ridges and valleys on each side of San Francisco Bay. The San Francisco Bay itself and shorelines occupy a basin bounded by faults in the hills and mountains to the east and west. Late Pleistocene and Holocene sediments (less than one million years old) were deposited in the basin as it subsided. The project site is underlain by Bay mud, alluvium, and older Bay clay associated with the youngest geologic units in the basin. Fill consisting of soft Bay mud and loose clayey silt is present at the landside portion of the project site to a depth of approximately 20 feet. Recent Bay sediments that vary in thickness from about 25 to 40 feet underlie the fill and consist of soft to medium stiff Bay Mud and loose to medium dense sandy silt. These materials are underlain by competent native soils consisting of dense sands and silts and stiff clay.28

28 City of Richmond, Ford Assembly Building Reuse Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (May 2004), p. 44.

San Francisco Bay Area 95 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION VII Geology/Soils May 2014

Seismicity The San Francisco Bay Area is in a seismically active region near the boundary between two major tectonic plates, the Pacific Plate to the southwest and the North American Plate to the northeast. These two plates move relative to each other in a predominantly lateral manner, with the San Andreas Fault Zone at the junction. The Pacific Plate, on the west side of the fault zone, is moving north relative to the North American Plate on the east. Since approximately 23 million years ago, about 200 miles of right- lateral slip has occurred along the San Andreas Fault Zone to accommodate the relative movement between these two plates. The major regional active (historic) faults considered likely to produce damaging earthquakes felt in San Francisco are the San Andreas, San Gregorio, Hayward, and Calaveras faults. The closest active fault to the project site is the Hayward fault, approximately 4 miles east. The San Andreas Fault is approximately 15 miles west. There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zones on or near the site. A review of historic earthquake activity from 1800 to 2005 indicates that thirteen earthquakes of magnitude M 6.0 or greater have occurred in Bay Area during this time frame. The two most consequential were the earthquakes of April 18, 1906, and October 17, 1989. The U.S. Geological Survey’s 2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities estimated that there is a 63 percent probability that one or more MW 6.7 or greater earthquakes will occur in the Bay Area in the next 30 years. The probability of a MW 6.7 or greater earthquake occurring along individual faults was estimated to be 31 percent on the Hayward fault and 21 percent along the San Andreas Fault.29 According to information published by ABAG, a magnitude 6.9 earthquake on the Hayward fault is predicted to result in a Modified Mercalli Intensity of X, which is defined as very violent groundshaking that can result in extreme damage.30

Geologic Hazards Soils at the project site exhibit moderate to high liquefaction and expansive soil characteristics. The Bay Mud deposits, in particular, are generally weak, compressible, and highly liquefiable. Combined with shallow groundwater, the combination of these factors makes the project site susceptible to soil instability due to settlement, lurching, lateral spreading, subsidence, and shoreline slope failures. However, previous geotechnical investigations of the Craneway Pavilion and wharf locations indicate that the design of those landside structures is sufficient to tolerate small settlements and lateral deformations from liquefaction.31 The project site is flat; there are no landslide or erosion hazards.

29 U.S. Geological Survey 2007 Working Group on Earthquake Probabilities, The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2), U.S. USGS Open File Report 2007-1437 (2008), http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/nca/ucerf/. 30 Association of Bay Area Governments, ABAG Earthquake Program (June 2004), ABAG Earthquake Shaking Scenario, North and South Hayward Earthquake—Magnitude 6.9. 31 City of Richmond, Ford Assembly Building Reuse Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (May 2004), p. 44.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 96 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION VII Geology/Soils

Regulatory Framework The California Building Code (CBC) contains the minimum standards for design and construction in California. The current code is the 2013 CBC, effective January 1, 2014. It addresses, among other topics, design criteria for seismic hazards. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the project sponsor would be required to complete a site-specific design-level geotechnical investigation to identify the specific geologic hazards that could affect the project, evaluate soil conditions, and provide design recommendations to achieve applicable CBC seismic safety design requirements.

Applicable 2003 PEIR Mitigation Measures The 2003 WTA PEIR included many impacts and mitigation measures that are either addressed in this document or are not applicable to this project. A table of impacts and mitigation measures from the PEIR is included as Table 1 of this document. The following 2003 PEIR mitigation measures would be applicable to Geology/Soils for the proposed project: Mitigation G-2.1, Mitigation WW-1.1, Mitigation WW-1.2 and Mitigation WW-1.3.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: (a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: (i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

There are no active faults that traverse the project site, and the site is not in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The closest active fault is the Hayward fault, approximately 3.8 miles east of the project site. There would be no impact.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (ii) Strong seismic groundshaking? The project site could experience strong seismic groundshaking as a result of an earthquake on the Hayward fault or other regional faults. The design of the project facilities will be required to meet applicable 2013 CBC requirements pertaining to seismic safety. This will address pile design and installation for the passenger landing, gangway, and float. No new occupied structures will be constructed as part of the project; therefore, risks to people and property would not be substantial. Impacts would be less than significant.

San Francisco Bay Area 97 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION VII Geology/Soils May 2014

GHG Mitigation Option: Solar-Array Carport If approved, implementation of the solar-array carports would be required to meet applicable 2013 CBC requirements pertaining to seismic safety. As the carports would not be occupied structures, and as damage would be limited to vehicles parked under the panels if the carports were to be damaged, impacts due to seismic groundshaking would result in less-than-significant impacts.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? The project site is underlain by Bay mud, alluvium, and older Bay clay. Fill consisting of soft Bay mud and loose clayey silt is present at the landside portion of the project site to a depth of approximately 20 feet. Recent Bay sediments that vary in thickness from about 25 to 40 feet underlie the fill and consist of soft to medium stiff Bay Mud and loose to medium dense sandy silt. These materials are underlain by competent native soils consisting of dense sands and silts and stiff clay.32 Other than parking lot improvements, landscaping, and enhancement to the Bay Trail amenities, no new structures would be placed on the fill materials at the landside portion of the project site. Therefore, liquefaction or other ground failure would not be a hazard for landside features. Pile-supported landings would be installed from the plaza and wharf. Approximately 18 new piles would be installed, consisting of fixed pier supporting piles, guide piles at the floats, fender piles, and freestanding dolphins for the terminal float and access pier and gangway platform. The piles would be designed and installed to a depth sufficient to withstand potential ground failure conditions. The optional carports would include 41 pier supports with 25-foot footings and a concrete base would have a diameter of 36’. No occupied structures would be constructed on the pile system that could be damaged by liquefaction or other ground failure. Impacts would be less than significant.

GHG Mitigation Option: Solar-Array Carport If approved, implementation of the solar-array carports would be required to meet applicable 2013 CBC requirements pertaining to liquefaction. As the carports would not be occupied structures, and as damage would be limited to vehicles parked under the panels if the carports were to be damaged, impacts due to liquefaction or other ground failure would result in less-than-significant impacts.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (iv) Landslides? The project site and adjacent properties are flat. No excavations would be created to construct the project. There is no risk of landslide, and there would be no impact.

32 City of Richmond, Ford Assembly Building Reuse Project Mitigated Negative Declaration (May 2004), p. 44.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 98 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION VII Geology/Soils

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Erosion

Construction Effects Other than minor grading associated with parking lot improvements, including the potential construction of solar-array carports, and construction of the Bay Trail extension along the west side of the parking lot, there would be no other above-grade soil disturbance to implement the project that would result in soil erosion. There is no topsoil at the project site, and there would be no impact related to topsoil loss. The amount of erosion, if any, caused by trail work would not be substantial. The construction contractor will be required to implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that identifies erosion control measures. Impacts would be less than significant.

GHG Mitigation Option: Solar-Array Carport If approved, implementation of the solar-array carports would be constructed within existing parking lots, which would include footings that would measure approximately 25 feet in depth. Potential effects due to erosion would be addressed in a SWPPP, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Effects The proposed vessel route from San Francisco to Richmond (see Figure 6) is approximately 9 miles in length and cuts through open and deep-water areas of San Francisco Bay. In those energetic, wide-open areas, no vessel wake or propwash issues from the proposed Richmond ferry service that could cause erosion or siltation are expected. However, the remaining portion of the route, which covers approximately 2 miles, is located in a relatively narrow navigation channel (Federal Channel). Operation of the proposed project in that narrow channel has the potential to cause erosion, as described below. Wake wash is the wave field of pattern of wave energy created by the passage of a vessel through water. Sediment transport along a shoreline, and the potential for erosion, is a function of wave action caused by wind (wind-wave) and vessel wake (wake wash). The area of combined effect of wind-wave and wake wash is referred to as a swash zone. Swash zone sediment transport potential indicates potential for shoreline response to different hydrodynamic impacts through different levels of sediment transport in the system. Thus, the sediment transport potential in the swash zone is an indicator of the potential for erosion. A wake wash analysis was prepared for the proposed project. By comparing the results of numerical modeling of swash zone sediment transport potential generated by vessel wake to ongoing swash zone sediment transport potential from wind-waves, it is expected that, at certain locations vessel wake wash is likely to be a very large percentage of the total swash transport. In those areas, wind-wave energy is relatively low, and wake energy is expected to be strong and frequent. Along the Federal Channel, the wakes would travel from deep water to the swash zone in a very short distance, resulting in high swash transport. This is likely to significantly affect the shorelines along the Federal Channel over time,

San Francisco Bay Area 99 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION VII Geology/Soils May 2014 resulting in shoreline erosion, if measures are not in place to reduce such effects.33 However, between the west end of Brooks Island and the Richmond ferry terminal, vessels speeds would be limited to a maximum of 10 knots in observation of a no-wake zone. By observing a no-wake zone between the west end of Brooks Island and the ferry terminal, this would reduce the potential for strong and frequent wake energy that could cause erosion and the impact would be less than significant. At other locations, vessel wake wash would comprise only a very small portion (less than 1 percent) of total swash transport, where the locations are fronted by very long, flat slopes. The potential for erosion would not be substantial in those areas, and impacts would be less than significant.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

The proposed project does not entail significant grading or earthwork that would cause on- or off-site landslides as a result of project implementation. Liquefiable soils and soils exhibiting other characteristics that could make them unstable are present at the project site, but this would not present a hazard because no new landside structures would be placed on those soils. The landing, gangway, float, and ramping system would be supported on piles to a depth appropriate to withstand liquefaction, weak or compressible soils, or subsidence. The design of the project facilities will be required to meet applicable 2013 CBC requirements pertaining to liquefaction, weak or compressible soils, or subsidence. The specific geotechnical features that would be needed to ensure installation and design of these features meets all applicable safety standards would be determined in the site-specific geotechnical report, which must be completed prior to building permit issuance. Impacts would be less than significant.

GHG Mitigation Option: Solar-Array Carport If approved, implementation of the solar-array carports would be required to meet applicable 2013 CBC requirements pertaining to liquefaction, weak or compressible soils, or subsidence. As the carports would require preparation of a site-specific geotechnical report, impacts due to liquefaction, weak or compressible soils, or subsidence would result in less-than-significant impacts.

33 Coast & Harbor Engineering, Technical Memorandum—Coastal Engineering Environmental Impact Analysis Richmond Ferry Terminal (November 27, 2012), pp. 13–14. See Appendix C of this IS/MND.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 100 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION VIII Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

The proposed new terminal would replace the existing ferry facility and would consist of a pile-supported landing, a gangway leading to a passenger float, and a ramping system. The gangway would connect the existing plaza at the wharf to the new float. Although the soils at the project site are moderately to highly expansive, the potential for such conditions to affect the project is not a concern because no new structures on foundations or pavement would be constructed that could be susceptible to expansive soils hazards. The piles to support the landing and gangway would not be affected by expansive soil properties because they would be continually saturated (i.e., they would not experience drying and wetting conditions that cause soil to shrink and swell). There would be no impact.

GHG Mitigation Option: Solar-Array Carport If approved, the solar-array carports would include 41 pier supports with 25-foot footings and a concrete base with a diameter of 36 feet. Implementation of the solar-array carports would be required to meet applicable 2013 CBC requirements pertaining to expansive soils. As the carports would not be occupied structures, and as damage would be limited to vehicles parked under the panels if the carports were to be damaged, impacts due to expansive soils would result in less-than-significant impacts.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

There are existing restroom facilities in the Craneway Pavilion, which are connected to the City of Richmond wastewater system. The restrooms would be available to ferry passengers. No alternative wastewater systems are proposed. There would be no impact.

VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Setting The City of Richmond is located in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area in west Contra Costa County. It is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The proposed project includes the installation of a new ferry terminal (expansion of an existing wharf) in the City of Richmond. The proposed ferry terminal would be at the southern point of the Ford Peninsula, adjacent to the Ford Building along an existing wharf. The operation of the ferry itself was analyzed in WETA’s Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR)—Expansion of Ferry Transit Service in the San Francisco Bay Area, certified in June 2003. While the proposed operation plan has not changed since

San Francisco Bay Area 101 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION VIII Greenhouse Gas Emissions May 2014 adoption of the PEIR, the analysis in the PEIR did not include a detailed discussion of greenhouse gas impacts, therefore the analysis herein discusses the construction and operation of the terminal itself and the operation of the ferry. Parts of the Earth’s atmosphere act as an insulating blanket of just the right thickness, trapping sufficient solar energy to keep the global average temperature in a suitable range. The 'blanket' is a collection of atmospheric gases called 'greenhouse gases' (GHGs) based on the idea that the gases ‘trap’ heat similar to the glass walls of a greenhouse. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) focus on carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) as the main GHGs. These gasses act as global insulators, reflecting visible light and infrared radiation back to the Earth. Various aspects of constructing, operating, and eventually discontinuing the use of development will result in GHG emissions. Operational phase GHG emissions result from energy use associated with heating, lighting and powering buildings (typically through natural gas and electricity consumption), pumping and processing water (which consumes electricity), fuel used for transportation, and decomposition of waste generated by building occupants. New development can also create GHG emissions in its construction and demolition phases in connection with the use of fuels in construction equipment, creation and decomposition of building materials, vegetation clearing, and other activities. BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for comprehensive air pollution control and climate change in the entire Bay Area Air Basin, including Contra Costa County. To that end, BAAQMD works directly with ABAG, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and local governments and cooperates actively with all federal and State government agencies in the reduction of regional greenhouse gas emissions. Although BAAQMD is responsible for regional air quality planning efforts, it does not have the authority to directly regulate the greenhouse gas issues associated with plans and new development projects within the Bay Area. Instead, BAAQMD has used its expertise and prepared the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines to address these issues in accordance with State Regulations such as AB 32 and SB 375. The purpose of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines is to assist lead agencies, as well as consultants, project proponents, and other interested parties, in evaluating potential climate change impacts from projects and plans proposed in the Bay Area. As discussed in Section 3.IV (Air Quality), BAAQMD issued revised CEQA Guidelines in May of 201234 (2012 Guidelines) which do not recommend specific thresholds of significance for lead agencies to use in evaluating climate change impacts. The 2012 Guidelines provide numerous sources of potential significance thresholds, including the 2009 BAAQMD’s CEQA Thresholds Options and Justifications Report35. However, the sources either do not provide quantitative thresholds or provide thresholds for development projects, not transportation projects, such as the operation of a ferry terminal. While the 1999 BAAQMD Significance thresholds do take into account transportation related project, there were no thresholds related to climate change at that time.

34 BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines (updated May 2012). 35 BAAQMD, Revised Draft Options and Justification Report California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance (October 2009).

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 102 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION VIII Greenhouse Gas Emissions

With a lack of a recognized transportation threshold for greenhouse gas emissions, the BAAQMD was consulted to determine an appropriate quantitative threshold for GHG emissions. Through consultation with the BAAQMD staff the project will be analyzed using a Net-Zero threshold for GHG emissions, meaning that the proposed project would not emit new additional greenhouse gases than are currently emitted without the implementation of the proposed project.

Applicable 2003 PEIR Mitigation Measures The 2003 WTA PEIR included many impacts and mitigation measures that are either addressed in this document or are not applicable to this project. A table of impacts and mitigation measures from the PEIR is included as Table 1 of this document. The following 2003 PEIR mitigation measures would be applicable to Greenhouse Gas Emissions for the proposed project: Mitigation E-2.1.Environmental.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: (a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

The proposed project would not generate sufficient GHG emissions to influence global climate change on its own. However, the proposed project would incrementally contribute to a global impact through its GHG emissions combined with the cumulative increase of all other anthropogenic sources of GHGs. In order to determine whether the proposed project would cause a significant effect on the environment, the impact of the project must be determined by examining the types and levels of GHG emissions generated. Construction and operation are evaluated separately, although significance is based on a combined estimate of annual emissions.

Construction Project construction activities include two stages, the landside improvements, and terminal facility/waterside improvements. The proposed activities summary, assumptions, and construction schedule are included in Appendix C. Construction would be a temporary source of GHG emissions. Construction activities would require the use of heavy trucks, excavating and grading equipment, and other mobile and stationary construction equipment. Emissions during construction would be caused by material handling, traffic on unpaved or unimproved surfaces, use of paving materials, exhaust from construction worker vehicle trips, and exhaust from diesel-powered construction equipment. Land based construction activities were calculated using the CalEEMod model. The CalEEMod model does not currently provide emissions estimates for marine based equipment and therefore marine based construction activities were calculated separately using emission factors from the ARB OFFRoad Model. Table 10 (Construction GHG Emissions) shows the unmitigated emissions associated with the construction of the proposed project. GHG emissions from construction activities do not have an individual significance level, instead, construction emissions are amortized over the lifetime of the

San Francisco Bay Area 103 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION VIII Greenhouse Gas Emissions May 2014 project. The amortized emissions are added to the operational emissions and the combined total is compared to the significance threshold.

Table 10 Construction GHG Emissions Metric tons/year Phase a a a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Construction 72.2 0.01 0.00 72.37 Water Construction 157.76 0.02 0.00 158.76 Total 229.96 0.03 0.00 231.13 Amortizedb 7.70

SOURCE: Atkins, CalEEMod Modeling (2012).

a. Totals will not add across rows as emissions from CH4 and N2O need to be multiplied by their global warming potential in order to covert them to carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). The math is not shown in the table. The global warming potential for CH4 and N2O are 21 and 310 respectively. Further, the CalEEMod model only reports to the hundredth therefore rounding may have also occurred. b. Amortization assumes project lifetime of 30 years.

Operation The proposed project would generate GHG emissions from vehicle usage, energy consumption, water use and waste generation associated with a parking lot land use as well as increased usage of the existing restroom facilities, and from ferry operations. Mobile and stationary source emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod model assuming project buildout would be complete in 2035. While it is anticipated that opening year would not have the same level of service as 2035, the analysis assumed that in opening year (2015) the project would operate with the maximum expected trips under the buildout scenario. This results in a conservative estimation of annual GHG emissions based on maximum anticipated trips. The emissions for ferry operations were estimated based on methodology and emission factors from the ARB and the EPA. Emissions for ferry operations are based on typical fuel consumption for operation of an existing WETA ferry similar to what would be operated with the project. The increase in ferry ridership will reduce regional vehicle miles traveled because passengers will drive only to the ferry instead of to their intended destination on the opposite side of the Bay. Therefore, net operational emissions will subtract the emissions related to the vehicle miles that are not traveled due to ferry operations. The implementation of the proposed project will reduce daily vehicle miles traveled by 11,343.36 Detailed assumptions and inputs used with the CalEEMod model are included in Appendix C. Table 11 (Unmitigated Annual GHG Emissions) shows the unmitigated emissions associated with the operation of the proposed project. As part of the development, WETA will be purchasing 100 percent renewable energy. This use of renewable energy and the associated reduction in GHGs is included in the Unmitigated emissions calculations as it is a project design feature. As indicated, the combined construction and operation of the proposed project is anticipated to result in a potentially significant impact.

36 Atkins (September 25, 2012). VMT is anticipated to be reduced from 14,041 miles per day in 2035 without the ferry service to 2,698 miles per day with the ferry service.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 104 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION VIII Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Table 11 Unmitigated Annual GHG Emissions Metric Tons/year Source a a a CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 20.65 0.00 0.00 20.77 Mobile 473.69 0.03 0.00 474.24 Waste 2.49 0.15 0.00 5.57 Water 4.3 0.02 0.00 5.46 Operational Source Subtotal 506.04

Ferry Emissions 1,508

Amortized Constructionb 7.70

Project Total 2,022

Reduced VMTc 1,535.08 0.07 0.00 1,537 Net Total Emissions 485.56

Threshold (MT) 0

Potentially Significant? Yes

SOURCE: Atkins, CalEEMod Modeling (2012).

a. Totals will not add across rows as emissions from CH4 and N2O need to be multiplied by their global warming potential in order to convert them to carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). The math is not shown in the table. The global warming potential for CH4 and N2O are 21 and 310, respectively. Further, the CalEEMod model only reports to the hundredth therefore rounding may have occurred. b. Amortization assumes project lifetime of 30 years. c. Emissions associated with vehicle miles not traveled due to people using the ferry instead.

In order for the proposed project to reduce impacts to less than significant, the project must reduce operational impacts by a minimum of approximately 486 MT annually. With the implementation of the following mitigation measure, project emissions will be reduced by a minimum of 486 MT annually; therefore, project impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. MM-GHG-1 The proposed project shall implement a combination of the following measures, in whole or in part,

such that project emissions are reduced by a minimum of 485.56 MT CO2e annually. 1. Increase the percent of biodiesel used in the ferry fuel mixture. Currently the fuel used is a B5 (5 percent biofuel) mixture which reduces ferry emission by 3.57 percent and overall project emissions by 10.8 percent over use of a 0 percent biodiesel fuel. The following table provides examples of emission reductions based on varying levels of biofuel in the fuel mix. Additional ferry reduction and additional project reduction refer to the increase over current 5 percent biofuel mix.

San Francisco Bay Area 105 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION VIII Greenhouse Gas Emissions May 2014

Biofuel Additional Ferry Additional Project Total Emission (% in Emission Reduction Emission Reduction Reduction (%) mixture) (%) (%) 5 3.75 0 0 6 4.50 0.75 2.42 20 15.00 11.25 36.31 50 37.50 33.75 108.93 The 50 percent biodiesel results in a greater than 100 percent offset because total project reductions take into account the VMT emissions avoided by the implementation of the project. 2. Install electrical charging stations in the parking lot. Implementation of charging stations will reduce transportation emissions based on the electrical vehicle population of the community and the number of available charging stations. In a commuter situation such as this, one car would occupy a charging station for the entire day. Based on the existing community a maximum of five charging stations have the potential to be occupied per day. Based on the average trip to the ferry

terminal, a maximum annual metric ton CO2e reduction per charging station would be 0.089 for a total annual reduction assuming five stations of 0.44 MT CO2e. 3. Install on-site solar through covering on-site parking with photovoltaic. Based on maximum parking lot coverage that results in the installation of an 809 kW capacity system,37 electricity offsets would be approximately 1.24 million kWh per year. This would result in a savings of

297.56 MT CO2e annually. GHG emissions savings will vary based on the final coverage design implemented. If this reduction measure is implemented final GHG emissions reductions shall be calculated based upon the actual system to be installed. 4. If on-site emission reductions are not feasible or cannot be incorporated to a level that will reduce all remaining on-site emissions, then WETA shall offset all remaining project emissions. To the maximum extent feasible, as determined by WETA in conjunction with the BAAQMD, offsets shall be implemented locally. Implementation of this measure shall be completed by December 2015. Offsets may include, but are not limited to, the following (in order of preference): a. Funding of local projects, subject to review and approval by the BAAQMD that will result in real, permanent, verifiable, enforceable, and additional reduction in GHG emissions. If the BAAQMD or Contra Costa County develops a GHG mitigation fund, WETA may instead pay into this fund to offset GHG emission in excess of the significance thresholds. b. Purchase of carbon credits to offset emission below the significance threshold. Only carbon offset credits that are verified and registered with the Climate Action Reserve, or available through a County-approved local GHG mitigation bank or fund, may be used to offset project emission.

37 SunPower parking coverage, offset values and emission reductions are included in Appendix C.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 106 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION IX Hazards/Hazardous Materials

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

BAAQMD does not have adopted significance criteria for assessing impacts from GHG emissions. One way to determine compliance with AB 32 is to demonstrate project compliance with an adopted climate action plan or emissions reduction strategy for the region in which the project is located. While there are no adopted climate action plans that govern the proposed project, project related emissions would be reduced by 100 percent through the implementation of mitigation measure MM-GHG-1, thereby complying with the state’s AB 32 goals. In addition to AB 32, SB 375 establishes mechanisms for the development of regional targets for reducing passenger vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. The ARB has adopted vehicular GHG emissions reduction targets that require a 7 percent to 8 percent reduction by 2020, and between a 13 percent and 16 percent reduction by 2035 for each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Based on the project design features, emissions from vehicle miles traveled with respect to the project are anticipated to be reduced by approximately 80.78 percent38. Because the project is not an MPO it is not bound to the SB 375 reduction of VMT emissions. However by significantly reducing vehicle trips anticipated without the project, the proposed project furthers the 2035 requirements of SB 375 and aids in the overall reduction of vehicle emissions by the City. In addition, the project by its nature (being a transit project aimed at reducing passenger vehicle usage) demonstrates consistency with SB 375. Because the project can demonstrate that it reduces emissions in accordance with both AB 32 and SB 375 with implementation of mitigation measure MM-GHG-1, the proposed project is considered to be compliant with the applicable plans, policies, and regulations implemented to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation.

IX. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Setting39

Hazardous Materials Use Hazardous materials are routinely used, stored, and transported in the City of Richmond and are associated with industrial and commercial/retail businesses, as well as in educational facilities, hospitals, and households. Hazardous materials use is generally in proportion to the mix and types of land uses in an area. Approximately 27 percent of the acreage within the City of Richmond consists of commercial and industrial land uses. Commercial uses in Richmond include local-serving retail businesses located along mixed-use corridors and region-serving businesses located in the Downtown, Hilltop Mall, and the Central Avenue corridor. Richmond’s industrial past is reflected in the large amount of land dedicated to

38 Atkins, personal communication with G. Shearin (September 25, 2012). VMT is anticipated to be reduced from 14,041 miles per day in 2035 without the ferry service to 2,698 miles per day with the ferry service. 39 City of Richmond, Richmond General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (August 2011).

San Francisco Bay Area 107 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION IX Hazards/Hazardous Materials May 2014 port and industrial uses. Richmond is one of three cities in the Bay Area that operates a commercial port. Within the City limits are a large refinery, railroad yards, multiple manufacturing, assembly, and warehousing businesses, research and development facilities, and a landfill (West Contra Costa County Sanitary Landfill). Most of the heavy industrial uses are located south of Interstate 580 and west of the Richmond Parkway. The hazardous materials that are found in the City of Richmond may be stored in small quantities in buildings and structures, in aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), underground storage tanks (USTs), drums, and other types of containers. Typically, USTs are used by businesses, such as gasoline stations. Oil refineries handle, store, and process large quantities of flammable materials and acutely toxic substances. Processing, transportation, and transfer operations are the primary activities that have the potential for posing a human health and environmental risk of hazardous materials releases. Some of the industrial/manufacturing facilities use certain classes of hazardous materials that require accidental release scenario modeling and risk management plans to protect surrounding land uses. In Richmond, there are seven facilities that because of the volume and type of hazardous materials use are required to prepare and maintain Risk Management Plans: Airgas Dry Ice, Chevron Richmond Refinery, Dreisbach Enterprises, General Chemical West-Richmond Works, Linde, Safeway Beverage Plant, and Veolia ES Technical Solutions.40

Project Site The proposed terminal site is at the southern end of the Ford Peninsula; approximately 1.5 miles south of the Richmond downtown core. The proposed terminal would be at the site of an existing float and gangway, adjacent to the historic Ford Assembly Building. This dock is used for privately operated excursion vessels that shuttle visitors to events at the Craneway Pavilion. Additional uses on the Ford Peninsula include the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park, the Boiler House Restaurant (located within the Ford Assembly Building), the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor, the Port of Richmond, Lucretia Edwards Park, Sheridan Point lookout, office/research and development (R&D), and parking.

Database Searches Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) performed a records search in July 2012 of supplemental, federal, state, and local regulatory databases to determine whether any known contaminated sites were located in the study area. As the project site does not include buildings of any kind, the adjacent Ford Assembly Building address was used as the target property for the records search. The database query determined that several of the business housed within the target property (Ford building) are listed in five of the databases searched. Ford Point LLC is listed on the HAZNET database and SunPower Corporation is listed on both the Hazardous Waste Information System (HAZNET) and Contra Costa County Site List database. Bio Rad Laboratories is listed on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Small Quantity Generator (SQG) database. The HAZNET Database is a repository for data

40 Contra Costa County Health Services, Risk Management Plans, http://cchealth.org/hazmat/rmp/ (accessed April 17, 2014).

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 108 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION IX Hazards/Hazardous Materials extracted from copies of hazardous waste manifests received by the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). RCRA SQG includes facilities that generate more than 100 and less than 1,000 kilograms (kg) of hazardous waste during any calendar month and accumulates less than 6,000 kg of hazardous waste at any time; or generates 100 kg or less of hazardous waste during any calendar month, and accumulates more than 1,000 kg of hazardous waste at any time. In addition, the databases identified contamination or potential sources of contamination located off site, in the vicinity of the project site. Table 12 (Summary of EDR Database Query) summarizes the total number of listed facilities identified in the record search for each regulatory database.

Sediment Quality As described above, the project area is characterized by industrial and commercial uses. The project site is immediately south of the Port of Richmond, which receives petroleum and liquid bulk cargo, dry- cargo, automobiles, and other forms of cargo. Further, the project site is adjacent to the Ford Assembly Building, which was historically used for automobile manufacturing. As such, the potential for industrial contaminants to be present in the Bay sediment surrounding the Ford Peninsula is high. According to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Water Quality Control Plan for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries, the Richmond Harbor (to the south of the project site) and Point Potrero (to the north of the project site) are listed as known toxic hot spots for mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), copper, lead, and zinc.41

Applicable 2003 PEIR Mitigation Measures The 2003 WTA PEIR included many impacts and mitigation measures that are either addressed in this document or are not applicable to this project. A table of impacts and mitigation measures from the PEIR is included as Table 1 of this document. For hazardous materials, no mitigation measures were identified in the 2003 PEIR and are, therefore, not listed in Table 1. However, it should be noted that mitigation measures identified for other resource areas would also serve to reduce impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.

41 State Water Resources Control Board, Draft Staff Report: Water Quality Control Plan for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries, Part 1 (Sediment Quality) (July 18, 2008), http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/bptcp/docs/ sediment/071808_draftstaffreport.pdf (accessed August 3, 2012).

San Francisco Bay Area 109 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION IX Hazards/Hazardous Materials May 2014

Table 12 Summary of EDR Database Query Radius Project Surrounding Database (miles) Site Facilities Federal National Priorities List (NPL) 1 Not Listed 1 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System 0.5 Not Listed 2 (CERCLIS) CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned Sites (NFRAP) 0.5 Not Listed 1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Report (CORRACTS) 1 Not Listed Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) Treatment, Storage, and 0.5 Not Listed 1 Disposal (TSD) Facilities RCRA Small Quantity Waste Generators (SQG) 0.25 Not Listed 2 Federal Engineering Controls Registry (US ENG CONTROLS) 0.5 Not Listed 1 Federal Institutional Controls Registry (US INST CONTROLS) 0.5 Not Listed 1 State and Local RESPONSE 1 Not Listed 9 Department of Toxic Substance Control’s (DTSC) Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Program’s 1 Not Listed 23 (SMBRP) ENVIRSTOR Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) List 0.5 Not Listed 10 California Spills, Leaks, Investigation, and Cleanup (SLIC) 0.5 Not Listed 6 Historic California Hazardous Substances Sites (HIST Cal-Sites) 1 Not Listed 9 Facility Inventory Database for Active and Inactive Underground Storage Tanks (CA FID UST) 0.25 Not Listed 2 Historical Underground Storage Tank List (HIST UST) 0.25 Not Listed 2 Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS UST) 0.25 Not Listed 1 DEED 0.5 Not Listed 3 RCRA-NonGen 0.25 Not Listed 2 Record of Decision (ROD) Documents 1 Not Listed 1 Hazardous Substance Cleanup Bond Act Sites 1 Not Listed 5 Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites List (Cortese) 0.5 Not Listed 4 Historical Cortese 0.5 Not Listed 12 Proposition 65 Records (Notify 65) 0.25 Not Listed 8 Contra Costa County Site List 1 Not Listed 1 HWP 1 Not Listed 2 SOURCE: EDR, EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck, Proposed Richmond Ferry Terminal (July 18, 2012).

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 110 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION IX Hazards/Hazardous Materials

Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: (a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

The project site would not accommodate hazardous materials, and fueling and maintenance of vessels would occur off site. Operation of the proposed project would be limited to the docking and loading of vessels. Implementation of the new ferry route would not involve the routine transport of hazardous materials from the project site to the Downtown San Francisco Ferry Terminal. The increased ferry operations could increase the potential for fuel spills than would otherwise occur; however, mitigation measures Mitigation B-19.1, Mitigation W-3.1, Mitigation W-3.2, Mitigation W-3.3, Mitigation W-3.4, and Mitigation W-3.5 identified in the 2003 PEIR with regards to fuel spills would also apply to this impact and would serve to further reduce potential hazards relating to the transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. The proposed project would not involve the disposal of hazardous materials at the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact related to the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

The proposed project would involve installation of a new gangway and float to replace the existing facilities. The proposed parking lot sites would involve minor paving and restriping, and it is not anticipated that grading or ground disturbing activities would occur. The existing gangway would be removed, but no building or structures would be demolished. In general, ground disturbing activities would be minimal. The proposed project would require the placement of approximately 18 new piles and the removal of approximately 23 existing piles. To the extent feasible, new piles would be driven with a vibratory method. The removal of existing piles could result in the disturbance of sediments in the project area. However, installation of new piles would not require the removal of sediment from San Francisco Bay. Although Bay sediment in the project area is listed as a known toxic hot spot for mercury, PCBs, copper, lead, and zinc, increased turbidity is not a typical concern when installing or removing piles.42 Further, mitigation measures Mitigation B-18.1 and Mitigation D-2.1 through Mitigation D-2.3 identified in the 2003 PEIR would be applicable to the proposed project. In general, pile removal and installation of new features

42 State Water Resources Control Board, Draft Staff Report: Water Quality Control Plan for Enclosed Bays and Estuaries, Part 1 (Sediment Quality) (July 18, 2008), http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/bptcp/docs/ sediment/071808_draftstaffreport.pdf (accessed August 3, 2012).

San Francisco Bay Area 111 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION IX Hazards/Hazardous Materials May 2014 have little effect on bottom sediment disturbance and, therefore, it is unlikely that the proposed project would have cause a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the mobilization of contaminated sediment. Impacts related to sediment disturbance would be less than significant.

GHG Mitigation Option: Solar-Array Carport If approved, the solar-array carports would include 41 piers with footings at a depth of 25 feet and a concrete 36-foot concrete base, and would require some ground disturbance. Installation of new piers would not require the removal of sediment from San Francisco Bay. Further, mitigation measures Mitigation B-18.1 and Mitigation D-2.1 through Mitigation D-2.3 identified in the 2003 PEIR would be applicable to the proposed project. Impacts related to sediment disturbance would be less than significant.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school?

There are no schools within 0.25 mile of the project site. Further, the proposed project would not produce hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials during operation. Therefore, the proposed project would not adversely affect schools within 0.25 mile of the project site, resulting in no impact.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

The project site is limited to an existing gangway, float, two parking lots (two optional lots), and the relocated kayak launch. There are no buildings or structures on the project site. Further, there are no aboveground or underground storage tanks at the project site and hazardous materials are not used, transported, or stored at the project site. However, according to the hazardous materials database search, three separate businesses within the Ford Assembly Building adjacent to the project site are listed on HAZNET, RCRA SQG, and Contra Costa County Site List databases. Ford Point LLC and SunPower are both listed on the HAZNET database indicating that these businesses have disposed of hazardous waste at permitted disposal facilities by registered hazardous waste transporters.43 Therefore, this hazardous waste disposal does not pose as a significant hazard to the public or environment. In addition, Bio Rad Laboratories is listed on the RCRA SQG database indicating that this business generates small quantities of hazardous waste. However, the records search does not indicate that there has been release

43 Department of Toxic Substance Control, Hazardous Waste Tracking System Home Page, http://www.hwts.dtsc.ca.gov/ (accessed August 3, 2012).

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 112 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION IX Hazards/Hazardous Materials of hazardous waste associated with Bio Rad Laboratories operation into the environment. Further, Bio Rad Laboratories no longer operates within the Ford Assembly Building. Although the project site would be located adjacent to a listed property, it would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. This impact would be less than significant.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) If located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport. Therefore, the proposed project would not create a safety hazard for passengers utilizing the ferry terminal, resulting in no impact.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (f) If within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and, therefore would not create a safety hazard for passengers utilizing the ferry terminal, resulting in no impact.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

As identified in the Project Description, one of the purposes for implementation of the proposed project is the need for an alternative mode of transit in the case that roads, other transit, bridges, and/or tunnels are disabled during a natural or man-made event. As such, the proposed Richmond Ferry Terminal would provide an alternative form of transit allowing people to travel between the San Francisco peninsula and the East Bay Area during an emergency. The proposed project would provide an additional evacuation route in the event of an emergency. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan, resulting in no impact.

San Francisco Bay Area 113 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION X Hydrology/Water Quality May 2014

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

According to the General Plan Public Safety and Noise Element, the regions wildland areas are prone to fires during the summer dry season. However, wildland areas are primarily east of the project site in Wildcat Canyon Regional Park. The project site is surrounded by the Bay to the south, east, and west and by urban development to the north. Therefore, the proposed project would not be expose people to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, resulting in no impact.

X. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY

Regional Setting San Francisco Bay and the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta form the West Coast’s largest estuary, combining fresh water from the rivers and numerous smaller tributaries flows with the influence of the Pacific Ocean. The San Francisco Bay Estuary (Estuary) currently encompasses roughly 1,600 square miles, drains more than 40 percent of the state, and provides drinking water to approximately two-thirds of California. The Estuary is composed of distinct hydrographic regimes: the South Bay, which extends from the Bay Bridge to the southern terminus of the Bay in San Jose; the Central Bay, which extends from the Bay Bridge north to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge; and the North Bay that connects the Delta and the Pacific Ocean. The project site is located in the eastern portion of Central San Francisco Bay. The Central Bay has a complex bathymetry and contains several islands. Water depth is highly variable ranging from approximately 300 feet near the Golden Gate Bridge to a shallow area of extensive intertidal mudflats at the eastern edge of the Central Bay. Freshwater inflows, tidal flows, and their interactions largely determine variations in the hydrology of the Estuary. Approximately 90 percent of the freshwater inflow to the Bay comes from the Delta, and flows through the northern portion of the Bay, resulting in a partially to well-mixed Estuary. The degree of mixing depends on seasonally varying river inflow. The timing and magnitude of the highly seasonal river inflow modulates permanent estuarine circulation, which is largely maintained by salinity-controlled density differences between river and ocean waters. Water quality and sediment monitoring in the Central Bay show that the primary contaminant issues include: high levels of mercury and PCBs in fish and water; water quality objectives for cyanide, copper, and nickel; pyrethroid insecticides from the Delta, which are highly toxic to fish; and brominated flame retardants (polybrominated diphenyl ethers [PBDE]) and fluorinated stain repellents (perfluorocarbons [PFC]) that are appearing in water and sediment. CWA Section 303(d) requires each state to identify waters that are not achieving water quality standards and to establish TMDLs for water bodies that are impaired. The TMDL is a loading-based approach to attaining water quality rather than reliance on sediment concentrations. TMDLs (from nonpoint sources) have been approved for three pesticides (chlordane, DDT, dieldrin), mercury, and PCBs. TMDLs must be completed by 2019 for dioxin and

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 114 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION X Hydrology/Water Quality furan compounds (from atmospheric deposition), for dioxin-like sources and selenium (from nonpoint sources), and exotic species (from ballast water). Sediment quality is an important consideration for water quality because it can be both a source of and sink for pollutants and trace compounds. Historic waste disposal practices have resulted in the introduction of pollutants into San Francisco Bay, some of which have degraded bay sediments. Natural resuspension processes, biological processes, other mechanical disturbances, dredging, and sediment disposal can remobilize particulate-bound pollutants. Pollutant loading to the Estuary from point sources has declined dramatically over the past two decades, and surface sediment contamination may be declining from historical highs. Anthropogenic inputs appear to have the greatest effect on sediment levels of copper, silver, cadmium, and zinc, but may also have elevated concentrations of chromium, nickel, and cobalt above background levels. Sediment “toxic hot spots” are being managed under a program implemented by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under the Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup Section of the California Water Code.

Water Pollution from Vessels San Francisco Bay is the largest harbor on the Pacific Coast of the United States and ranks as the fifth largest crude oil handling port in the United States. It is the sixth largest handler of refined oil product in the nation. Extensive foreign and domestic commerce is handled at the port and harbor facilities in San Francisco, Oakland, Alameda, Richmond, and Redwood City. Marine fuel spills can potentially occur from a wide range of sources within San Francisco Bay. These spills can result from leaks or breaks in vessel fueling equipment, vessel collisions or sinkings, mechanical or structural failures, or simple human errors such as leaving valves open or aligning them improperly. Accidental spills only account for a small fraction, up to 10 percent, of the total fuel contamination of waters. As much as 90 percent of oil in marine waters is from chronic sources that are difficult to identify, such as urban runoff, small craft boating, and improper disposal of used oil products. However, because risk of spills is closely associated with the volume of traffic and its proximity to other vessel traffic, the approach to San Francisco Bay is the highest risk area in California. A vessel separation scheme is operative for the approach to San Francisco Bay. A Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) also operates to assist traffic to enter, to depart, and while inside of San Francisco Bay. Potential incidents may involve spills of magnitudes that would far exceed those of spills from vessels. WETA, Golden Gate Ferry, the Blue and Gold Fleet, and other services operate in San Francisco Bay. Each of these operators has specific fueling locations. Very few spills linked to ferry transit have occurred, and the volumes involved have been minimal. During a four-year period of record (1998– 2001), the largest spill was 15 gallons. When viewed in the context of the total number of ferry transits for that four-year period (317,335 transits), the incident rate of pollution is approximately 0.002 percent. While such statistics indicate a low-probability and low-volume situation, spills can still occur as a result of a navigational incident, such as collision or grounding, or due to equipment failure or malfunction. Spills can also take place at refueling stations as a result of accidental releases or malfunctions. Vessel refueling and other operations involving the handling of potentially harmful products and materials are carried out under strict USACE and USEPA regulations prohibiting water pollution. Large

San Francisco Bay Area 115 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION X Hydrology/Water Quality May 2014 vessels, including transit ferries, are regulated like major industrial facilities sited on land. Highly detailed procedures and engineering requirements have been written into public law, summarized in the Regulatory Framework, below, to prohibit harmful spills and discharges. Severe monetary fines and even criminal penalties are mandated for offenses. This program has been extremely effective. In addition to federal regulations, industrial and marine facilities and operations are subject to state and local environmental regulations.44

Project Setting The project site is situated at the southern end of Ford Peninsula, along San Francisco Bay. Existing private passenger vessel operations at the site are subject to a Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit. This permit specifies conditions the current permit holder must adhere to in order to conduct current operations. Areas of the project site within the 100-foot shoreline band are under the jurisdiction of BCDC.

Winds and Tides Wind-wave characteristics in the area are primarily affected by wind speed, wind direction, and tidal elevation. The majority of wind in this area of the San Francisco Bay is from the south. Tides at the Richmond terminal are semi-diurnal, as in other areas of San Francisco Bay.

Channel Hydrology, Sedimentation, and Water Quality The proposed location for the Richmond ferry terminal is on the west corner of the Ford Assembly Building wharf near the entrance to the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor. The entrance channel to the marina has width of 170 feet and has been maintained by the City of Richmond at a bottom elevation of -12 feet mean lower low water (MLLW). The overall average sedimentation rate in the entrance channel to the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor is approximately 0.1 foot per year. However, a common sedimentation rate in many areas of the channel of approximately 0.5 foot/year has been observed, with localized peaks of up to 1.1 feet per year present to the east of the Ford Assembly Building. Periodic maintenance dredging of the entrance channel to the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor is performed by the City of Richmond, and during those dredging events no water quality issues have been reported.45 Water exchange time is a simple way to evaluate the general flushing rate of the entrance channel. It is calculated as the ratio between the entrance channel storage volume and its daily water exchange volume. The daily exchange volume of the entrance channel is estimated as the volume entering the body of water during one typical tidal cycle. The water exchange time for the entrance channel to the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor is approximately 2.5 days. Data from other locations indicate that water exchange times in the range of a few days tend to result in excellent water quality.46

44 WETA, Implementation and Operations Plan (IOP) Final Environmental Impact Report (2003), Section 3.4. 45 Coast & Harbor Engineering, Technical Memorandum –Coastal Engineering Environmental Impact Analysis Richmond Ferry Terminal (November 27, 2012). 46 Coast & Harbor Engineering, Technical Memorandum –Coastal Engineering Environmental Impact Analysis Richmond Ferry Terminal (November 27, 2012).

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 116 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION X Hydrology/Water Quality

Regulatory Framework Water resources are regulated under a variety of federal and state laws. The regulations apply to both preservation of water quality standards and to prevention of water quality degradation from oil spills and other sources, including the underlying sediments.

Federal Clean Water Act. The objective of the federal CWA (33 USC 1251 et seq.) is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Specific sections of the CWA control the discharge of pollutants and wastes into the marine and aquatic environments. The major section of the CWA that would apply to the proposed project is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) (Section 402). In the event maintenance dredging is needed, those activities would be regulated under Sections 401 and 404. Oil Spill Regulations. At the federal level, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is the primary agency responsible for implementing prevention and response programs for spills. The Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972 (33 USC 1221 et seq.) as amended by the Port and Tanker Safety Act of 1978, provides the strongest authority for the USCG program to increase vessel safety and protect the marine environment in ports, harbors, waterfront areas, and navigable waters. It authorizes VTS, controls vessel movement, establishes requirements for vessel operation, and other related port safety controls. The Oil Pollution Act (OPA) of 1990 (33 USC 2701–2761) is the principal statute governing oil spills into the nation’s waterways. OPA requires preparation of spill prevention and response plans by coastal facilities, vessels, and certain geographic regions. Other laws include the federal Water Pollution Control Act, which delegates enforcement authority and responsibility to the USCG in cases where oil and hazardous substances are discharged into U.S. waters in harmful quantities. The Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 USC 1901 et seq.) limits the operational discharges of oil from ships and requires reception facilities to receive waste that cannot be discharged at sea. The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 USC 1401 et seq.) requires USCG surveillance of ocean dumping activities. The OPA of 1990 (33 USC 2701 et seq.) requires increased USCG involvement with vessel traffic service systems, vessel and facility monitoring, and oil spill prevention and cleanup, in addition to amending the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

State The Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act) (California Water Code Sections 13000 et seq.; CCR Title 23, Chapter 3, Subchapter 15) is the primary state regulation that addresses water quality. The requirements of the Act are implemented by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) at the state level, and RWQCB at the regional level. Under Subchapter 15, wastes that cannot be discharged directly or indirectly to waters of the state (and therefore must be discharged to land for treatment, storage, or disposal) are classified to determine specifically where such wastes may be discharged. This classification requirement would apply to dredged material or fill, if any, that would be disposed of in an upland environment. In addition to the provisions contained in the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act, the CFGC provides general law regarding water pollution prohibitions and both criminal

San Francisco Bay Area 117 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION X Hydrology/Water Quality May 2014 and civil penalties on discharges of petroleum and other hazardous materials entering California waters (Sections 5650 et seq.). California Fish and Game wardens enforce these sections. Further, California Water Code Section 13272 requires any person who knows of any oil or petroleum product discharge into California waters to notify the Office of Emergency Services. Failure to comply is a misdemeanor. All Oil Spill Prevention and Response regulations are found in CCR Title 14. Regulations promulgated by the State Lands Commission are found in CCR Title 2. California State Lands Commission Marine Facilities Division derives legislative authority from the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act of 1990, PRC Division 7.8. The Act expanded the California State Lands Commission’s pollution prevention responsibilities.

Regional/Local The Water Quality Control Plan for San Francisco Bay Basin Plan (Basin Plan) identifies surface waters in the region as consisting of inland surface water (freshwater lakes, rivers, and streams), estuaries, enclosed bays, and ocean waters. The Basin Plan describes the water quality control measures that contribute to the protection of the beneficial uses of the Bay watershed. The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses for each segment of the Bay and its tributaries, water quality objectives for the reasonable protection of the uses, and an implementation plan for achieving these objectives. Beneficial uses of the Bay include commercial and sport fishing, estuarine habitat, industrial water supply, fish migration, navigation, industrial process water supply, preservation of rare and endangered species, contact and noncontact water recreation, shellfish harvesting, fish spawning, and wildlife habitat. BCDC is responsible for implementing the McAteer-Petris Act (PRC Sections 66600 et seq.). The Act directs BCDC to exercise its authority to issue or deny permit applications for placing fill, extracting minerals, or changing the use of any land, water, or structure within the area of its jurisdiction (San Francisco Bay waters and a 100-foot-wide shoreline band inland from the high tide line). BCDC also carries out determinations of consistency with the Federal Coastal Zone Protection Act for federally sponsored projects. The existing BCDC permit for Orton Development, Inc. (ODI) establishes a general condition that all construction operations must be performed in a manner that prevents construction materials from falling, washing, or blowing into San Francisco Bay. It also specifies no creosote-treated wood pilings or other structures may be placed in any area subject to tidal action.

Applicable 2003 PEIR Mitigation Measures The 2003 WTA PEIR included many impacts and mitigation measures that are either addressed in this document or are not applicable to this project. A table of impacts and mitigation measures from the PEIR is included as Table 1 of this document. The following 2003 PEIR mitigation measures would be applicable to Hydrology and Water Quality for the proposed project: Mitigation D-2.1, Mitigation W-1.1, Mitigation W-1.2, Mitigation W-3.1, Mitigation W-3.2, Mitigation W-3.4, and Mitigation W-3.5.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 118 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION X Hydrology/Water Quality

Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: (a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

The applicable water quality standards for the portion of San Francisco Bay where the proposed project is situated are set forth in the Basin Plan, which is administered by the San Francisco RWQCB. Demolition of the existing facility would be required prior to installation of any new waterside terminal components. The demolition work would include removal of the piles, gangway, and passenger float. This work would be conducted from barges. Diesel power tug boats would bring the barges to the project site, where the barges would be anchored. Piles would be removed by either pulling the pile or cutting the piles off below the mud line. The major waterside construction activities would include marine pile installation, marine float installation, fixed pier construction, and marine utility and outfitting. These activities would involve the use of a material barge, a barge-mounted pile driver and crane, a support boat, and an occasional tug, and trucks. During construction of the new facility, the installation of piles could mobilize underwater sediments into the water column. Any activity involving the use of construction products and heavy equipment could also result in the incidental release of construction materials (e.g., sawdust, metal fragments, concrete), or the accidental spill of construction materials (e.g., paints and solvents) or substances commonly used in construction equipment (e.g., fuels, oil, grease). Demolition and relocation of the kayak launch would require similar tasks at a smaller level. Implementation of the measures described in Checklist Section 3.V (Biological Resources), the mitigation measures identified in the 2003 PEIR, along with implementation of applicable regulations, would reduce the potential for waterside activities to affect water quality in a manner that would violate applicable water quality standards. During landside improvements (which would be minimal), some heavy equipment containing fuel, oil, and grease would be temporarily on-site. Parking lot restriping would involve the use of paints and solvents. Installation of Bay Trail amenities and landscaping would also involve the use of limited amounts of hazardous materials (see Section 3.IX(a) and Section 3.IX(b)). Spills from construction products and leaks from the equipment have the potential to enter stormwater that flows across the site toward San Francisco Bay. Stormwater runoff would be controlled through implementation of NPDES regulations and implementation of the SWPPP, which would be required in the contract specifications for the improvements. Therefore, pollutants resulting from construction of the project are not expected to violate Basin Plan water quality objectives, and impacts would be less than significant. During operation, because no fueling is proposed at the project site, and because the channel where project operations would occur exhibits moderate flushing characteristics, water quality impacts from fuel spills are not likely to be significant. Moreover, the primary pollutants that could potentially be released through fuel leaks would be limited to volatile organic carbon (VOC) components of fuel.

San Francisco Bay Area 119 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION X Hydrology/Water Quality May 2014

VOCs are not 303(d)-list TMDLs. Therefore, potential pollution of San Francisco Bay water due to fuel spills is not expected to exceed Basin Plan water quality objectives.

GHG Mitigation Option: Solar-Array Carport If approved, the solar-array carports would include 41 piers with footings at a depth of 25 feet and a concrete 36-foot concrete base, and would require some ground disturbance. Stormwater runoff would be controlled through implementation of NPDES regulations and implementation of the SWPPP, which would be required in the contract specifications for the improvements. Therefore, pollutants resulting from construction of the carport are not expected to violate Basin Plan water quality objectives, and impacts would be less than significant. See also Section 3.X(g) below for additional evaluation of potential water quality impacts.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

There would be no change in landside features compared to existing conditions that would affect subsurface permeability or recharge. Parking lot improvements would be limited to installation of hardscaping and some restriping. The proposed project would not involve the use of groundwater. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on groundwater.

GHG Mitigation Option: Solar-Array Carport If approved, the solar-array carports would not change landside features compared to existing conditions that would affect subsurface permeability or recharge. The carport would not involve the use of groundwater. Therefore, the carport would have no impact on groundwater.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (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 that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site?

There are no natural surface water features on the project site. No permanent landside structures would be constructed or modified as a result of the project. Landside improvements would be minor and would be limited to installation of hardscaping and some restriping in the existing parking lot, which are paved surfaces where no soil is subject to erosion. Therefore, the proposed project would not alter the existing drainage pattern on land, and there would be no impact on erosion or siltation. Waterside improvements would consist of installation of piles to support the float for the ferry terminal and kayak launch. There

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 120 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION X Hydrology/Water Quality would be no modification to existing shoreline protection features that would temporarily or permanently modify the shoreline such that it could be susceptible to erosion or cause siltation. There would be no impact as a result of constructing and operating the physical components of the improved ferry terminal.

GHG Mitigation Option: Solar-Array Carport There are no natural surface water features in the parking lots. Carport improvements would include forty-one piers at a 25-foot depth and construction of a foundation. The parking lots are paved surfaces where no soil is subject to erosion. Therefore, the carport would not alter the existing drainage pattern on land, and there would be no impact on erosion or siltation. There would be no impact as a result of constructing and operating the carports.

Passenger Ferry Operations The proposed ferry route from San Francisco to Richmond is approximately 9 miles in length and cuts through open and deep-water areas of San Francisco Bay. In those energetic, wide-open areas, no vessel wake or propwash issues from the proposed Richmond ferry service that could cause erosion or siltation are expected. However, the remaining portion of the route, which covers approximately 552 miles, is located in a relatively narrow navigation channel (Federal Channel). Although the proposed project would not alter a stream or river, operation of the proposed project in that narrow channel has the potential to cause erosion or siltation, which could affect water quality. Wake wash is the pattern of wave energy created by the passage of a vessel through water. Sediment transport along a shoreline, and the potential for erosion, is a function of wave action caused by wind (wind-wave) and vessel wake (wake wash). The area of combined effect of wind-wave and wake wash is referred to as a swash zone. Swash zone sediment transport potential indicates potential for shoreline response to different hydrodynamic impacts through different levels of sediment transport in the system. Thus, the sediment transport potential in the swash zone is an indicator of the potential for water quality impairment because erosion can result in increased turbidity and/or siltation. A wake wash analysis was prepared for the proposed project. By comparing the results of numerical modeling of swash zone sediment transport potential generated by vessel wake to ongoing swash zone sediment transport potential from wind-waves, it is expected that, at certain locations vessel wake wash is likely to be a very large percentage of the total swash transport. In those areas, wind-wave energy is relatively low, and wake energy is expected to be strong and frequent. Along the Federal Channel, the wakes would travel from deep water to the swash zone in a very short distance, resulting in high swash transport. This is likely to significantly affect the shorelines along the Federal Channel over time, resulting in shoreline erosion, if measures are not in place to reduce such effects.47 However, between the west end of Brooks Island and the proposed Richmond ferry terminal, vessels would travel at a no-wake speed. Further, as required by the 2003 PEIR, Mitigation WW 1–3, the new vessels built for the project would use existing low-wake vessel technology to reduce both the total wake wash energy and heights of

47 Coast & Harbor Engineering, Technical Memorandum –Coastal Engineering Environmental Impact Analysis Richmond Ferry Terminal (November 27, 2012).

San Francisco Bay Area 121 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION X Hydrology/Water Quality May 2014 individual waves. By observing a no-wake zone between the west end of Brooks Island and the ferry terminal, this would reduce the potential for strong and frequent wake energy that could cause erosion and the impact would be less than significant. At other locations, vessel wake wash would comprise only a very small portion (less than 1 percent) of total swash transport, where the locations are fronted by very long, flat slopes. The potential for erosion would not be substantial in those areas.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site?

There are no natural surface water features on the project site. No permanent landside structures would be constructed or modified as a result of the project. Landside improvements would be minor and would be limited to installation of hardscaping and some restriping in the existing parking lot, which are paved surfaces as well as along the shoreline in connection with the Bay Trail extension. These improvements would have no effect on landside drainage patterns, and, therefore, would have no on- or off-site flooding impacts. The proposed modifications to waterside features to accommodate the new passenger landing and gangway would result in features approximately 10 percent larger than those at the existing terminal, as well as construction of the relocated kayak launch ramp. However, this would not affect tidal flows in a manner that would cause or exacerbate flood potential along the shoreline or landside. There would be no impact.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

There would be no change in the configuration and extent of landside impermeable surfaces that would change stormwater peak flows or volumes or result in changes in stormwater quality compared to existing conditions. The waterside passenger landing would not contribute flows to a stormwater drainage system. There would be no impact on existing or planned drainage systems or generation of additional sources of polluted runoff as a result of the project.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 122 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION X Hydrology/Water Quality

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

Support Pile Installation Construction would require removal of existing piles and installation of new support piles for the float for the ferry terminal and the kayak launch. Pile installation and removal are known to generate low levels of turbidity except in the immediate vicinity of the work.48 In comparison to dredging and in-Bay disposal of dredged materials, which are routinely practiced in San Francisco Bay without turbidity control, pile-related operations and related construction activities are not expected to generate a significant amount of turbidity that would degrade water quality. Impacts would be less than significant.

Wake Wash Erosion/Sedimentation Wake wash at the Federal Channel has the potential to cause erosion of the shoreline, which could locally increase sediment loads. This potential water quality impact would be less than significant as described in Section 3.X(d) above.

Dredging The overall rate of sedimentation within the channel is moderate, with some localized erosion patches near the ferry terminal likely due to propwash from existing vessels. The City of Richmond has periodically maintained the entrance channel between the federal deep-draft navigation channel and Marina Bay Yacht Harbor at an elevation of -12 feet (MLLW). No water quality issues have been reported during periodic dredging of the entrance channel to the Richmond Bay Yacht Harbor. Although navigation channel design has not been performed, it appears that only an additional relatively small amount of initial dredging would be required for the part of the passenger float outside of the entrance channel (along the west side of the Ford Assembly Building wharf), where depths are as low as -6.5 feet (MLLW). The initial amount of dredging required to install the float would be less than 500 cubic yards. The entrance channel must be maintained in the future, whether the dredging is performed by the City of Richmond or WETA, to provide safe maneuvering and berthing at the terminal. Based on an evaluation of the sedimentation rates and anticipated navigation depth of approximately -10 feet (MLLW), it is likely a maintenance dredging event may be required every 2 to 3 years to ensure safe navigation. Because some minor dredging would be required for installation of the passenger float, additional over-dredging in the passenger float area and adjacent channel area would need to be performed to lengthen the interval between maintenance episodes that WETA is required to perform. If feasible, WETA would schedule the required dredging with the City’s periodic maintenance dredging. Dredged material disposal is not likely to occur in the water, either in-Bay or at San Francisco Deepwater Ocean Disposal Site (SF-DODS) due to the character of the sediments and relatively low dredging

48 Coast & Harbor Engineering, Technical Memorandum –Coastal Engineering Environmental Impact Analysis Richmond Ferry Terminal (November 27, 2012).

San Francisco Bay Area 123 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION X Hydrology/Water Quality May 2014 volumes. Previous maintenance dredging episodes have required upland disposal. Assuming upland disposal continues, no impacts to water quality from dredged materials are anticipated.49

Marine Fuel Spills No fueling operations are planned at the ferry terminal, which would eliminate the potential for fuel spills that could affect water quality. As explained above, the rate of incidence of accidents or spills involving a fuel release from vessel transit operations is extremely low. Further, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations pertaining to marine operations that are intended to protect water quality. Impacts would be less than significant.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

The proposed project consists of waterside improvements to support passenger ferry service operation. No housing would be placed within a 100-year flood hazard area. There would be no impact.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?

Flood hazards landward of the proposed ferry terminal would not be altered as a result of the proposed project because there would be no new or modified structures placed onshore. Replacement of existing piles and installation of new piles to support the passenger landings would have no effect on tidal flooding that would redirect or impede flood flows landward of the ferry terminal because it would not involve placement of fill or create barriers to flow. There would be no impact.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

The landside portion of the project site is outside of the current 100-year flood event, would be outside the tidal 100-year flood area in 2050, and would be inside the tidal 100-year flood areas in 2100 accounting for predicted sea level rise. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss due to levee or dam failure. New amenities would be installed along the Bay Trail

49 Coast & Harbor Engineering, Technical Memorandum –Coastal Engineering Environmental Impact Analysis Richmond Ferry Terminal (November 27, 2012).

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 124 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XI Land Use/Planning spur, but this would not require any physical modifications to the existing shoreline to accommodate the proposed project, so there would be no reduction in landside flood protection. The project site is not within a dam failure inundation area. With a 2100 expected sea level rise, the gangway and passenger float for the ferry terminal and kayak launch could be vulnerable to tidal flooding; however, this timeframe would exceed the expected useful life of the pier or launch. Therefore, impacts to the marine portion of the project site due to flooding are considered less than significant.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? The project site and vicinity are situated along San Francisco Bay shoreline where mudflow does not pose a hazard. Portions of San Francisco Bay are susceptible to tsunami hazard. However, the proposed project would not involve new construction or occupancy of permanent structures that could be damaged by tsunami. The existing pier and landing, although modified as part of the project, could be subject to flooding by tsunami. Tsunami-induced flooding at the site could damage the terminal features or a vessel moored there, but people would not be exposed to any risk because evacuation procedures implemented by WETA and the City of Richmond would ensure populations at risk would not be present. Seiche historically has not resulted in substantial flooding or damage in the San Francisco Bay Area. Given that marine facilities can be readily replaced (although costly) and that land-side facilities are above the predicted inundation level, this impact is considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

XI. LAND USE/PLANNING

Setting The project site is located on the Ford Peninsula adjacent to the Marina Bay neighborhood, which is in the southern part of the City. The Ford Peninsula is bound by Interstate 580 (I-580) to the north, the Marina Bay to the east, the San Francisco Bay to the south, and the Port of Richmond to the west. Large industrial and office buildings characterize the Ford Peninsula. A dominant feature on the Ford Peninsula is the Ford Motor Company Assembly Plant (Ford Assembly Building), a historic brick building that has been redeveloped with a mix of retail and light industrial uses and is part of the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park. City of Richmond General Plan Land Use Designations surrounding the project site are depicted in Figure 13 (General Plan Land Use Designations). As shown, land use designations at the project site include Port and Business/Light Industry. Adjacent land use designations include High Density Mixed- Use (Major Activity Center) along the eastern half of the Ford Peninsula. The western section of the Ford Peninsula is envisioned as a revitalized working port serving the greater region and providing employment. The eastern section is envisioned by the City of Richmond General Plan as a mixed-use waterfront district around the Marina that would take advantage of the proposed ferry terminal, easy access to regional freeways, waterfront location, existing views, and nearby employment. The “Ford

San Francisco Bay Area 125 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SOLANO AVE

COUNTY

Change Area 14 Richmond Port Priority Use Area BARRETT AVE

MACDONALD AVE BART Station LEGEND Map 3.16 Residential Neighborhoods Change Area 14 Hillside Residential Port Priority Use Area GARRARD BLVD Low-Density Residential Medium Density Residential Neighborhood Mixed-Use BART - Richmond Line Key Corridors Medium Density Mixed-Use (Residential Emphasis) I-580 Medium Intensity Mixed-Use (Commercial Emphasis) Residential Neighborhoods Activity Centers CARLSON BLVD

HARBOURWY Medium Intensity Mixed-Use (Gateway and/or Hillside Residential Community Node)

MARINAWY High Intensity Mixed-Use (Major Activity Center) Low-Density Residential Regional Commercial Mixed-Use Medium Density Residential WEST CUTTING BLVD CUTTING BLVD Business and Industry El Cerrito Del Norte BART Station Live/Work Neighborhood Mixed-Use Business/Light Industrial Marine and Waterfront Commercial Key Corridors Industrial Medium Density Mixed-Use (Residential Emphasis) Port Medium Intensity Mixed-Use (Commercial Emphasis) Community Agriculture POTRERO AVE Open Space Activity Centers Parks and Recreation Medium Intensity Mixed-Use (Gateway and/or EL CERRITO Public, Cultural and Institutional Community Node) Port Priority Use High Intensity Mixed-Use (Major Activity Center)

Regional Commercial Mixed-Use SAN PABLO AVE

Business and Industry

N Live/Work Business/Light Industrial I-80 Marine and Waterfront Commercial Industrial PROJECT AREA Port

Community Agriculture Open Space Parks and Recreation Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Public, Cultural and Institutional

SCALE IN FEET Source: City of Richmond, 2011. 100003254 | Change Area Boundary Figure 13 General Plan LandRichmond Use Designations Inner Harbor

N Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XI Land Use/Planning

Peninsula in Marina Bay” is designated as a Major Activity Center in the City of Richmond General Plan. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 1808 adopted in 2008, no residential uses are permitted within the area bound by I-580, Harbour Way South, Hall Avenue, and Marina Way South. This area, known as Transition Zone Overly District (TZOD), is located directly north of the Ford Assembly Building, but does not encompass the project site. The majority of the project site is located in the Port Priority Use Area, which is a district designated by the City’s General Plan and by the BCDC Seaport Plan. This district is oriented in a horseshoe configuration around Santa Fe Channel, an inlet of the San Francisco Bay. Located in the southern part of the City just east of Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline, the area is roughly bound by Harbour Way South on the east, Cutting Boulevard on the north, and Canal and Seacliff Boulevards to the west. The Port Priority Use Area is defined by port and water-related uses including warehouses, storage tanks, shipbuilding slips, marine terminals for ship loading and unloading, truck loading and unloading areas, industrial businesses, auto uploading, ship repair, and private and public port areas. The area is traversed by numerous railroad spurs. The Port Priority Use Area is anticipated to remain a major hub of port and related industrial uses. New public and private realm improvements focus on strengthening overall economic viability of the Port of Richmond. Zoning designations in the vicinity of the project area are depicted in Figure 14 (Zoning). As shown, the project area and vicinity are zoned a mix of M-1 Research & Development; M-2 Light Industry, M-4 Marine Industrial; and CRR Community and Regional Recreation (Sheridan Point Park).

Plans and Policies City of Richmond General Plan.50 A General Plan is a long-range policy document that expresses a city’s development goals, policies, and objectives relative to the distribution of future land uses, both public and private, as well as a number of other topics. The current City of Richmond General Plan was certified and adopted in August 2011. The General Plan is intended to respond directly to changes experienced in Richmond since the preparation of the previous General Plan in 1994 and to provide guidance for community development over the next 20 years. The following goals, policies, and actions from the City’s General Plan are relevant to the proposed project.

50 City of Richmond, Richmond General Plan 2030, Final Environmental Impact Report (August 2011).

San Francisco Bay Area 127 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ***** H ER BAYBE CUL ***** R R VP AV City of Richmond Zoning ES Y A A L M

RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC ORLEANS DR A S IRIS TENNENT AV V Y PINON AV CAM R A ORE V D JOHN ST L A SFR-1 Single Family Rural Residential PC Public & Civic Uses IC FERN AV SFR-2 Single Family Very Low Density Residential E LU P W IN SFR-3 Single Family Low Density Residential OPEN SPACE CYPRESS AV E Y R R ED D HIGHLANDS RD WO N O MFR-1 Multi-family Residential EA Exclusive Agriculture UP RR OB HILL AV D EASTSHORE FRWY P HerculesR R ESTA RD H E MFR-2 Multi-family Medium Density Residential CRR Community & Regional Recreational MA RL F D DUBLIN DR E U MFR-3 Multi-family High Density Residential BAY ST V G T R NRY A A IO ***** N D E CINNABAR WY S OPEN SPACE A R H A F V I LETTIA RD D N A AL G T S T T L L COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL A AR LL CO E D A HI U D N Y T R R ***** R W PA Planned Area L APPIAN WY Y R Y A M I-80 W EXIT 22 QU D W S I ** OI C-1 Neighborhood Commercial RD R Pinole FARIA AV* ***** S H ATLAS RD * E D C-2 General Commercial T * R N Unincorporated County Y ***** A W R S C-3 Regional Commercial I E F SARAH DR R H G O ALAMOE ST

C-B Central Business E F H D DR **** S S L T R AL R * CC Coastline Commercial A E A AM * N S T O ULA * A G GO R * N D N T * E D E Z Y A E * ***** RY R T L W R D I L T A R M-1 Industrial/Office Flex F E R * E ***** S S SONOMA WY ***** K T * H M-2 Light Industrial D * * A E * C E V ROCK ROSE WY L M-3 Heavy Industrial G ** P T MAS A V * O Z I V P SI ***** D * T ***** I * U I I R M N M-4 Marine Industrial PARK R A D N ***** O V E R RANCHO RD L A IEW JENKINS WY Y D M D E R AV KW ***** V R V W IGH T K P L U ***** A O 4 L L C D L L L E R V ***** I 2 Y R S I N E H D A T A ***** S DR B O A H E R M P ANOL D C ***** M INE IL A DOID G ***** D H GARRITY WY R L R D IC ***** O T Unincorporated County O H A R E BAYBE R B R C ***** R O FAIRWAY DR E RD UL R VP AV O HIGHGATE DR D PEBBLE DR City of Richmond Zoning ES Y A A L M V VIEW DR RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC ORLEANS DR A SY IRIS P P D TENNENT AV V G D PINON AV CA R R O R A A M O V D JOHN ST RE A 11TH ST LT L L HIL Y H I SFR-1 Single Family Rural Residential PC Public & Civic Uses N ROCKY RD A C FERN AV ***** M E GR R SFR-2 Single Family Very Low Density Residential***** O LU P B P O W I CYPRESS AV N BNSF RR ***** O D SFR-3 Single Family Low Density Residential OPEN SPACE R E M D R D A Y R R R EDW D * GRANADA RD E V HIGHLANDS RD O **** N D N O O D R MFR-1 Multi-family Residential REA Exclusive Agriculture UPA RR B HILL AV D H T EASTSHORE FRWY P ERLA WY R L D HerculesR R * N T LESTA R H E D * E D ***** MFR-2 *****Multi-family Medium Density ResidentialI CRR Community & Regional Recreational D LE MA R F N DUBLIN DR E U 14TH ST * A V * N MFR-3 Multi-family High Density ResidentialE I BAY ST A A G 12TH ST * T R Y ENRY IO A L E ***** N D CINNABAR WY S O A R K OPEN SPACEV A A R H A F V H J L T IT D I LETTIA RD R D N A AL 10TH ST I G T S T T L L COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL A A A D AR LL CO E S A N P S D A HI U D N Y LAMBERT RD A RD G T R R ***** R W D PA PlannedL AreaM L APPIAN WY Y R 19TH ST W O IN Y A M I-80 W EXIT 22 QU D LN S R N W S I ** O R RISS C-1 Neighborhood Commercial RD R Pinole FARIA AV* IS S L H ATLAS RD * ***** E MAY RD * D Unincorporated County BLVD I A C-2 General Commercial E T COACH DR R R S N ***** F Unincorporated County Y R A W A R C-3 Regional Commercial Y I FR S P W E SARAH DR ***** R H E G O ALAMOE ST

C-B Central Business E V F H D DR **** S S R CAMPUS DR M Y L T R AL RA * D 17TH ST O CC Coastline Commercial * A S E A M L LOYOLA DR I ***** N T O OU A 2 E * N A G D G R 0 ***** * E Z A N TE GIANT RD * E RY D L WY R VIA VERDI W * ***** R T T A D OO ***** I L R R K 20TH ST M-1 Industrial/Office Flex ***** F E B E S * ***** S S SONOMA WY R R K ***** T * H ID 22ND ST M-2 Light IndustrialCANYON RD AM D * * A RD 20 D E * C E V R 3RD ST ROCK ROSE WY L E T AS A ***** M-3 Heavy Industrial G ** P M V ***** E * O Z I V P SI D ***** D * * T ***** I I U I I N R M N C PITTSBURG AV R M-4 Marine Industrial PARK R A D N ***** Unincorporated County D O V E RANCHO RD ***** RD 20 R L H A IEW ***** JENKINS WY M E V W Y V D D RIGH T A K ***** R V W K P L D U ***** A O UPLAND DR R 4 L L M L ***** C D RL L E R V ***** I 2 Y R S ***** MILTON DR I N E H D A T A S DHR B O A H E R M P ANOLC D C O ** D ***** M INE N IL A DOID G * ***** D ***** H A GARRITY WY R * C R CERROL SUR D * I San Pablo O T O ***** D R A R Unincorporated County B * O FAIRWAY DR E RD N * R O HIGHGATE DR D PEBBLE DR Richmond C O V VIEW DR T * P P D D S G R DR O R A E * 11TH ST LT Y LH DOVER AV LC R L T HIL N ROCKY RD A L ***** M * ***** O RIDGE RD I D AVILA WY S GRO R P B B A * R ***** ***** O D H BNSF RR M D R D A ***** * A R

E ** * C GRANADA RD E V

S ** N MARKET AV * D R D R

R H T A

* ERLA WY R L * * N L A ***** T O * E D ***** I D LE SILVER AV N LA COLINA RD L * 14TH ST * A IN ** N E I Y T K N 12TH ST * A O L R K E D DUARTE TR H J L TA IT V A D R L CHURCH LN A 10TH ST * A A I D * P S A LAMBERT RD N R P GS - D A D L I 16TH ST 19TH ST M N GROVE AV R * R W RISS LN S O R N I N S B A MAISON WY S L Unincorporated County ***** D LVD I A MAY RD COACH DR R B S E E A O AR R F Y ***** B P W Unincorporated County E ***** CHESLEY AV PINE AV N * L R CAMPUS DR M Y V R A D 2 17TH ST LOYOLA ODR I ***** * ***** O 0 E ***** * RTRUD P * GIANT RD VIA VERDI W * E AV AMADOR ST OO ***** R E S BR K 20TH ST ***** * * S R * RICHMOND LN A D ID 22ND ST CANYON RD AM G * RD 20 D R 3RD ST MARTIN DR ALAMO AV E ***** E T * A D ***** B IC PITTSBURG AV R N Unincorporated County D W MARIN AV L M ***** RD 20 VALE RD H R ***** * *** N 21STST * D UPLAND DR R O M ***** ***** R R MILTON DR ***** 25TH ST D CH R O I *** D N ID M R * ***** RA CERRO SUR G San Pablo D * E T ***** N * R * WILLARD AV R C RUMRILL BLVD Richmond O ***** T ST * R D I E * TULARE AV P T DOVER AV LLC R L T RIDGE RD I * D AVILA WY S B A * ***** Z H *****

BERNHARD AV A E E ***** * S C A MARKET AV * COSTA AV R

R S * L W SILVER AV * A O S K AV T LA COLINA RD N LIN * T T K D DUARTE TR * Y A * RHEEM AV L A CHURCH LN * O - P IN GROVE AV 16TH ST R S B R * *** S N ***** A D MAISON WY * DUNN AV N E A ***** Unincorporated County A O B ***** CHESLEY AV PINE AV N * L * R ***** A O Y O *** P RTRUDE AV AMADOR ST P * R * E S * * RICHMOND LN G TRI LN DU A * D MARTIN DR ALAMO AV A B T * A E WILSON AV M MARIN AV M ANDRADE AV W VALE RD L R N * *** W L B 21STST O ***** R * ***** 25TH ST R I D 23RD ST R ID M A L T WILLARD AV GE TR R S RUMRILL BLVD E N O TULARE AV P IT ***** T E ***** M BERNHARD AV A Z E S COSTA AV R S W 24TH ST H T S K AV T 13TH ST LINCOLN AV T S * E RHEEM AV O A Y R T ** * R S N N A DUNN AV ***** S * E T I E Y O P 80 A TRI LN DU R ESMOND AV D E M W L ANDRADE AV WILSON AV B

23RD ST L R GAYNOR AV H T E S A N H G EN O M S

24TH ST H T T 13TH ST LINCOLN AV S R E

E R

T E ***** S E T I R 80 GARVIN AV R T ESMOND AV D D T GAYNOR AV H

H G BURBECK AV 7 N E

***** E R Unincorporated County R T ***** R R D GARVIN AV T T BURBECK AV 7 3 U ***** Unincorporated County E R R U YU 3 Z O YUBA ST Z O

T 7TH ST L

7TH ST E 5TH ST L GRANT AV ST D ST E T V 5TH ST GRANT AV D S ST C A ***** 9TH ST M TH ST T T ROOSEVELT AV L S I A N N W V TO N ST C A BA ST ***** S I P 9 M H L R L E L W S OOSEVELT AV I Legend A A A N N W Z MIRAVISTA DR D T 31ST ST 11TH ST A V TO N 34TH ST H C B 16TH ST 8 38TH ST A L ***** D 5TH ST 1 13TH ST P I A ST BARRETT AV T O H L E Zoning L W ***** I Legend A M C A CST WILSON AV D Z MIRAVISTA DR D R

T 31ST 21STST M 11TH A V MACDONALD AV A H ESPEE AV B NEVIN AV E 34TH FRWY 40TH ST C-1 C 3RD ST E M 24TH ST

16TH S 8 K 38TH FRWY 28TH ST S A L T AV R T R H E ***** D 42ND ST ***** 5TH ST 13TH S 1 Y A A ST C-2 T JO NOX O R D K BARRETT AV HN T K FR 1ST ST CAN R Zoning ***** 6TH ST I YO T I W CASTRO ST E F N M C Y FERN ST 8TH ST Y L C-3 4TH ST CST WILSON AV ***** D 44TH ST OCEAN AV 15TH ST TEWKSBURY AV GARRARDW OHIO BLVD AV BART VIEW DR E R OHIO AV OHIO AV B Unincorporated County 13TH ST BNSF RR 11TH ST MACDONALD AV 21STST M R NEVIN AV CB A L FRWY ESPEE AV E FLORIDA AV V ***** A 40TH ST FLORIDA AV C-1 3RD ST E M D H N BL AR N C 24TH ST K AGE VD LI O 28TH ST S ***** N G N FRWY CC MAINE AV CARLSON BLVD SAN PABLO AV G L T WALL AV T E AV R O O T R H E *****

S S 4TH ST VIRGINIA AV SNOWDON AV N * 42ND ST E RICHMOND AV N R ** CRR ***** Y 580 S 6TH ST 72-8 * * S 8TH ST D S 29TH ST OVEREND AV T C-2 D O R S 2ND ST JO N X CREST AV S 37THST B K 1ST ST C CUTTING BLVD R HN T K F 41STS ST R AN R L 6TH ST EA I Y T V W CASTRO ST E F O N D S S 28THST

S S 39THST FALL AV ***** LENEVE PL W Y FERN ST ***** 72-7 8TH ST M-1 L ***** B NORVELL ST I Y ERK A V L C-3 4TH ST ***** 44TH ST RICHMOND ST * OCEAN AV 15TH ST S 23RD ST SPT CO RR BLAKE ST D TEWKSBURY W OHIO AV BART E ***** * * GARRARD BLVD ***** C VIEW DR ***** Unincorporated POTREROCounty AV * * OHIO AV OHIO AV B M-2 Richmond LIBERTY ST ***** * 13TH ST A * 11TH ST BNSF RR R MEEKER AV ** * HARBOUR WY S L BETTY LN T ** CB M-3 ***** C E C * V ***** A D R ** FLORIDA AV FLORIDA AV A R ** SEAVER AV U El Cerrito E * ** D N C C RE R H BL M-4 A R G ***** E AV EN V RL D A AT N AG D O T R I D ***** A I GALVIN DR K G R N BL D O KERR AV ***** N LA V E N ELLS LN CC MAINE AV G L A N R MFR-1 A T CARLSON BLVD SAN PABLO AV L D M L P SAN BENITO ST WALL AV T E R ***** MARINA WYS ***** S O B A HIGHGATE RD MFR-2 O D L C M 55THS ST ***** R POMONA AV S S 4TH ST N V * I O WINDSOR AV VIRGINIA AV SNOWDON AV D ***** F N * BUTTE ST R S 51ST ST E R N A D * S 46TH ST N PORTOLA DR 580 S 6TH ST 72-8 D F * * I L D CRR R C MOESER LN A OP N F T B MFR-3 R S 8TH ST OVE I ELM ST EVERETT ST O S 29TH ST REND AV C T S 47TH ST A K L R E ICHMOND AV D L S 58THST ***** RR E S 2ND ST L CRES S 37THST B C R CUTTING BLVD O ***** R R

A SAN JOAQUIN ST KEARNEY ST A S 41STS ST * PA E PENINSULA DR S 49TH ST E D ** * ** L D S JOHN T KNOX FRWY * ** ***** Y R * D EA V ** S R A PC * T SAN MATEO ST * R D * C ON S S 28THST Y S S 39THST FALL AV T ***** LENEVE PL L R * N T AV W O LENOX RD SFR-1 * I N A ***** 72-7 L * BELOIT AV C M-1 ***** B I U * G R E NORVELL ST * IA RK A V SFR-2 L S T R A B O CANON DR SPT CO RR BLAKERICHMOND ST ST * D A S 23RD ST N * ***** SFR-3 * * * * CARMEL AV V * * ***** ***** C * RYDIN RD A * ***** POTRERO AV LIBERTY ST ***** * * * CENTRAL AV * M-2 Richmond * V SFR-3/EA * * MEEKER AV ** A * FAIRMOUNT AV HARBOUR WY S ISABEL ST TESP BETTY LN T B ST ** ***** * Data Source: M-3 ***** * LASSEN ST E C - City of Richmond Geographic Information System (CORGIS) * City and County Boundaries C D * - Thomas Bros. Maps. R R * Data* Disclaimer** - Use At Your Own Risk 0A0.125 0.25 0.5 * "Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS. * This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS. It is unlawful SEAVER AV E * ** to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal U Parks andEl Other Cerrito Public Areas use or resale, without the prior, written permission of THOMAS C R Miles BROS. MAPS." M-4 R REG ***** E D A AT N D TA I GALV R R ***** N BL D O KERR AV K LA V E L N ELLS LN R MFR-1 A T A D M L P SAN BENITO ST ***** MARINA WYS ***** IN DR R S B A HIGHGATE RD MFR-2 D C M 55THS ST R L POMONA AV N V I O WINDSOR AV D D ***** S 51ST ST F BUTTE ST PORTOLA DR A D F S 46TH ST I N L D N R F C T MOESER LN B A OP MFR-3 R C I S 47TH ST ELM ST EVERETT ST K LO R PROJECT AREA E A L RR S 58THST ***** C R L E O ***** R A SAN JOAQUIN ST KEARNEY ST A * PA E PENINSULA DR S 49TH ST E D ** * ** D S JOHN T KNOX FRWY * ** ***** Y R * D * S * R A PC * T SAN MATEO ST ** R O C Y N L T R * N O LENOX RD SFR-1 * I N A L * BELOIT AV C G R U * IA SFR-2 S * T R A B O CANON DR A N * SFR-3 * * AV CARMEL AV V * ** RYDIN RD ***** * * CENTRAL AV A * V * SFR-3/EA FAIRMOUNT ISABEL ST B ST TESP ***** LASSEN ST * Data Source: * - City of Richmond Geographic Information System (CORGIS) City and County Boundaries - Thomas Bros. Maps. Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Data* Disclaimer** - Use At Your Own Risk 00.125 0.25 0.5 "Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS. This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal Parks and Other Public Areas use or resale, without the prior, written permission of THOMAS Miles BROS. MAPS." NOT TO SCALE Source: Google Earth Pro, 2012; Atkins, 2012. 100003254 | Figure 14 Zoning Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XI Land Use/Planning

Land Use and Urban Design Element, Goals and Policies Goal LU-1 (partial) Developing the Southern Shoreline, Ford Peninsula in Marina Bay and San Pablo Peninsula as regional and recreational destinations Policy LU1.6 Ferry Terminal at the Ford Peninsula in Marina Bay. Support and promote the location of the ferry terminal at the Ford Peninsula in Marina Bay. Work closely with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority in its efforts to implement the proposed ferry terminal project. Providing fast and efficient transit to San Francisco via a ferry terminal would further enhance the Southern Shoreline’s appeal to residents and businesses. The terminal could also provide a focus for transit-oriented development and can aid in disaster relief. Action LU1.I Ferry Terminal Specific Plan. Implement the ferry terminal specific plan to develop the area as a higher-density, mixed-use community that includes housing opportunities for a range of household income groups including low to moderate income. Policy LU3.3 Recreation and Tourism Industry. Support the emerging recreation and tourism economy by protecting, enhancing and showcasing the natural, cultural and historic resources and assets. Encourage the creation of tourist-serving amenities and infrastructure in key areas such as Southern Shoreline, Point Molate and Downtown, and enhance amenities in existing tourist destinations such as Point Richmond. Expand and complete the Bay Trail to enhance regional connections with Richmond’s shoreline. Support the development of the southern shoreline as the “Richmond cultural heritage shoreline” to promote economic development in the City while protecting historic and cultural resources and providing opportunities for interpretation, education and recreation. Policy LU3.4 Efficient and Productive Use of Land. Promote the efficient and productive use of industrial and commercial land resources to maximize jobs and revenue. Encourage the reuse of underutilized vacant or blighted sites that may impact the viability of surrounding uses. Prioritize public investment in catalytic projects in major city centers such as Downtown, Hilltop and the Ford Peninsula in Marina Bay and the entire Southern Shoreline Area. Support the transformation of the Richmond Port into a 21st century business. Ensure that all planning and development efforts prioritize the needs of the local community and provide access and benefits for Richmond residents. This includes job creation and training, and access to recreation amenities and open space. Policy LU3.5 An Economically Viable and Modern Port. Encourage growth and modernization of private port businesses and the Port of

San Francisco Bay Area 129 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XI Land Use/Planning May 2014

Richmond. Develop the Ford Peninsula area in Marina Bay as a working waterfront that supports the Port’s operations and provides opportunities for recreation, housing, retail and job- generating uses; promote modern and sustainable operations; and preserve historic and cultural assets related to Richmond’s World War II home front history. Continue to work with State and federal agencies to establish programs that will reduce or eliminate emissions from ocean going vessels and encourage Port industries to reduce health and environmental impacts from related rail and truck traffic. Policy LU4.1 Richmond Shoreline. Minimize the impacts of development on the shoreline with special attention to intensity, density, and proximity to the water. Conserve, protect and enhance natural and cultural resources along the Richmond shoreline. Promote a balance of uses along the shoreline that supports multiple community needs such as economic development, recreation, historic preservation and natural resource protection. ■ Provide a mix of residential and recreation uses in the Southern Shoreline area; support an active industrial waterfront around the Port and along the Santa Fe Channel; and promote a cultural heritage shoreline west of the Port. ■ Protect and restore wetlands, native habitats and open space; develop shoreline parks and trails to increase public access; encourage recreation and tourism activities; and enhance and showcase historic and cultural resources. Prepare, adopt, and implement plans that will protect natural and built environments from adverse potential impacts of sea level rise due to climate change. Policy LU4.3 Habitat and Biological Resources Protection and Restoration. Natural habitat is essential to ensuring biodiversity and protecting sensitive biological resources. Protect these areas and work with the California Department of Fish and Game, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, the East Bay Regional Park District and other regional agencies to identify areas for special protection and establish appropriate protection measures for these areas. ■ Protect resources to maximize the efficacy of natural systems and encourage sustainable development practices and conservation measures to ensure a healthy natural environment. ■ Protect wetlands from direct and indirect impacts of new and existing development and infrastructure. Ensure that direct and indirect impacts to wetland habitats are

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 130 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XI Land Use/Planning

minimized by environmentally sensitive project siting and design. ■ Protect marshlands and baylands to ensure they are not polluted or damaged from bay filling and dredging. ■ Protect and restore creek corridors and riparian areas to ensure they function as healthy wildlife habitat and biological areas. ■ Protect and restore creek corridors and riparian areas by restoring riparian habitat with appropriate vegetation and channel design; removing culverts and hardened channels where appropriate; improving creek access; avoiding future culverting or channelization of creeks; and ensuring appropriate and ongoing maintenance. ■ At a minimum, require mitigation of impacts to sensitive species ensuring that a project does not contribute to the decline of the affected species populations in the region. Identify mitigations in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service, the California Department of Fish and Game and other regulatory agencies. Action LU4.A Waterfront Redevelopment Plans. Facilitate on-going efforts to plan and redevelop key shoreline areas to fully transform them from blighted areas into resources and amenities for the community. Promote a balance of uses along the shoreline that supports multiple community needs such as economic development, recreation, historic preservation and natural resource protection. Action LU4.B Open Space Plan. Develop and implement an open space plan to enhance public open space in the City. Include strategies for open space in the hills, along creeks and the shore- line, and in the urban core. Collaborate with the East Bay Regional Park district and the National Park Service to manage and maintain facilities and programs at regional and national parks. Policy LU5.1 A Balanced Mix of Land Uses (partial). Promote a balanced mix of uses in major activity centers, community nodes and gateways, in neighborhood nodes (corner commercial clusters), and along key corridors as well as in industrial areas… Along Richmond’s shoreline, diverse uses should balance community needs for recreation, interpretation, conservation, historic and cultural preservation with economic development opportunities. Policy LU5.2 A Mixed-Use Waterfront. Continue to create a dynamic mixed- use waterfront that includes amenities and attractions for residents and visitors. There are a number of different uses, features and assets along Richmond’s shoreline that can be

San Francisco Bay Area 131 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XI Land Use/Planning May 2014

enhanced to create a series of distinct places along the waterfront. ■ The San Pablo Peninsula is characterized by large natural open spaces, shoreline parks and beaches, sweeping views of the San Francisco Bay Area and historic structures. The City will support development on the Peninsula as a regional recreation destination that is well connected to rest of the City and accessible to the greater community. Disturbed sites such as the Winehaven complex at Point Molate and the Terminal 4 site at Point San Pablo will be remediated and redeveloped into mixed-use activity centers to serve a broad range of visitors and provide long-term revenue to the City. ■ The Richmond Port (public and private) is recognized as a productive and important component of the community’s economy and identity. Many of the adjacent industries embrace high standards and provide high-wage, local jobs. Creative transitions should be developed between port related activities and potential mixed-used neighborhoods along the waterfront to provide strong connections, design cohesion and effective buffers where necessary. ■ The Ford Peninsula in Marina Bay is a gateway to Richmond and an integral part of the City where people work, live and recreate. The Peninsula’s historic Ford Assembly Plant, open space, connection to the Bay Trail and convenient freeway access present great potential for developing the eastern portion of the area as an active mixed-use neighborhood that will attract visitors from around the Bay. In February 2006 the City Council passed Resolution No. 15-06 to support and promote the location of the proposed ferry terminal. Ferry transit to San Francisco will enhance the Southern Shoreline’s appeal to residents and businesses.

Circulation Element, Goals and Policies Policy CR1.3 Local and Regional Transportation Linkages. Enhance circulation linkages within the City and region. The City will work with regional transportation agencies such as AC Transit, BART, West Contra Costa Transit Agency, and Amtrak to provide or improve connections to Richmond’s key transportation hubs such as the proposed ferry terminal in Marina Bay, the Downtown Intermodal Transit Station, Hilltop Mall, the shoreline and commercial and mixed-use streets. Collaborate with regional, state and federal transportation agencies and neighboring jurisdictions to support a high level of service for all users including pedestrians, bicyclists, and automobile drivers.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 132 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XI Land Use/Planning

Policy CR1.7 Regional Ferry Service. Support and plan for the proposed ferry service to Richmond. Public transit, bicycle and pedestrian linkages between the proposed ferry terminal and other major destinations such as the Downtown, BART stations, key commercial areas and civic uses will support a successful regional ferry service. Also, regional ferry service can be supported by providing higher-density, mixed-use development around the proposed ferry terminal.

Energy and Climate Change Element, Goals and Policies Policy EC3.1 Renewable Energy. Promote the generation, transmission and use of a range of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind power and waste energy to meet current and future demand and encourage new development and redevelopment projects to generate a portion of their energy needs through renewable sources. Policy EC3.2 Energy Efficiency and Conservation. Promote efficient use of energy and conservation of available resources in the design, construction, maintenance and operation of public and private facilities, infrastructure and equipment. Collaborate with partner agencies, utilities and businesses to support a range of energy efficiency, conservation and waste reduction measures including: development and retrofitting of green building and infrastructure; installation of energy-efficient appliances and equipment in homes and office; and heightened awareness of energy and conservation issues. Collaborate with local workforce development programs to train and employ Richmond residents in these other green job sectors. BCDC/MTC’s San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan.51 The San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan is the product of a cooperative planning effort of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). The Seaport Plan constitutes the maritime element of MTC’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and is incorporated into BCDC’s San Francisco Bay Plan, where it is the basis of the Bay Plan port policies. MTC uses the Seaport Plan to assist in making project funding decisions and managing the metropolitan transportation system. BCDC uses the Seaport Plan to help guide its regulatory decisions on permit applications, consistency determinations, and related matters. The Seaport Plan promotes the following goals: ■ Ensure the continuation of the San Francisco Bay port system as a major world port and contributor to the economic vitality of the San Francisco Bay region. ■ Maintain or improve the environmental quality of San Francisco Bay and its environs.

51 Bay Conservation and Development Commission and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan (April 18, 1996, as amended through January 2012).

San Francisco Bay Area 133 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XI Land Use/Planning May 2014

■ Provide for efficient use of finite physical and fiscal resources consumed in developing and operating marine terminals through the year 2020. ■ Provide for integrated and improved surface transportation facilities between San Francisco Bay ports and terminals and other regional transportation systems. ■ Reserve sufficient shoreline areas to accommodate future growth in maritime cargo, thereby minimizing the need for new Bay fill for port development. In addition, with regards to ferry service, the Seaport Plan includes the following policy: Policy 3 Within port priority use areas, passenger ferry terminals and ancillary uses may be allowed, provided the development and operations of the ferry facilities do not interfere with ongoing or future port-related uses, and navigational and passenger safety can be assured. BCDC Bay Plan and Public Access Design Guidelines.52 BCDC has jurisdictional authority over the Bay, the 100-foot-wide shoreline band surrounding the Bay, salt ponds, managed wetlands, and certain waterways as defined in the San Francisco Bay Plan. BCDC has permitting authority for development within the 100-foot shoreline band and is also responsible for issuing Bay filling and dredging permits. The grounds on which development applications are approved or denied are outlined in the San Francisco Bay Plan. The San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by BCDC in 1968 and submitted to the California State Legislature in 1969. The Legislature acted upon BCDC’s recommendations in the Bay Plan and revised the McAteer-Petris Act by designating BCDC as the agency responsible for maintaining and carrying out the provisions of the Act and the Bay Plan for the protection of the Bay and its natural resources, as well as the development of the Bay and shoreline. The McAteer-Petris Act directs BCDC to exercise its authority to issue or deny permit applications for placing fill, extracting materials, or changing the use of any land, water, or structure within the area of its jurisdiction. The latest amendment to the Bay Plan was adopted in October 2011 (Resolution 11-08), which added new climate change findings and policies and encourages jurisdictions to develop regional adaptive management strategies. It also revised findings and policies pertaining to tidal marsh and tidal flats, safety of fills, protection of shoreline, and public access. The purpose of the BCDC Public Access Design Guidelines for the San Francisco Bay is to provide the Bay region with a design resource for development projects along the shoreline of the Bay. These guidelines provide suggestions for site planning, as well as recommendations for designing and developing attractive and usable public access areas. The guidelines are not legally enforceable standards, but are an advisory set of design principles aimed at enhancing shoreline access while providing for the protection of Bay resources, regional livability, and local economic prosperity. The guidelines are general in scope due to the varied conditions of the shoreline and the numerous uses that occur along the Bay. They are applicable to all development projects within BCDC’s jurisdiction and are intended to complement the guidelines and design standards of the local municipalities within the

52 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, San Francisco Bay Plan (1969, amended October 2011). http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/laws_plans/plans/sfbay_plan#2 (accessed April 17, 2014).

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 134 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XI Land Use/Planning region. Although the Public Access Design Guidelines are advisory, they have been adopted by BCDC and are based on San Francisco Bay Plan policies. The guidelines also reflect past recommendations of BCDC’s Design Review Board and formal decisions of the BCDC.53 ABAG Bay Trail Plan.54 The Bay Trail Plan proposes development of a regional hiking and bicycling trail around the perimeter of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. The Plan was adopted by ABAG in July 1989 and includes a proposed alignment for a multi-use trail; a set of policies to guide the future selection, design, and implementation of routes; and strategies for implementation and financing. The Plan was prepared by ABAG pursuant to Senate Bill 100 that was passed into law in 1987 and mandated that the Bay Trail: provide connections to existing park and recreation facilities; create links to existing and proposed transportation facilities; and be planned in such a way as to avoid adverse effects on environmentally sensitive areas. Since the Bay Trail Plan was adopted, the majority of the jurisdictions along the Bay Trail alignment has passed resolutions in support of the Bay Trail and has incorporated it into their general plans. The Bay Trail Plan is envisioned to be a continuous 500-mile public corridor along the Bay Area’s shoreline containing recreational, environmental education, and nonmotorized transportation opportunities, 310 miles of which are complete (approximately 60 percent of the ultimate length). When complete, it would cross all counties and major toll bridges in the Bay Area. The Bay Trail Plan contains five categories of policies to guide selections of the trail route and implementation of the trail system: trail alignment, trail design, environmental protection, transportation access, and implementation policies. Bay Trail policies and design guidelines are intended to complement, rather than supplant the adopted regulations and guidelines of local management agencies. Policies relevant to the proposed project include: ensuring a continuous trail around the Bay, locating the trail close to the shoreline, and providing easy access to trail users, safe trails, and trail-related amenities. Thirty miles of the Bay Trail have been completed within Richmond. The Richmond sections of the Bay Trail will ultimately run along the shoreline wherever physically feasible. A priority in Richmond is to close gaps in the Bay Trail as it runs through Richmond and establish linkages to Stege Marsh, Point Molate, Point San Pablo, and Point Pinole. The effort to complete these connections is being led by the citizen-based Trails for Richmond Action Committee. The Bay Trail, in the vicinity of the project site, extends around the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor, around the Ford Peninsula (including through Lucretia Edwards Park, the Craneway Pavilion wharf, and the project site), and ends at Sheridan Point Park. An on-street segment of the Bay Trail continues along Harbour Way South in a north/south direction.

Applicable 2003 PEIR Mitigation Measures The 2003 WTA PEIR included many impacts and mitigation measures that are either addressed in this document or are not applicable to this project. A table of impacts and mitigation measures from the PEIR is included as Table 1 of this document. The following 2003 PEIR mitigation measures would be

53 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Shoreline Spaces: Public Access Design Guidelines for the San Francisco Bay (April 2005). 54 Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Trail Plan (June 30, 1999).

San Francisco Bay Area 135 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XI Land Use/Planning May 2014 applicable to Land Use and Planning for the proposed project: Mitigation LU-2.1, Mitigation LU-4.1, and Mitigation LU-4.2.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: (a) Physically divide an established community? The proposed project would not divide an established community. The project site is located in an area that is characterized by large industrial and office buildings and port uses. The project site is currently developed with a gangway, pier, and float and a surface parking lot. Although the proposed project would replace the existing facility with a new ferry terminal that is 10 percent larger, and would potentially make minor improvements to the parking lot, as well as relocate the existing kayak launch ramp, implementation of the proposed project would not significantly alter existing or permitted uses and would replace the existing use with a similar use. In addition, while the Ford Peninsula is physically separated from the residential neighborhood to the east by the Marina Harbor and residential neighborhoods to the north by I-580, pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular connections are available. The proposed project would not alter these connections or create new barriers. As such, the proposed project would not divide an established community, resulting in no impact.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

The proposed project would not conflict with the City’s General Plan, BCDC’s Seaport and Bay Plans, or ABAG’s Bay Trail Plan. As described below, implementation of the proposed project would be generally consistent with these applicable plans, resulting in less-than-significant impacts.

City of Richmond General Plan No General Plan land use or zoning designation change is expected as a result of the proposed project. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with existing land use designations and zoning. One of the main Land Use goals of the Richmond General Plan (LU-1) is to develop the Southern Shoreline, Ford Peninsula, and San Pablo Peninsula as regional and recreational destinations. The proposed project would construct a ferry terminal that could shuttle visitors to the area and make it more accessible. As stated in Policy LU1.6, the General Plan supports the location of the ferry terminal at the Ford Peninsula and the City should work closely with WETA in its efforts to implement the proposed ferry terminal project. Providing fast and efficient transit to San Francisco via a ferry terminal would further enhance the Southern Shoreline’s appeal to residents and businesses. In order to guarantee transit-supportive development around terminal stations, the MTC has set thresholds for residential and employment

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 136 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XI Land Use/Planning densities around stations. The ferry threshold was initially set at 750 units within a half-mile radius.55 As such, the terminal could provide a focus for transit-oriented development and can aid in disaster relief, all of which would support the goals and policies of the General Plan. The proposed project would provide access and benefits for Richmond residents, including access to recreation amenities and open space. The proposed project would extend the Bay Trail and would help to promote Policy LU3.3, which seeks to expand and complete the Bay Trail to enhance regional connections with Richmond’s shoreline. The proposed project would also conserve, protect, and enhance natural and cultural resources along the Richmond shoreline. In compliance with Policies LU4.1 and LU4.2, the proposed project would protect these natural areas. In addition, and as identified through the various mitigation measures in this IS/MND (e.g., Section 3.IV [Air Quality], Section 3.V [Biological Resources], Section 3.X [Hydrology/Water Quality]), WETA would work with the CDFW, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and other regional agencies to identify areas for special protection and establish appropriate protection measures for these areas. As such, the proposed project would be generally consistent with the General Plan, resulting in less-than- significant impacts.

GHG Mitigation Option: Solar-Array Carport If implemented, the carport would provide alternative energy to the vicinity that could provide a steady income stream to WETA to implement other projects. While approval is unknown at this time, the generation of alternative forms of energy would be consistent with the General Plan policies to preserve resources.

BCDC/MTC’s San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan The majority of the project site is located within Port of Richmond jurisdiction and the Port Priority Use Area, as designated by the Seaport Plan. In addition, the ferry route would share the navigable waters of the Federal Channel with Port vessels. As such, the San Francisco Bay Seaport Plan would apply to the proposed project. Nonetheless, the proposed ferry terminal would be consistent with the Seaport Plan. The proposed project would not interfere with Port operations or the continuation of the San Francisco Bay port system. According to Policy 3 of the Seaport Plan, passenger ferry terminals and ancillary uses are permitted within the Port Priority Use Area, provided the development and operations of the ferry facilities do not interfere with ongoing or future port-related uses, and navigational and passenger safety can be assured. WETA would coordinate with BCDC and the Port of Richmond to ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with Port uses. As described in Section 2 (Project Description), it is expected that ridership will increase in the future. When needed, parking would be expanded to one of two potential areas. The first option (Parking Option 1) would be the use of WETA Lot 3 on existing Port of Richmond property directly north of the proposed parking lot. However, the option to expand parking to the Port of Richmond property would be dependent on whether the Port is actively using or pursuing a tenant for this property. Currently, this

55 San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority, Richmond Waterfront Transit-Oriented Development Plan (January 2008).

San Francisco Bay Area 137 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XI Land Use/Planning May 2014 area is underutilized by the Port, and could be used for expansion of WETA parking. Parking expansion onto Port property would only occur if no Port activity or business is active at the time of potential parking expansion. If the future expansion of parking into Port property is not feasible, then WETA would expand in an area north of the Ford Assembly Building (Lot 3A), outside of Port property. If at a future date, the port identifies a user for the space, WETA has the ability to relocate to the parking lot to the north. Further, implementation of the proposed project would require administrative and/or a major permit, as well as amendments to existing permits prior to approval from BCDC. The WETA would coordinate with BCDC and the City of Richmond to ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with Port uses at the time of project implementation and into the future. This would result in a less-than- significant impact.

GHG Mitigation Option: Solar-Array Carport If approved, the solar-array carport would not conflict with existing Port and marina uses, and would provide an alternative energy source. This would provide a sustainable feature on what would otherwise be a parking lot. As with the ferry terminal, implementation of the carport would require approval from BCDC. This would result in a less-than-significant impact.

BCDC Bay Plan and Public Access Design Guidelines Transportation Policy 5 in the Bay Plan states that ferry terminals should be sited at locations that are near navigable channels, which would not rapidly fill with sediment, and would not significantly impact tidal marches, tidal flats, or other valuable wildlife habitat. The proposed project would require minor dredging (less than 500 cubic yards) for installation of the passenger float and ongoing maintenance dredging in an area that is currently maintained and would be required to implement the mitigation measures identified in Section 3.V (Biological Resources), therefore, would not impact these areas. As such, the project site would be navigable and the proposed project would be consistent with Transportation Policy 5. Review and approval from BCDC and its Design Review Board is required for development and/or improvements to property within the 100-foot shoreline band. The proposed terminal, a portion of the parking lot, the kayak launch, and the extension of the Bay Trail are within this 100-foot shoreline band. All public access provided through BCDC’s permit process would be planned, designed, constructed, and maintained on the basis of the outlined objectives. The following public access objectives will help the proposed project achieve the BCDC goal of providing maximum feasible public access: make public access usable; provide, maintain, and enhance visual access to the Bay and shoreline; maintain and enhance the visual quality of the Bay, shoreline, and adjacent developments; provide connections and continuity along the shoreline; take advantage of the Bay setting; and ensure that public access is compatible with wildlife through siting, design, and management strategies.56

56 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Shoreline Spaces: Public Access Design Guidelines for the San Francisco Bay (April 2005).

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 138 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XI Land Use/Planning

Development of the proposed project would be consistent with the objectives of the BCDC Public Access Design Guidelines. The proposed passenger queuing area and relocation of the entry gate would reduce conflicts with pedestrian users of the Bay Trail by providing a separate area adjacent to the existing Bay Trail for these activities to occur. The proposed vegetation and pedestrian features along the extended Bay Trail would help enhance the visual quality along the Port and the Santa Fe Channel. As such, the proposed project would further the goals of the BCDC Design Guidelines by extending the existing Bay Trail and providing additional shoreline access. In addition, most BCDC public access permits include requirements for signage intended to help the public find and use the public access. BCDC provides a guide, the Public Access Signage Guidelines, to develop a comprehensive sign program for required public access areas. This guide can be used to determine the types of signs needed to make shoreline access areas easy to use for the public.57 WETA would be required to comply with the Public Access Signage Guidelines. As such, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts regarding consistency with the BCDC Public Access Design Guidelines.

ABAG Bay Trail Plan Development of the proposed project includes include an extension of the existing Bay Trail system, which currently travels along the shoreline and the off-street segment ends at Sheridan Point. The proposed project would include new paving, signage, and other pedestrian amenities, as well as parking dedicated to Bay Trail users. As such, the proposed project would be required to adhere to the ABAG Bay Trail Plan and Design Guidelines. As explained previously in this section, the Bay Trail Plan mandates that the Bay Trail provide connections to existing park and recreation facilities, create links to existing and proposed transportation facilities, and be planned in a way to avoid adverse effects on environmentally sensitive areas. Nonetheless, the existing gap in the off-street Bay Trail system due to the Port of Richmond to the north of the project site would remain with implementation of the proposed project. Extension of the Bay Trail would adhere to the Bay Trail Plan policies and the plans would be reviewed by the Bay Trail Advisory Committee to ensure compliance. In addition, the proposed project would comply with the Bay Trail Design Guidelines. The path would include the required trail markings, signage, and lighting, resulting in less-than-significant impacts with regards to the Bay Trail Plan.

GHG Mitigation Option: Solar-Array Carport The project includes mitigation for greenhouse gas emissions including construction of solar-array carports within the proposed parking areas. The carports would offset GHG emissions by the incorporation of on-site renewable energy generation. This optional project component would include 41 piers, footings of approximately 25 ft depth, and a 36 ft diameter concrete base. Due to the proximity of the parking lots to the Bay Trail, adherence to ABAG Bay Trail Plan and Design Guidelines would be required.

57 San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Shoreline Signs: Public Access Signage Guidelines (August 2005).

San Francisco Bay Area 139 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XII Mineral Resources May 2014

Implementation of the optional solar-array carport mitigation measure would require consistency with the objectives of the BCDC Public Access Design Guidelines, given the close proximity of the parking lots to the Bay. As such, the solar-array carports would maintain views of the bay, provide new alternative energy sources, and reduce conflicts with pedestrian users of the Bay Trail by providing a separate area adjacent to the existing Bay Trail for these activities to occur. Therefore, this GHG mitigation option would be consistent the goals of the BCDC Design Guidelines and result in less-than- significant impacts related to consistency with the BCDC Public Access Design Guidelines and ABAG Bay Trail Plan.

General Consistency with Applicable Plans and Policies Generally, the proposed project would be consistent with the aforementioned plans and policies. It should be noted that the findings of the plans and policies consistency do not require that a project be entirely consistent with each individual policy. A proposed project can be generally consistent with a plan even though the project may not promote every applicable goal and policy. Assuming the approval of the proposed project, the ferry terminal would generally be consistent with the applicable policies, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

There are no adopted habitat conservation plans (HCPs) or natural community conservation plans (NCCPs) governing the project site. Because no HCPs or NCCPs govern the project site, there would be no impact.

XII. MINERAL RESOURCES

Setting58 According to the Conservation, Natural Resources, and Open Space Element of the City of Richmond General Plan, mineral production in Richmond has been largely limited to sand, gravel, and rock products. Mining for manganese, crude oil, and clay was at one time undertaken in the area. Mining for sandstone and crushed rock was until recently limited to one quarry on Canal Boulevard near the Port of Richmond and another at Point Molate in northern Richmond. However, the Canal Boulevard quarry has been closed and remediated. The Point Molate quarry is focused on recycling and handling operations rather than extraction. No quarry operations are anticipated at either site in the future.

Applicable 2003 PEIR Mitigation Measures The 2003 WTA PEIR included many impacts and mitigation measures that are either addressed in this document or are not applicable to this project. A table of impacts and mitigation measures from the

58 City of Richmond, Richmond General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (August 2011).

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 140 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XIII Noise

PEIR is included as Table 1 of this document. For Mineral Resources, no impacts were identified in the PEIR and are therefore not listed in Table 1.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: (a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

The proposed project would be located along the shoreline on the southern edge of the Ford Peninsula. The soil at the project site and surrounding area is comprised of Bay mud. The proposed project would include only minor ground-disturbing activities along this shoreline area. As described in the setting, mineral production in Richmond has historically been limited to sand, gravel, and rock products; none of which are present in significant quantities at the project site. The proposed project would have no impact with regard to the loss of a known mineral resource.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

As described in the setting, there are currently no active mineral extraction sites in the Richmond. The quarry at Point Molate is used for recycling and handling operations rather than extraction and no quarry operations are anticipated in the future. The proposed project would have no impact on locally important mineral resource recovery sites delineated on a local plan.

XIII. NOISE

Setting

Fundamentals of Environmental Noise Noise is the term generally given to the intrusive, unwanted sound. Many factors influence how a sound is perceived and whether it is considered annoying to a listener. These factors include the physical characteristics of a sound (e.g., amplitude, frequency, duration, etc.), but also non-acoustic factors (e.g., the acuity of a listener’s hearing ability, the activity of the listener during exposure, etc.) that can influence the judgment of listeners regarding the degree to which sounds are unwanted. Excessive noise can negatively affect the physiological or psychological well-being of individuals or communities. The standard unit of sound amplitude is the decibel (dB), and is a measure of the physical magnitude of the pressure variations relative to the human threshold of perception. The human ear’s sensitivity to sound amplitude is frequency-dependent, so a modification is usually made to the intensity level in each frequency band. The units for sound levels that have this so called A-weighting are often abbreviated as

San Francisco Bay Area 141 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XIII Noise May 2014 dBA. Table 13 (Representative Environmental Sound Levels) lists the A-weighted average sound levels commonly encountered in various environmental situations.

Table 13 Representative Environmental Sound Levels Noise Level Common Outdoor Activities Common Indoor Activities (dBA) —110— Rock Band Jet Fly-over at 100 feet —100— Gas Lawnmower at 3 feet —90— Food Blender at 3 feet Diesel Truck going 50 mph at 50 feet —80— Garbage Disposal at 3 feet Noisy Urban Area during Daytime Gas Lawnmower at 100 feet —70— Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet Commercial Area Normal Speech at 3 feet Heavy Traffic at 300 feet —60— Large Business Office Quiet Urban Area during Daytime —50— Dishwasher in Next Room

Quiet Urban Area during Nighttime —40— Theater, Large Conference Room (background) Quiet Suburban Area during Nighttime —30— Library Quiet Rural Area during Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) —20— Broadcast/Recording Studio —10— Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing —0— Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing SOURCE: California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement (November 2009).

All quantitative descriptors used to measure environmental noise exposure recognize the strong correlation between the high acoustical energy content of a sound (i.e., its loudness and duration) and the disruptive effect it is likely to have as noise. Because environmental noise fluctuates over time, descriptors average the sound level over the time of exposure, and 24-hour descriptors add penalties during the times of day (i.e., evening and nighttime) when intrusive sounds would be more disruptive. The most commonly used descriptors are that are relevant to this analysis:

■ Leq, the equivalent energy noise level, is the average acoustic energy content of noise, usually measured over one hour. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 142 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XIII Noise

same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. Leq values do not include a penalty for noise that might occur at night.

■ Ldn, the day-night average noise level, is a 24-hour average Leq with a 10 dBA “penalty” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM to account for the greater nocturnal noise sensitivity of people. ■ SEL, The cumulative exposure to sound energy over a stated period of time. Typically used to quantify a single event of recurring similar events. The decibel level of a sound decreases (or attenuates) exponentially as the distance from the source of that sound increases. For a single point source such as a piece of mechanical equipment, the sound level normally decreases by about 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source. Sound that originates from a linear, or line source such as a traffic corridor, attenuates by approximately 3 dBA per doubling of distance, provided that the surrounding environment is considered “hard” (i.e., heavily concreted areas), and 4.5 dBA for each doubling of distance in “soft” environments (i.e., vegetation). Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, turbulence, temperature gradients, and humidity may alter the propagation of noise and affect levels at a receiver. Receivers downwind from a noise source would experience increased noise levels during periods of high wind activity and consequently, noise levels decrease at upwind receivers. During periods of high temperatures noise tends to travel upward causing noise levels to decrease at the height of typical receivers, while cooler temperatures keep noise levels closer to a typical receiver height. Cooler temperatures with little to no wind are ideal for measuring existing ambient conditions. Furthermore, the presence of a large object (e.g., barrier, topographic features, and intervening building façades) between the source and the receiver can provide significant attenuation of noise levels at the receiver. The amount of noise level reduction or “shielding” provided by a barrier primarily depends on the size of the barrier, the location of the barrier in relation to the source and receivers, and the frequency spectra of the noise. Natural barriers such as berms, hills, or dense woods, and human-made features such as buildings and walls may be effective noise barriers. Community noise environments are generally perceived as “quiet” when the 24-hour average noise level is below 45 dBA, “moderate” in the 45 to 60 dBA range, and “loud” above 60 dBA. Very noisy urban residential areas are usually around 70 dBA Ldn. Along major thoroughfares, roadside noise levels are typically between 65 and 75 dBA Ldn. Three to 5 dBA increments to existing one-hour Leq, or to the Ldn, are commonly used as thresholds for an adverse community reaction to a noise increase. However, there is evidence that incremental thresholds in this range may not be sufficiently protective in areas where noise sensitive use are located and Ldn is already high (i.e., above 60 dBA); in these areas, limiting noise increases to 3 dBA or less is recommended.59 Noise intrusions that cause short-term interior levels to rise above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep.

Regulatory Setting

City of Richmond Noise Standards The Noise Element of the City of Richmond General Plan contains goals and policies to reduce or eliminate the effects of excessive noise in the community when implementing changes in land use. The

59 California Department of Transportation, Technical Noise Supplement (November 2009), pp. 2-48 to 2-49.

San Francisco Bay Area 143 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XIII Noise May 2014

General Plan has adopted the State’s noise compatibility matrix for determining the compatibility of various land uses with different noise environments.60 The compatibility guidelines recognize that some land uses are more sensitive to ambient noise levels than others, due to the amount of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise) and the types of activities typically involved.

For residential uses, the most sensitive land use, a noise environment of 60 dBA Ldn or less is considered normally acceptable; a noise environment between 60 and 70 dBA Ldn is considered conditionally acceptable; 70 to 75 dBA Ldn is considered normally unacceptable; and 80 dBA Ldn and above is considered clearly unacceptable.

For playgrounds and neighborhood parks a noise environment of 70 dBA Ldn or less is considered normally acceptable; a noise environment between 70 and 75 dBA is considered conditionally acceptable; and a noise environment of 80 dBA Ldn or higher is considered normally unacceptable. For commercial and office uses, which are generally less noise-sensitive, a noise environment of 70 dBA Ldn or less is considered normally acceptable; a noise environment between 70 and 80 dBA Ldn is considered conditionally acceptable; and 80 dBA and above is considered normally unacceptable. For industrial and manufacturing uses, a noise environment of 75 dBA Ldn or less is considered normally acceptable; a noise environment between DNL 75 and 80 dBA is considered conditionally acceptable; and 80 dBA Ldn and above is considered normally unacceptable. The City of Richmond also regulates exterior noise levels through enforcement of the Community Noise Ordinance (Richmond Municipal Code Chapters 9.52.100 and 15.04.840).61,62 Table 14 (Maximum Allowable Exterior Noise Standards For Specified Land Uses, dBA) presents the maximum allowable exterior noise levels for long-term operational sources contained in the Community Noise Ordinance. The factors that are considered when determining whether the ordinance is violated include (a) the level, intensity, character, and duration of the noise; (b) the level, intensity, and character of the background noise; and (c) the time when, and the place and zoning district where, the noise occurred. The Richmond noise ordinance also prohibits construction or demolition work at any time between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM on weekdays or 6:00 PM and 8.30 AM on weekends and legal holidays in any residential or commercial zoning district or adjacent to any noise-sensitive uses so as to create a noise disturbance or cause any violation of the noise ordinance chapter. Where technically and economically feasible, construction activities are required to be conducted in such a manner that the maximum sound levels at affected properties will not exceed those listed in Table 15 (Maximum Allowable Receiving Noise Standards for Temporary Construction or Demolition Activities, dBA). For the proposed project, construction activities would be conducted over a ten month schedule, thus the project would be considered long term (15 days or more) and would be required to comply with the more conservative noise standards shown in Table 15.

60 City of Richmond, City of Richmond General Plan, Public Safety and Noise Element (adopted April 25, 2012). 61 City of Richmond, Richmond Municipal Code, Chapter 9.52 (Community Noise Ordinance) (adopted May 17, 2011). 62 City of Richmond, Richmond Municipal Code, Chapter 15.04.800 (General Standards) (adopted 1988).

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 144 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XIII Noise

Table 14 Maximum Allowable Exterior Noise Standards For Specified Land Uses, dBA Maximum Noise Level, in dBA, Not to Be Exceeded Maximum Noise Level, in dBA, Not to Be More Than 30 Minutes in Any Hour Exceeded More Than 5 Minutes in Any Hour Zoning District Measured at Property Measured at Any Boundary Measured at Any Boundary of a Residential Line or District Boundary of a Residential Zone Zone between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AMa Single Family Residential 60 — — Multi Family Residential 65 — — Commercial 70 60 50 or ambient noise level Light Industrial and 70 60 50 or ambient noise level Officeb Heavy and Marine 75 65 50 or ambient noise level Industrialb Public Facilities and 65 60 50 or ambient noise level Community Use Open Space and 65 60 50 or ambient noise level Recreational Districts SOURCE: Richmond Municipal Code, Community Noise Ordinance Sections 9.52.100 and 15.04.840. The standard limits set forth above shall be reduced by 5 decibels if the noise contains a steady, pure tone such as a whine, screech, or hum, or is an impulsive sound such as hammering or riveting, or contains music or speech. The exterior noise limits for any source of noise within a residential zone shall be reduced by 10 dBA between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM The exterior noise limits for any noise source in any other zone other than a residential zone shall be reduced between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM so that when measured at the property line of a “noise-sensitive use”, the noise does not exceed 50 dBA. a. Restricted hours may be modified through condition of an approved conditional use permit. b. For M-1 and M-2, the measurement will be at property lines. For M-3 and M-4, the measurement will be at the boundary of the district.

Table 15 Maximum Allowable Receiving Noise Standards for Temporary Construction or Demolition Activities, dBA Receiving Land Use Weekdays 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Weekends including Legal Holidays, 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM

Short-Term Operation (less than 15 days)

Single Family Residential 75 60

Multi Family Residential 80 65

Commercial and Industrial 85 70

Long-Term Operation (15 days or more)

Single Family Residential 60 55

Multi Family Residential 65 60

Commercial and Industrial 70 65 SOURCE: Richmond Municipal Code, Community Noise Ordinance Section 9.52.110. The standard limits set forth above shall be reduced by 5 decibels if the noise contains a steady, pure tone such as a whine, screech, or hum, or is an impulsive sound such as hammering or riveting, or contains music or speech. The exterior noise limits for any source of noise within a residential zone shall be reduced by 10 dBA between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM The exterior noise limits for any noise source in any other zone other than a residential zone shall be reduced between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM so that when measured at the property line of a “noise-sensitive use”, the noise does not exceed 50 dBA.

The significance of project-related noise impacts is also determined by comparing the project related noise levels to existing no-project noise levels. An increase of 3 dBA is typically required before most

San Francisco Bay Area 145 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XIII Noise May 2014 people will perceive a change in ambient noise levels, and an increase of 5 dBA is required before the change will be clearly noticeable. A common practice has been to assume that minimally perceptible to clearly noticeable increases of 3 dBA to 5 dBA represent a significant increase in ambient noise levels. For this project the nearest noise sensitive land uses would be park users of the Bay Trail approximately 50 feet from the project site; Sheridan Point Park, approximately 350 feet from the project site; Lucretia Edwards Park approximately 1,100 feet from the project site; Barbara and Jay Vincent Park, approximately 2,200 feet from the project site; and residential uses further east of Barbara and Jay Vincent Park located in the Marina Bay neighborhood, approximately 2,600 feet from the project site.

Existing Noise Environment The proposed Richmond Ferry Terminal would be located at the southern point of the Ford Peninsula along the existing wharf. The proposed new terminal would replace the existing private ferry facility. The proposed project would include new landings, gangways, passenger float, ramping system, and piles adjacent to the existing wharf. The existing noise environment in the project area is defined predominately by Port of Richmond activity-related noise attributable to loading and unloading of freight hauling ships. Daily activities consisting of parking events, commercial deliveries, people walking and conversing, users of the Bay Trail, and events at the Craneway Pavilion contribute to the noise environment, however, to a lesser extent than Port noise. A community noise survey was conducted on July 17, 2012, to document the existing noise environment at the project site and noise-sensitive receivers near the project site. Existing land uses have not changed in the project vicinity in the last several years. The predominant noise source identified during the community noise survey was port noise. Measurements of noise levels were conducted in accordance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards at four locations using Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) Model 820 precision integrating sound-level meter (SLM). The SLM was calibrated before and after use with an LDL Model CAL200 acoustical calibrator to ensure that the meter was functioning properly and measurements would be accurate. The equipment used meets all pertinent specifications of the ANSI for Type 1 sound-level meters (ANSI S1.4-1983[R2006]). The community noise survey sites are shown on Figure 15 (Noise Monitoring Sites) and the survey results are shown in Table 16 (Summary of Community Survey Noise Levels, July 17, 2012).

Table 16 Summary of Community Survey Noise Levels, July 17, 2012 A-Weighted Sound Level (dBA) Site Location Time (PM) Leq Lmin Lmax L10 L50 L90 San Francisco Bay Trail– between Craneway Pavilion and ST-1 1:00–1:15 69.6 67.2 74.2 70.9 69.7 68.5 waterfront Barbara and Jay Vincent Park—between waterfront and single ST-2 1:35–1:50 60.4 54.3 70.8 64.0 57.6 56.1 family residences SOURCE: Data collected by Atkins (2012).

dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = equivalent noise level; Lmax = maximum noise level; Ln = noise level exceeded n percent of a specific period of time

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 146 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority WRIGHT AVE

REGATTA BLVD HARBOUR WY

9 MARINA WY MARINA HALL AVE

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Noise Monitoring Site

Source: Google Earth Pro, basemap, 2014; Atkins, 2014. NOT TO SCALE 100003254 | Figure 15 Noise Monitoring Sites SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XIII Noise May 2014

Applicable 2003 PEIR Mitigation Measures The 2003 WTA PEIR included many impacts and mitigation measures that are either addressed in this document or are not applicable to this project. A table of impacts and mitigation measures from the PEIR is included as Table 1 of this document. The 2003 PEIR mitigation measures would not be applicable with regards to noise impacts.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: (a) Result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

Project Construction Construction of the proposed project with the kayak launch (including demolition of the existing facilities and construction of the optional solar-array carports) would occur over a 10-month period during daytime hours only; no nighttime construction activities would take place. There would be waterside and landside improvements. Landside improvements would consist of site preparation, minor demolition, ground improvements, and utility installation. The installation of the landings, gangways, and passenger float would require pile driving. A crane positioned on the existing wharf would install as many of these piles as possible. Waterside improvements would require the removal of existing piles, gangway and float, which would be conducted from barges. A total of 18 piles would be installed as part of the proposed project. On-site construction equipment would include support trucks, crane (wheeled and barge mounted), small back hoe, bobcat, work boats, support barges, tug boats, and pile drivers. Based on the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model, noise levels for individual pieces of proposed project equipment can range from 74 to 101 dBA Lmax at 50 feet, as shown in Table 17 (Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels).

Table 17 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels

Type of Equipment Noise level in dBA Lmax at 50 feet Backhoe 80 Crane 85 Dozer 85 Pile Driver 101 Trucks 74–84 SOURCE: FHWA, Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide (2006), p. 3.

Assuming the simultaneous operation of on-site construction equipment associated with the project as listed above, construction could result in a combined noise level of 89 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the acoustical center of construction activity, or 83 dBA Leq at 100 feet. The nearest noise sensitive use to the

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 148 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XIII Noise proposed construction area would be the recreational park users of the Bay Trail, approximately 50 feet from the project site; Sheridan Point Park, approximately 350 feet from the project site; and Lucretia Edwards Park, approximately 1,100 feet from the project site. Accounting for the partial shielding provided by the intervening Craneway Pavilion, construction noise would attenuate to 59 dBA Leq and comply with Community Noise Ordinance Section 9.52.110 at Lucretia Edwards Park. Users of Sheridan

Point Park and its look out area would be exposed to construction noise levels of 72 dBA Leq. The project site is at the terminus of the Bay Trail and users would most likely avoid this area of the trail during heavy construction activities, however, they would be exposed to construction noise levels in excess of 75 dBA. The Craneway Pavilion is a commercial use and the City’s construction noise level standards for commercial uses exposed to long term construction noise is 70 dBA Leq. The Craneway Pavilion is 50 feet from the nearest proposed pile driving location. It is expected that the Craneway Pavilion would be exposed to noise levels of 89 dBA Leq and 101 dBA Lmax. Construction activities would be limited to daytime hours and the potential for sleep disturbance would not occur. However, this temporary increase in daytime noise levels would result in a potentially significant impact requiring mitigation. Implementation of MM-NOI-1, MM-NOI-2, MM-NOI-3, and MM-NOI-4, would reduce these impacts to less than significant. Construction of the optional solar-array carports would require use of a similar mix of construction equipment, with the exception of pile drivers, and impacts would be reduced to less than significant. MM-NOI-1 Notification of nearby property owners of project construction before construction begins. A notification packet will be sent to property owners identifying intended construction schedule, duration of noise-generating construction activities, and a telephone number hotline to use for communicating noise complaints. MM-NOI-2 Use appropriate sound-control devices on construction equipment no less effective than those provided by the manufacturer. All equipment will be maintained to minimize noise generation and no equipment will have unmuffled exhausts. MM-NOI-3 To minimize effects of pile driving on nearby residents, WETA will restrict pile driving to between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM to ensure that driving occurs when residents are most likely to be away from home or able to leave if necessary to avoid noise effects. MM-NOI-4 WETA will ensure the contractor will use the best available technology to minimize noise from pile driving. This may include, but is not limited to pre-drilling pile holes, use of a vibratory hammer, and sound blankets installed around stationary equipment.

GHG Mitigation Option: Solar-Array Carports If approved, implementation of the GHG mitigation option for solar-array carports would result in construction at the same time as the remainder of the proposed project and would utilize a mix of construction equipment similar to the proposed project. As such, this option would result in less than significant construction noise impacts.

San Francisco Bay Area 149 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XIII Noise May 2014

Underwater Pile Driving Noise Underwater pile driving noise generated during construction of the proposed project could result in disturbance to fish and marine mammals. As a guideline, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) considers an underwater noise level of 180 dB referenced to 1 µPa as harmful to fish and an underwater noise level of 160 dB referenced to 1 µPa as harassment to marine mammals. Depending on the type of pile driving that would be used during pile installation, the potential for impacts to aquatic wildlife could be adverse. Mitigation measures contained in the Section 3.V (Biological Resources) would reduce the effects of underwater noise attributable to pile driving and the impact to fish and marine mammals. The measures would reduce underwater construction noise levels through the use of bubble jackets, the use of alternative equipment, and underwater noise monitoring. Implementation of MM-BIO-1 would reduce this impact to less than significant.

Project Operation Implementation of the proposed project would introduce a ferry boat at the Ford Peninsula and there would be an increase in ambient noise levels due to arrivals, departures, and idling of the ferries. No residential uses existing along the proposed ferry route. Table 18 (Noise Calculations for Ferry Arrival and Departure at the Shoreline) shows that maximum noise levels would be approximately 63.9 dBA Leq, which would be below the City’s established threshold for commercial, industrial and open space uses.

Table 18 Noise Calculations for Ferry Arrival and Departure at the Shoreline

Noise Source Duration (min) Leq (dBA)

Approach and Departure at 600 feet (Lmax) 5 63.9 Idle 10 54.6 Total Arrival/Departure 15

Leq Hourly (two arrival/departures) 60 52.9 SOURCE: Atkins (2013).

The proposed parking lot would be located in the southwest corner of the Ford Peninsula, approximately 130 feet northwest of the proposed ferry entrance and approximately 290 feet from Craneway Pavilion. The parking lot would consist of approximately 266 parking stalls for ferry service parking and 53 spaces for public-access parking only. A typical sound exposure level (SEL) associated with a parking event is 71 dBA SEL at 50 feet. Conservatively assuming that each parking stall filled and emptied during the peak hour (319 parking events), the noise level is calculated to be 66 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the acoustical center of the parking lot, or 51 dBA Leq at the Craneway Pavilion building façade (see Appendix D). Therefore, parking lot operations at the project site would be considered a less-than- significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes along project area roadways and thus, increase exiting traffic noise levels. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA- RD-77-108) was used to calculate traffic noise levels along affected roadways in the project vicinity for existing, existing plus project, future and future plus project scenarios. Average daily traffic volumes were derived to obtain traffic noise increases associated with existing

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 150 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XIII Noise project-related traffic and future (2035) conditions as shown in Table 19 (Modeled Motor Vehicle Noise

Levels, Ldn, at Selected Locations in the Project Site Vicinity, dBA). Based on the traffic noise modeling results, the proposed project would result in a maximum of a

+4 dBA Ldn increase in traffic noise levels along Marina Way and Hall Avenue. Analytically, a +4 dBA

Ldn increase in traffic noise levels with a project would typically result in a noise impact if noise sensitive uses are located adjacent to these roadways. However, there are no noise sensitive receptors located adjacent to Hall Avenue or Marina Way. Furthermore, although two segments are showing substantial traffic noise level increases with the project, the overall traffic noise level on those segments does not exceed 60 dBA Ldn. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Vibrating objects in contact with the ground radiate energy through that medium. If a vibrating object is massive enough and/or close enough to the observer, its vibrations are perceptible. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured in inches per second and can be represented by vibration decibels (VdB) relative to a reference level of 1 micro-inch per second (similar to the practice of representing sound decibels relative to the air pressure reference level at the threshold of human hearing). For the protection of buildings from groundborne vibration, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recommends a limit of 0.5 in/sec peak particle velocity (PPV) for new residential buildings and 0.25 in/sec PPV for older or historically significant buildings.63 Construction activities have the potential to result in temporary groundborne vibration, with the degree of vibration generated dependant on the type of construction equipment used. Temporary construction of the proposed project could expose nearby receptors (e.g., Craneway Pavilion) to elevated levels of groundborne vibration. Construction operations associated with the proposed project would be anticipated to include a small backhoe, dozer, crane, pile driver, and trucks. Construction of the optional solar-array carports would require use of a similar mix of construction equipment. Based on FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, groundborne vibration associated with operation of the construction equipment proposed to be used could be considered substantial or excessive. Table 20 (Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment) shows the vibration levels for typical construction equipment anticipated to be used at the project site.

63 California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual (Sacramento, CA, 2004), Table 19, p. 27.

San Francisco Bay Area 151 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XIII Noise May 2014

Table 19 Modeled Motor Vehicle Noise Levels, Ldn, at Selected Locations in the Project Site Vicinity, dBA

Ldn (dBA) at 100 feet Segment Roadway Existing Plus Existing Future Future (2035) Future (2035) Existing From To Project Change (2035) Plus Project Change Harbour Way Cutting Blvd Wright Ave 57 57 0 58 58 1 South Harbour Way Wright Ave Hall Ave 56 57 1 57 58 1 South Harbour Way Hall Ave End of Street 53 56 3 54 57 3 South Marina Way Virginia Ave Cutting Blvd 56 57 0 57 57 0 Marina Way Cutting Blvd Wright Ave 53 57 4 57 57 1 Marina Way Wright Ave Regatta Blvd 54 55 1 55 55 1 Marina Way Regatta Blvd Hall Ave 53 55 2 54 56 2 Marina Way Hall Ave End of Street 51 54 3 52 55 3 Marina Bay Potrero Ave I-580 Ramps 60 60 0 61 61 0 Pkwy Marina Bay I-580 Ramps Regatta Blvd 61 61 0 61 61 0 Pkwy Marina Bay Regatta Blvd End of Street 57 57 0 57 58 0 Pkwy Harbour Way Cutting Blvd Marina Way 59 59 0 59 59 0 South Marina Bay Cutting Blvd Marina Way 59 59 0 60 60 0 Pkwy Harbour Way Wright Ave 4th St 46 45 -1 46 46 0 South Harbour Way Wright Ave Marina Way 49 49 0 50 50 1 South Marina Bay Regatta Blvd Marina Way 53 53 1 53 54 1 Pkwy Harbour Way Hall Ave Marina Way 48 52 4 48 52 4 South Hall Ave Marina Way End of Street 43 42 -1 43 43 0 SOURCE: Atkins (2012). See Appendix D for data sheets.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 152 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XIII Noise

Table 20 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment At 25 feet At 100 feet Construction Equipment Peak Particle Velocity Peak Particle Velocity Approximate VdB Approximate VdBa (in/sec) (in/sec)b Loaded Trucks 86 0.076 68 0.010 Small Bulldozer 58 0.003 40 0 Pile Driver (impact, upper range) 112 1.518 94 0.190 Pile Driver (sonic, upper range) 105 0.734 87 0.011 SOURCE: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (Washington, DC, May 2006), prepared by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc., Burlington, MA, p. 12-12. 1.5 a. Based on the formula PPVequip=PPVref*(25/D) provided by the FTA (2006). b. Based on the formula VdB = VdB(25 feet) – 30log(d/25) provided by the FTA (2006).

The closest pile driving would take place near Craneway Pavilion, approximately 50 feet from the nearest building façade. Impact pile driving vibration levels would attenuate to 0.537 PPV and vibratory pile driving would attenuate to 0.26 PPV at a distance of 50 feet. As a result, vibration induced construction activities could expose persons or structures to the generation of excessive groundborne vibration and impacts would be considered potentially significant requiring mitigation.. Implementation of MM-NOI-5, MM-NOI-6, MM-NOI-7, and MM-NOI-8, would reduce these impacts to less than significant. MM-NOI-5 Construction equipment generating the highest noise and vibration levels (pile driving) shall operate at the maximum distance feasible from sensitive receptors. MM-NOI-6 A preservation director shall be designated. This person’s contact information shall be posted in a location near the project site that it is clearly visible to the nearby receptors most likely to be disturbed. The director shall manage complaints and concerns resulting from activities that cause vibration. The severity of the vibration concern shall be assessed by the director and, if necessary, evaluated by a qualified noise and vibration control consultant. MM-NOI-7 The preexisting condition of all buildings within a 50-foot radius and historical buildings within the immediate vicinity of proposed construction activities shall be recorded in the form of a preconstruction survey. The preconstruction survey shall determine conditions that exist before construction begins and shall be used to evaluate damage caused by construction activities. Fixtures and finishes within a 50- foot radius of construction activities susceptible to damage shall be documented (photographically and in writing) before construction. All buildings damaged shall be repaired to their preexisting conditions. MM-NOI-8 On-site or adjacent historic features shall be covered or temporarily shored as necessary for protection from vibration, in consultation with the preservation director.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

As discussed in Section 3.XIII(a) above, long-term on-site noise sources and off-site operational traffic source noise would not result in the exposure of persons to or the generation of noise levels in excess of

San Francisco Bay Area 153 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XIII Noise May 2014 applicable standards and would not create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity, with the implementation of mitigation measures. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

As discussed in Section 3.XIII(a) above, short-term on-site construction equipment source noise could result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of applicable standards and would create a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project area. As a result, this impact is potentially significant. Implementation of MM-NOI-1 through MM-NOI-8 would reduce this impact to less than significant.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) If located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in the exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

The project site is not located within 2 miles of an airport. The nearest airport is Oakland International Airport, which is located approximately 14 miles to the south of the project site. Thus, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. No impact would occur.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (f) If within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in the exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The nearest airstrip is the San Rafael airstrip, which is located approximately 12 miles to the north of the project site. Thus, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. No impact would occur.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 154 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XIV Population/Housing

XIV. POPULATION/HOUSING

Setting Population. The City of Richmond is located in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area in Contra Costa County. For the purposes of this section, U.S. Census data have been used for existing 2010 population statistics, while future data is analyzed using ABAG Projections 2009. The current population in the City of Richmond is approximately 103,701 residents.64 By 2016 (the anticipated start-date for the Richmond Ferry service), the population is forecasted to increase over 26 percent to greater than an estimated 131,100 residents. By 2035, the population of Richmond is anticipated to grow to approximately 161,000 residents, a 55.3 percent increase over the 2010 population. In 2010, the City accounted for approximately 9.9 percent of the population of Contra Costa County. Table 21 (Current [2015] and Future [2035] Population) summarizes the current and future population within the City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, and the Bay Area.

Table 21 Current [2015] and Future [2035] Population 2010 2015 Growth (2010–2015) 2035b Growth (2010–2035) City of Richmond 103,701 131,100 27,399 (26.4%) 161,000 57,299 (55.3%) Contra Costa County 1,049,025 1,130700 81,675 (7.8%) 1,322,900 273,875 (26.1%) Bay Area 7,150,739 7,677,000 576,261 (7.4%) 9,073,700 1,922,961 (26.9%) SOURCES: U.S. Census (2010); ABAG, Projections 2009 (December 2009).

Housing. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, there are 36,093 households in the City of Richmond. The project site is located south of I-580 in the Port of Richmond area, which includes no housing. A Transition Zone Overly District (TZOD) is located directly north of the Ford Assembly Building, which prohibits residential uses. The closest residential neighborhoods to the project site are the Marina Bay neighborhoods, approximately 0.5 mile to the east, and the Point Richmond neighborhood, approximately 1.6 miles to the northwest. However, the City of Richmond General Plan includes a potential mixed-use development in the Ford Peninsula and Marina areas, including up to 1,550 new housing units. As such, housing could be developed within the vicinity of the proposed project in the future. Employment. According to data published by the California Employment Development Department (EDD), Richmond’s labor force has increased in recent years commensurate with growth in population and households. On an annual average basis (seasonally unadjusted) Richmond’s labor force grew from 50,200 to 53,600 between 2005 and 2009, an increase of just about 7 percent. However, this growth coincided with a corresponding rise in unemployment. Unemployment in Richmond increased from an annual average of 8 percent in 2005 to 17 percent in 2009. Richmond’s job base has proved relatively

64 U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Census 2010, State & County Quick Facts: Richmond, CA (March 27, 2014). http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0660620.html (accessed April 17, 2014).

San Francisco Bay Area 155 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XIV Population/Housing May 2014 stable in recent years. According to the EDD, the City experienced a decline from 46,100 to 44,800 jobs between 2005 and 2009, a loss of just 3 percent.65 Nonetheless, ABAG anticipates the number of jobs in Richmond to grow by 74 percent from 51,370 employed residents in 2010 to 89,490 employed residents in 2035. In percentage terms, this increase exceeds the countywide projected job growth of 47 percent.66 No other cities in Contra Costa County are expected to capture more jobs than Richmond over the next 20 years. Richmond is home to large industrial employers, such as Chevron, California Oils Corporation, the Levin-Richmond Terminal Corporation, Sims Metals Management, the Port of Richmond, and a growing number of businesses that employ thousands of people who live in San Francisco and the East Bay. Ford Peninsula, the proposed location for the ferry terminal, includes the Regatta Center, Westshore Business Park, the Ford Assembly Building, and Marina Center R&D office parks. Total buildout on the Ford Peninsula under the TOD Plan would add up to 251,000 sf of office uses, 88,000 sf of light industrial/office uses, 99,000 sf of light industrial uses, and 1,550 residential units.67 The majority of the project site is located within the property of the Port of Richmond area, which contains seven City-owned terminals, eleven privately owned terminals, and five dry docks. Richmond’s public and private ports and port-dependent industries provide direct employment benefits to the City and the region. In addition, the newly renovated Ford Assembly Building provides jobs in the area for green businesses, offices, retail centers, industrial/research and development sites, and restaurants. In addition, the Ford Peninsula is within the Enterprise Zone, providing tax benefits to employers who hire locally.68 The total leased space of the Ford Assembly Building is now at 90 percent occupancy, or about 420,000 sf. Tenants include Sun Power, Vetrazzo, and Mountain Hardware.69

Applicable 2003 PEIR Mitigation Measures The 2003 WTA PEIR included many impacts and mitigation measures that are either addressed in this document or are not applicable to this project. A table of impacts and mitigation measures from the PEIR is included as Table 1 of this document. For Population and Housing, no impacts were identified in the PEIR and are therefore not listed in Table 1.

65 City of Richmond, City of Richmond General Plan 2030, Economic Development Element (August 2011). 66 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Projections 2009 (December 2009). 67 San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority, Richmond Waterfront Transit-Oriented Development Plan (January 2008). 68 City of Richmond, City of Richmond General Plan 2030, Economic Development Element (August 2011). 69 City of Richmond, Ford Assembly Building, http://ca-richmond.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=944 (accessed April 17, 2014).

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 156 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XIV Population/Housing

Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: (a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

Construction and operation of the proposed ferry terminal would bring water transit service to the project area that does not currently exist. However, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to substantially increase the number of employees to support maintenance and/or operational functions of the ferry terminal. The proposed project would not include housing at the project site. Although housing is proposed within the vicinity of the project site, this would occur under the General Plan, which is not included as part of the proposed project. The proposed project would include landings, a gangway and passenger float, ramping systems and piles adjacent to the existing wharf. Other project components include vehicle and bicycle parking and an access gate with informational signage, as well as the relocated kayak launch site. No new structures are proposed. Passengers would pay for their fares with Clipper cards or on board the vessels; therefore, manned ticketing booths on land would not be available. Passenger waiting areas and restrooms would be located within the existing Craneway building. A designated outdoor queuing area adjacent to the proposed gangway entry gate is also proposed. As such, the proposed project would not result in new employees in the City of Richmond, and, therefore, would not result in population growth. The proposed project would result in the increase of temporary construction employment. Given the relatively common nature of the construction anticipated, the demand for construction employment would likely be met within the existing and future labor market in the City and the County. If construction workers live outside of the City or County, then these workers would not be expected to be encouraged to relocate temporarily and would likely commute during the short construction period. New job opportunities created by operation of the proposed project would likely be in the ferry industry including ferry operators, as well as on-board support for operation, passenger assistance, ticketing, and maintenance. However, existing ferry operators are not significant employers in the context of overall employment in the region and employees would not necessarily live in the City of Richmond. It is anticipated that a minimum crew of three would be needed to operate the vessel, similar to many other ferries in the Bay Area. However, these new employees would likely include people currently residing in the region and any job opportunities that are created as a result of the proposed project would be expected to occur incrementally. Implementation of the proposed project and resulting new water transit services would not, in and of itself, require the expansion or construction of new infrastructure or public services that would result in indirect physical impacts. There could be an increase in population attributed to patrons of the water transit service but the potential new jobs on the vessel itself would be minimal. However, any population increases as a result of either of these would be insignificant compared to the number of people projected to move to the City, County, and the region in general.

San Francisco Bay Area 157 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XV Public Services May 2014

As such, the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly, resulting in no impact.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No housing is located at, or in the vicinity of, the project site. While housing may be constructed in the vicinity as a result of the General Plan, implementation of the proposed project would have no impact on the displacement of existing housing.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

The proposed project would not require the relocation or displacement of substantial numbers of people from the adjacent businesses. As such, the need for replacement housing would not be required. The proposed project would result in no impact to the displacement of a substantial number of people.

XV. PUBLIC SERVICES

Setting70 Fire Protection. The Richmond Fire Department (RFD) provides fire fighting and prevention services to the incorporated area of the City. RFD is responsible for emergency medical services, fire suppression, mitigation of disasters, and rescue activities. Firefighters inspect commercial and waterfront facilities on an annual basis. In addition to emergency work, RFD members provide a wide range of services to the Richmond community, including tours of fire stations and apparatus and fire and life safety presentations. RFD also has one Hazardous Materials Response Team at Station 64; two Rescue Units at Station 67 and Station 68; and one Breathing Support Unit at Station 61. There are seven RFD stations in the City. The RFD station closest to the project site is Station 67 at 1131 Cutting Boulevard. Personnel are assigned to all seven stations throughout the City and serve approximately 105,000 people living in Richmond and respond to emergencies in San Pablo, El Cerrito, North Richmond, El Sobrante and other unincorporated areas of West Contra Costa County. Approximately 77 percent of all emergency calls are for medical service. All personnel are trained as Emergency Medical Technicians to the level of EMT-D and HazMat First Responder Operational. The average response time for emergency calls is 6 minutes and the average response time for non-emergency calls is 8 minutes.71 RFD’s response time goal is to respond to emergency calls within 4 to 6 minutes.

70 City of Richmond, Richmond General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (August 2011). 71 Michael Banks, email communication with Fire Chief, City of Richmond Fire Department (September 18, 2012).

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 158 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XV Public Services

RFD has a staff of 93 sworn personnel.72 RFD has eight fire companies (seven engines and one truck) spread out over seven fire stations throughout the city. Station 64 is a double company station with an engine and truck assigned there. Three personnel are assigned to each company 24 hours per day and 7 per week; the personnel are one Captain, one Engineer, and one Firefighter per company. RFD also has one Battalion Chief on duty each day, supervising those eight fire company personnel. RFD has a personnel-to-population-ratio of approximately 0.9 personnel to 1,000 residents. RFD’s goal is to have one firefighter for every 1,000 residents.73 Development impact fees are collected during the planning process for new development projects to ensure that RFD has adequate equipment and infrastructure to serve the developing areas of the City. Police Protection. The Richmond Police Department (RPD) provides police protection services to the City of Richmond. Services provided include response to emergency and non-emergency calls for assistance, routine patrol, traffic enforcement, investigation of crimes, parking control services, community problem-solving, and code enforcement. In addition, RPD provides a range of community service programs, including youth mentoring programs, task forces, community coalitions, Police Activities Leagues, gang intervention, high school programs, and cadet and explorer programs. RPD operates out of a central station in the Marina Bay neighborhood at 1701 Regatta Boulevard. RPD is divided into three geographic districts (North, Central, and South), each with its own police captain. Each district has three smaller beats that typically include several neighborhoods. Every patrol officer is assigned to a specific beat. In addition, a group of School Resource Officers work under the direct supervision of a Richmond Police sergeant, and are posted at designated West Contra Costa Unified School District campuses in Richmond under contractual agreement with the District. The RPD also operates a Marine Unit comprised of a crew of five and two Almar Rigid Aluminum Inflatable Vessels. On average, RPD officers respond to over 300 calls for service each day. In 2008, the RPD responded to 110,657 calls for service.74 RPD has 195 authorized sworn officers and is currently staffed with 181 full time employees.75 As such, there are approximately 1.9 sworn officers per every 1,000 City residents. RPD maintains an average response time of 5 minutes or less for all Priority 1 calls and an average response time of 12 minutes or less for all Priority 2 calls.76 Priority 1 calls are in progress emergencies such as shootings, robberies, burglaries, and assaults. Priority 2 calls are immediate emergencies, but not in progress, where the suspect is no longer present. Schools. The West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) serves approximately 235,000 residents in the five cities of El Cerrito, Richmond, San Pablo, Pinole, and Hercules and the unincorporated areas of Bayview-Montalvin Manor, East Richmond Heights, El Sobrante, Kensington,

72 City of Richmond, Department Facts (2012), http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=1483 (accessed April 17, 2014). 73 Michael Banks, email communication with Fire Chief, City of Richmond Fire Department (September 18, 2012). 74 RPD, 2008 Annual Report (March 2009), p. 9, www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=4541 (accessed August 6, 2012). 75 Ed Medina, Email communication with RPD (September 14, 2012). 76 Ed Medina, Email communication with RPD (September 14, 2012).

San Francisco Bay Area 159 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XV Public Services May 2014

North Richmond, and Tara Hills.77 The district covers an area of approximately 65 square miles and provides K-8, middle, and high school, alternative school, and adult education services to the City of Richmond. WCCUSD has five Board of Education members elected at large, one Superintendent, and five divisions divided into Education Services, K–Adult Schools, Business Services, Operations, and Human Resources.78 School enrollment in the District has fluctuated in the past, but based upon most recent WCCUSD data,79 enrollment in the 2006/07 school year was approximately 90 percent of the enrollment of the 1998/99 school year (a reduction from 33,795 to 30,781) and enrollment at the schools serving Richmond have declined 14.5 percent (from 11,378 to 9,734). In the 2006/07 school year, there were 7,243 K–12 students enrolled in the schools that serve the City of Richmond. Parks. The City of Richmond contains over 6,500 acres of parks and open space including local, regional, state, and national resources. Approximately 5,718.5 acres of the parkland are owned and operated by regional agencies and are located along the shoreline and in the East Bay hills. There are several parks within the project vicinity. Sheridan Point Park is adjacent to the northwestern boundary of the project site; Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park and Lucretia Edwards Park lie east of the project site along the inside of the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor, Marina Park lies on the east side of the marina, and the Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline is located approximately 3 miles to the west of the project site by car. The Bay Area trail, outside the operational purview of the City of Richmond, lies immediately adjacent to the proposed project site.

Applicable 2003 PEIR Mitigation Measures The 2003 WTA PEIR included many impacts and mitigation measures that are either addressed in this document or are not applicable to this project. A table of impacts and mitigation measures from the PEIR is included as Table 1 of this document. For Public Services, no impacts were identified in the PEIR and are therefore not listed in Table 1.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: (i) Fire protection? As described in Section 3.XIV (Population/Housing), the proposed project would not result in a permanent increase of residents or employees within the City. The proposed ferry terminal would result in an intermittent population increase associated with passengers loading and unloading from vessels at

77 City of Richmond, General Plan: Education and Human Services (August 2011). 78 City of Richmond, General Plan: Education and Human Services (August 2011). 79 City of Richmond, General Plan: Education and Human Services (August 2011).

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 160 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XV Public Services the project site. RFD Station 67 at 1131 Cutting Boulevard would continue to provide fire protection to the project site. According to Fire Chief Michael Banks, RFD would have sufficient available capacity to provide fire protection services to the proposed project without an adverse effect to response times.80 Further, the proposed project would adhere to the requirements of the City’s fire code (and all other applicable state and federal fire safety regulations) in order to reduce the potential for fire-related hazards. No new or expanded fire protection facilities would be required and no impact would result.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (ii) Police protection? Currently, police protection for the project site is provided by the RPD. As described above, the proposed project would not result in substantial population or employment growth within the City. The incremental increase in demand for police services caused by the proposed project would be accommodated through existing RPD officers and facilities. Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to result in adverse impacts to RPD service levels, response times, or service ratio levels that would necessitate the construction of new facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, no impact would result.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (iii) Schools? As described in Section 3.XIV (Population/Housing), the proposed project would not result in an increase in residents or employees within the City. As such, the proposed project would not increase the number of students in the area served by WCCUSD. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on WCCUSD capacity.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (iv) Parks? Generally, an increase in demand for parks is associated with population growth within a given area. Because the proposed project would not result in permanent population growth within the City, it is unlikely that it would increase the citywide demand for parks and open space. However, it is possible that while passengers are waiting to load onto their vessel or launch their kayak, or after passengers have disembarked at the proposed ferry terminal, they could utilize the Sheridan Point Park adjacent to the project site. However, the proposed project would not require the construction of new park facilities to accommodate the passengers at the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less- than-significant impact on parks in the City.

80 Michael Banks, email communication with Fire Chief, City of Richmond Fire Department (September 18, 2012).

San Francisco Bay Area 161 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XVI Recreation May 2014

The proposed project would also include improvements to the Bay Trail in the vicinity of the project. The proposed project would extend the existing Bay Trail spur past Sheridan Point Park in a north/south direction, located along the shoreline between parking lots to the east and the Port of Richmond navigation channel to the west. The Bay Trail spur extension would include amenities such as benches, trash receptacles, signage, lighting, and landscaping per the standards outlined in the Bay Trail Design Guidelines. In addition, a turnaround at the terminus of the trail would be added and the trail would be accessible from the northwestern corner of Lot 2. As such, the proposed project would result in a small improvement to the overall recreational amenities in the area.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (v) Other public facilities? The Bay Trail travels along the eastern and southern perimeter of the Ford Peninsula and continues north along Harbour Way South. A Bay Trail spur continues along the southern perimeter of the Ford Peninsula to the east of Harbour Way South and terminates at Sheridan Point Park. The proposed project would ensure that queuing at the proposed ferry gate would not encroach on the existing Bay Trail circulation. However, to provide pedestrian access to gangway entrance, pedestrians would be required to cross an existing section of the Bay Trail. In order to avoid conflicts between trail users (especially faster moving users, such as cyclists) and ferry passengers, the segment of the trail near the vessel entrance would be marked with paint or decorative pavers and warning signs to indicate the pedestrian crossing. These features would be designed in coordination with BCDC and San Francisco Bay Trail Project staff. The proposed project would also include improvements to the Bay Trail in the vicinity of the project. The proposed project would extend the existing Bay Trail spur past Sheridan Point Park in a north/south direction, located along the shoreline between parking lots to the east and the Port of Richmond navigation channel to the west. The Bay Trail spur extension would include amenities such as benches, trash receptacles, signage, lighting, and landscaping per the standards outlined in the Bay Trail Design Guidelines. In addition, a turnaround at the terminus of the trail would be added and the trail would be accessible from the northwestern corner of Lot 2. Final design of the Bay Trail spur extension would require approval from BCDC. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would have no impact on the Bay Trail.

XVI. RECREATION

Setting81 According to the City of Richmond General Plan, Richmond has over 6,500 acres of parks and open space including local, regional, state, and national resources. Approximately 5,719 acres of this parkland are owned and operated by regional agencies and are located along the shoreline and in the East Bay Hills. The City owns approximately 250 acres of compact, neighborhood, and community parks, and 510 acres of open space clustered mostly in El Sobrante Valley, Point Richmond, and Point Molate.

81 City of Richmond, Richmond General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (August 2011).

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 162 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XVI Recreation

These areas also provide recreational linkages to regional trails. In addition to these parkland resources, Richmond has a network of trails and greenways; joint-use, private and community facilities; and a variety of recreational programs and services. There are a number of parks and trail systems in the vicinity of the project site, including Lucretia Edwards Park, Sheridan Point Park, Barbara & Jay Vincent Park, Shimada Friendship Park, and the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park. All of these parks are connected by the Bay Trail. These parks are further described below. ■ Sheridan Point Park is an approximately one-acre neighborhood park in the southwest corner of the Ford Peninsula. The park marks the current terminus of the off-street Bay Trail in the area and features benches, educational signage, and a place for fishing. This park is approximately 380 feet west of the project site. ■ Lucretia Edwards Park is an approximately two-acre neighborhood park in the southeast corner of the Ford Peninsula. The park features expansive fields, landscaping, educational signage, and benches. This park is approximately 0.2 mile east of the project site. ■ Barbara & Jay Vincent Park is an approximately six-acre neighborhood park in the Marina Bay neighborhood. The park features fields, landscaping, a lookout point, educational signage, benches, and play structures. This park is approximately 0.4 mile east of the project site, across the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor. ■ Shimada Friendship Park is an approximately three-acre neighborhood park in the Marina Bay neighborhood. This park is approximately 0.8 mile east of the project site, across the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor. ■ Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park serves to preserve and interpret the stories and historic properties from the World War II home front era. While the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park originated as a public art memorial, it is now made up of a collection of related industrial and community-based resources that were built to address wartime needs. The main portion of the park is located approximately 0.6 mile northeast of the project site. ■ San Francisco Bay Trail. The San Francisco Bay Trail is a planned 500-mile hiking and biking trail that will encircle San Francisco and San Pablo bays. Thirty miles of the Bay Trail have been completed within Richmond, including segments adjacent to the project site. The Richmond sections of the Bay Trail will ultimately run along the shoreline wherever physically feasible. The Bay Trail in the vicinity of the project site currently extends around the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor, the Ford Peninsula (including through Lucretia Edwards Park, the Craneway Pavilion wharf, and the project site), and continues along Harbour Way South in a north/south direction. In addition, a spur of the Bay Trail extends from Harbour Way South to Sheridan Point Park. ■ San Francisco Bay Water Trail. The San Francisco Water Trail is a proposed network of access sites (or “trailheads”) that will enable people using nonmotorized, small boats, or other beachable sailcraft to undertake single and multiple-day trips around San Francisco Bay. The Water Trail will include educational, stewardship, and outreach components.82 A kayak launch site, which will

82 State of California Coastal Conservancy, San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail, http://scc.ca.gov/2010/07/30/san- francisco-bay-area-water-trail/ (accessed August 30, 2012).

San Francisco Bay Area 163 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XVI Recreation May 2014

be part of the Water Trail, is currently located approximately 200 feet from the proposed ferry terminal and would be relocated as part of the proposed project.

Applicable 2003 PEIR Mitigation Measures The 2003 WTA PEIR included many impacts and mitigation measures that are either addressed in this document or are not applicable to this project. A table of impacts and mitigation measures from the PEIR is included as Table 1 of this document. For Recreation, no impacts were identified in the PEIR and are therefore not listed in Table 1.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: (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 accelerated?

The proposed project would include a ferry terminal at the Ford Peninsula and would provide service between Richmond and the Downtown San Francisco Ferry Terminal. The ferry service would begin as a commute-period only service and would likely only shuttle commuters, rather than recreationalists. It is unlikely that the patrons commuting from Richmond would use neighboring parks in the morning before their commute or in the afternoon after their commute. The only park that could be impacted by these commuters would be Sheridan Point Park, which is within 380 feet of the proposed terminal. Ferry passengers could wait for the incoming ferry at the benches within Sheridan Point Park. Commuters coming from San Francisco to work in the Ford Peninsula area are existing employees who could already use the area parks during their lunch hours and/or before or after work. As such, the new Richmond Ferry service would not increase park use due to these commuters. The proposed project would extend the Bay Trail spur past Sheridan Point Park in a north/south direction. However, by full buildout of the proposed project, ferry service could expand to include off-peak hours during weekdays and service on the weekend. As such, visitors from San Francisco could use the parks in the vicinity and the Bay Trail for recreational activities. Nonetheless, given the large number of parks in the area, and the amenities currently provided, it is unlikely that implementation of the proposed project would result in the substantial physical deterioration of City parks. In addition, the proposed project would extend the Bay Trail spur past Sheridan Point Park in a north/south direction providing additional recreation opportunities for potential new visitors. Relocation of the existing kayak launch ramp would ensure that kayak users are not impacted with implementation of the proposed project. As such, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact with regards to recreational facilities.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 164 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XVII Transportation/Traffic

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

The proposed project does not include new or expanded City of Richmond park facilities. The project would also not result in a substantial increase in the transient or permanent population at the project site or the in the City of Richmond requiring the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. However, the proposed project would extend the Bay Trail by approximately 400 feet in Sheridan Point Park. Currently, the Bay Trail, in the vicinity of the project site, travels around the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor, around the Ford Peninsula (including through Lucretia Edwards Park, the Craneway Pavilion wharf, and the project site), and ends as a spur at Sheridan Point Park. The proposed project would include improvements to the existing section of spur trail and extend the spur trail along the eastern portion of the Santa Fe Channel within the 200-foot shoreline band under the jurisdiction of BCDC. The trail would end at the currently occupied Port of Richmond property to the north of the project site. The Bay Trail extension under the proposed project would include the installation of minor paving, benches, educational signage, and other trail amenities. At least one of the existing eucalyptus trees would be removed for the installation of the extended Bay Trail. Nonetheless, the minor tree removal and installation of other trail amenities would not result in an adverse physical impact on the environment. As such, the extension of the Bay Trail would result in less-than-significant impacts.

XVII. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

Setting This section provides an assessment of existing conditions in the project area, including a description of the street and highway system, existing traffic conditions, operating conditions of the selected study intersections, transit service, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Roadway Network The project site would be served by Harbour Way South, Hall Avenue, and Marina Way. Regional access would be provided by Interstate 580 (I-580). Figure 16 (Existing Roadway Network) depicts the existing roadway network in the vicinity of the project site, as well as the intersections studied in this traffic analysis.

San Francisco Bay Area 165 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SAN PABLO

23rd St Castro St

HarbourWay RICHMOND

%&n RichmondOhio Pkwy Ave Cutting Blvd MarinaWay Carlson Blvd EL CERRITO Ú

Hall Ave Harbour Way Harbour

PROJECT SITE - Ferry Terminal ALBANY 580 !"c Aâ

CUTTING BLVD BERKELEY

B e r k

9 S. 23RD ST MARINA WY MARINA

NORTH

WRIGHT AVE

M A R I NA B A Y

P

K

W REGATTA BLVD Y HARBOUR WY

Marina Park REGATTA BLVD Santa Fe Channel Existing Public Boat Launch HALL AVE Port of Richmond Marina Bay Yacht Harbor

Ford Sheridan Assembly Point Park Building Lucretia Edwards Park Existing Kayak Launch Rosie the Riveter Visitor Center

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Existing Gangway and Float Existing Transient Craneway Boat Berthing Source: GIS ArcMap, basemap, 2012; Atkins, 2012. Pavilion NOT TO SCALE 100003254 | Figure 16 Existing Roadway Network Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XVII Transportation/Traffic

Regional Access I-580 is a six lane freeway that travels through most of the City of Richmond, providing the primary regional access to the project site. It is a major east/west highway in the San Francisco Bay Area, extending from San Rafael in Marin County to the west, traversing the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, serving the City of Oakland, and extending through the Tri-Valley, over the Altamont Pass, and terminating at I-5 in the City of Tracy. In the vicinity of the project site, I-580 has an eastbound on-ramp at the intersection of Harbour Way South and Hoffman Boulevard to the northwest of the project site, an eastbound off-ramp, westbound on-ramp, and westbound off-ramp at Cutting Boulevard further northwest, and on and off ramps in both directions at Marina Bay Parkway to the northeast. Other ramps at Harbour Way South do not provide access to or from south of I-580.

Local Access Cutting Boulevard is a four-lane east/west arterial that extends from the residential area of Point Richmond, through the City of Richmond, and into the City of El Cerrito, providing access to the El Cerrito Del Norte Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station and terminating in the El Cerrito Hills residential area. The roadway provides full access to I-580 with the exception of an eastbound on-ramp, and crosses 23rd Street just north of the Marina Bay Parkway/23rd Street/I-580 interchange. Harbour Way South is a four lane north/south arterial that extends from just west of the project site, into the City of Richmond, terminating about a mile northwest of Downtown Richmond. The roadway provides full access to I-580 with the exception of an eastbound off-ramp. Vehicles coming to the project site, however, cannot exit I-580 from the east at Harbour Way South and turn south; they must exit at Cutting Boulevard. Marina Way is a four-lane north/south arterial south of Cutting Boulevard and in the project site vicinity, and a two lane arterial north of Cutting Boulevard. The roadway is east of the project site, extending from the tip of the Ford Peninsula to Downtown Richmond to the north, terminating at Barrett Avenue near the Richmond BART station. Regatta Boulevard is a four-lane east/west arterial that extends from Marina Way, about 0.6 mile northeast of the project site, through some of the Richmond Marina residential developments, to Marina Bay Parkway. East of Marina Bay Parkway it becomes a smaller, two lane road through industrial areas, ultimately reaching a full interchange with I-580 on the east side of Richmond. Marina Bay Parkway is a four-lane north/south arterial that extends from the Richmond Marina residential development area to a full interchange with I-580. North of the interchange, the roadway becomes 23rd Street, and provides access to Downtown Richmond, eventually terminating at San Pablo Avenue 3 miles to the north. Hall Avenue is a two-lane east/west collector, approximately 0.25 mile in length that joins Harbour Way South and Marina Way across the Ford Peninsula north of the Ford Assembly Building. Hoffman Boulevard is a four-lane northwest/southeast collector that serves primarily as a frontage road to join Cutting Boulevard with Harbour Way South and provide access to the I-580 eastbound on-ramp at Harbour Way.

San Francisco Bay Area 167 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XVII Transportation/Traffic May 2014

Wright Avenue is a two-lane east/west collector that joins and Marina Way just south of I-580. It also accesses industrial areas to the west of Harbour Way South and to the east of Marina Way.

Congestion Management Program Network Designated Roadways There are several roadways within the vicinity of the project site that are included in the Contra Costa County Congestion Management Program (CMP) network. I-580 is a state highway included in the CMP network, Cutting Boulevard between I-580 and San Pablo Avenue is designated as a principal arterial, and San Pablo Avenue is also a principal arterial. Richmond Parkway, Garrard Boulevard, 23rd Avenue, and Runmill Boulevard are all designated as Routes of Regional Significance in the CMP network.

Transit

AC Transit AC Transit operates in thirteen cities and adjacent unincorporated areas in Alameda and Contra Costa counties and both provides local and transbay bus and shuttle services. Nine of AC Transit’s bus lines service the City of Richmond. However, of these nine lines, only one, Line 74, serves the project site. Line 74 is a local route that originates at the project site and runs to the Orinda BART station via the Richmond BART station, Contra Costa College and San Pablo Dam Road. On weekends, half of the trips serve and terminate at the Hilltop Mall, while the other half continue to Orinda BART. Some trips operate to the Richmond Marina. This route operates weekday on approximately 30-minute headways from 5:15 AM until 9:30 PM and on weekends from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM.

BART BART is a heavy rail transit system that currently serves three four Bay Area counties. The Richmond BART station at 1700 Nevin Way in Richmond is closest to the project site and is approximately 2.5 miles north of the project site. The station is served by the AC Transit (including Line 74), Golden Gate Transit, and Amtrak Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin trains. The El Cerrito del Norte BART station at 6400 Cutting Boulevard is approximately 3.5 miles east of the project site. The El Cerrito del Norte BART is also served by AC Transit. Both BART stations are served by the Millbrae/Daly City- Richmond Line and the Fremont-Richmond Line. BART operates from 4 AM to midnight on weekdays (15- minute headways), from 6:00 AM to midnight on Saturdays (20-minute headways), and from 8:00 AM to midnight on Sundays (15-minute headways).

Amtrak Amtrak’s Capitol Corridor is an inter-regional train service, linking San Jose, Santa Clara, Fremont, Hayward, Oakland (Oakland Coliseum and Jack London Square), Berkeley, Richmond, Martinez, Suisun- Fairfield, and Davis to Sacramento and Roseville. The service provides fifteen trains per day per direction on weekdays and eleven trains per day per direction on weekends. The Richmond Amtrak station is adjacent to the Richmond BART station. Amtrak’s San Joaquin is an inter-regional train service linking the Bay Area (Oakland, Emeryville, Richmond, Martinez, and Antioch) with Sacramento and the cities of the Central Valley. The service provides four trains per day per direction (weekdays and weekends) that include stops at the Richmond Amtrak station adjacent to the Richmond BART station.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 168 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XVII Transportation/Traffic

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities The San Francisco Bay Trail (administered by the Association of Bay Area Governments [ABAG]) is a planned 500-mile hiking and biking trail that will encircle San Francisco and San Pablo bays. Thirty miles of the Bay Trail have been completed within Richmond, including segments adjacent to the project site. The Richmond sections of the Bay Trail will ultimately run along the shoreline wherever physically feasible. The Bay Trail in the vicinity of the project site currently extends around the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor, the Ford Peninsula (including through Lucretia Edwards Park, the Craneway Pavilion wharf, and the project site), and continues along Harbour Way South in a north/south direction. In addition, a spur of the Bay Trail extends from Harbour Way South to Sheridan Point Park. The Point Isabel Trail runs along Regatta Boulevard north of the project site and connects to the Bay Trail approximately 1 mile east of the project site. A westward Class II bicycle connection to Garrard Boulevard also exists from the Wright Avenue/Marina Way Boulevard intersection westward, along the combination of Wright Avenue, Hoffman Boulevard, and finally Cutting Boulevard to Garrard Boulevard. Most roadways in the City of Richmond provide sidewalks on both sides of the street with signals and crosswalks at signalized intersections to accommodate pedestrian circulation. Almost all streets in the project vicinity have adequate pedestrian facilities. Pedestrian access and connectivity is restricted on the northern end of the project vicinity as I-580 allows limited crossings on narrow sidewalks.

Study Intersections Operations at the following nine study intersections were evaluated as part of this traffic analysis: 1. Cutting Boulevard/Marina Way 2. Harbour Way South/Wright Avenue 3. Marina Way/Wright Avenue 4. Marina Bay Parkway/I-580 Westbound Ramps 5. Marina Bay Parkway/I-580 Eastbound Ramps 6. Marina Way/Regatta Boulevard 7. Marina Bay Parkway/Regatta Boulevard 8. Harbour Way South/Hall Avenue 9. Marina Way/Hall Avenue All intersections except intersections 2, 6, 8, and 9 are currently signalized. Figure 17 (Study Intersections) shows the study intersections.

San Francisco Bay Area 169 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 Cutting Blvd/Marina Wy 2 Wright Ave/Harbour Wy 3 Wright Ave/Marina Wy 4 I-580 WB On-Ramp/S 23rd St S 23RD ST MARINA WY MARINA WY HARBOUR WY

CUTTING BLVD WRIGHT AVE WRIGHT AVE I-580 WB ON-RAMP

5 I-580 EB On-Ramp/S 23rd St 6 Regatta Blvd/Marina Wy 7 Regatta Blvd/Marina Bay Pkwy 8 Hall Ave/Harbour Wy S 23RD ST MARINA WY HARBOUR WY MARINA BAY PKWY

I-580 EB ON-RAMP REGATTA BLVD REGATTA BLVD HALL AVE

9 Hall Ave/Marina Wy 1 CUTTING BLVD MARINA WY S. 23RD ST HALL AVE

MARINA WY MARINA 4 580 WRIGHT AVE 2 3 5 M A R IN LEGEND A B A # Y Study Intersections P K

Stop Signal W Traffic Signal 6 REGATTA BLVD Y XX AM Volumes HARBOUR WY (XX) PM Volumes 7

REGATTA BLVD

8 HALL AVE 9

PROJECT AREA Richmond Ferry Terminal Project

Source: GIS ArcMap, basemap, 2012; Atkins, 2012. NOT TO SCALE 100003254 | Figure 17 Study Intersections Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XVII Transportation/Traffic

Railroads The project site is surrounded by train tracks and rail facilities that serve the Port of Richmond. The Burlington-Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and Richmond Pacific Railroad (RPRR) operate within the project vicinity on railroads owned by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR). RPRR operates small one to three-car trains and blocks road crossings intermittently for short periods of time. BNSF operates longer trains that block road crossings for extended periods of time. According to an agreement between the City of Richmond and BNSF, trains are not permitted to continuously block crossings for longer than 10 minutes unless they are continuously moving through the crossing in the same direction or if no vehicle or pedestrian is waiting at the crossing. Of the study intersections, intersections 1, 2, 6, and 9 are subject to train blockages. Table 22 (Inventory of At-Grade Rail Crossing) lists the various at-grade crossings along with their operating characteristics. Train blockages at these crossings during peak hours occur infrequently and cause brief queues (less than 10 vehicles) that do not back up to upstream intersections. Operations during the peak hour are minimally impacted due to train crossings.

Table 22 Inventory of At-Grade Rail Crossing Crossing Location Owner Operator Daily Frequency Maximum Authorized Speed Usage Switching—14 Marina Bay Parkway UPRR RPRR/BNSF Daily Through—18 5 to 10 mph Freight Total—32 Switching—0 Marina Way BNSF BNSF Daily Through—10 1 to 10 mph Freight (north of Regatta Boulevard) Total—10 Switching—0 Harbour Way South BNSF BNSF Daily Through—10 1 to 10 mph Freight at Wright Avenue Total—10

Harbour Way South Switching—14 near Hall Avenue UPRR RPRR Daily Through—8 1 to 10 mph Freight (Adjacent 6-track switch yard) Total—22 SOURCE: Richmond Grade Separation Feasibility Study prepared by BKF for the City of Richmond, April 2006.

Existing Level of Service To measure and describe the operating conditions of intersections, a rating system called level of service (LOS) is commonly used. The LOS is a qualitative description of the performance of an intersection based on the average delay per vehicle. Intersection levels of service range from LOS A, which indicates free flow or excellent conditions with short delays, to LOS F, which indicates congested or overloaded conditions with extremely long delays. LOS A through LOS D is considered excellent to satisfactory service levels, LOS E is undesirable, and LOS F conditions are representative of gridlock. The study intersections, both signalized and unsignalized, have been evaluated using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2010 methodology.

San Francisco Bay Area 171 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XVII Transportation/Traffic May 2014

Signalized Intersections For signalized intersections, HCM methodology determines the capacity of each lane group approaching the intersection. The LOS is then defined based on average delay (in seconds per vehicle) for the various movements at the intersection. A combined weighted average delay and LOS are presented for the intersection. Table 23 (Level of Service Criteria—Signalized Intersections Average Seconds of Delay) presents the LOS criteria for signalized intersections.

Table 23 Level of Service Criteria—Signalized Intersections Average Seconds of Delay Level of Service HCM Signalized Intersection Delay (sec/veh) A 0.0–10.0 B > 10–20 C > 20–35 D > 35–55 E > 55–80 F > 80 SOURCE: TRB, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209 (2010).

Unsignalized Intersections For unsignalized (all-way stop-controlled and side-street stop-controlled) intersections, the method outlined in Transportation Research Board 2010 HCM Chapter 17 was used. This method estimates the worst-approach total delay (measured in seconds per vehicle) experienced by motorists traveling through an intersection. Total delay is defined as the amount of time required for a driver to stop at the back of the queue, move to the first-in-queue position, and depart from the queue into the intersection. Table 24 (Level of Service Criteria—Unsignalized Intersections Average Seconds of Delay) summarizes the relationship between the delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. Synchro software was used to calculate HCM-based LOS for unsignalized intersections.

Table 24 Level of Service Criteria—Unsignalized Intersections Average Seconds of Delay Level of Service Signalized Intersection Delay (sec/veh) A 0.0–10.0 B > 10–15 C > 15–25 D > 25–35 E > 35–50 F > 50 SOURCE: TRB, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209 (2010).

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 172 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XVII Transportation/Traffic

Traffic counts used for the analysis were collected in May 2012. Peak-period intersection turning movement counts were conducted from 7:00 to 9:00 AM and from 4:00 to 6:00 PM. Intersection operations were evaluated for the AM and PM peak hours in the overall project vicinity, determined to be between 7:00 and 8:00 AM, and between 4:00 and 5:00 PM. Intersection operations were evaluated for the weekday AM and PM peak hours at the nine study intersections. Traffic volumes under Existing (2012) No Project Conditions are depicted on Figure 18 (Existing [2012] No Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes). The LOS conditions at the nine study intersections under Existing (2012) No Project Conditions shown in Table 25 (Intersection Operations for Existing [2012] No Project Conditions). As shown, all study intersections operate at LOS A or B during both AM and PM peak hours. The West Contra Costa County Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) defines acceptable intersection operations as LOS D or better. Based on this criterion, no existing intersections operate at a deficiency. These acceptable operations are confirmed by field observations.

Table 25 Intersection Operations for Existing [2012] No Project Conditions AM PM No. Intersection Intersection Control V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS 1 Cutting Blvd/Marina Waya Signal 0.25 5.2 A 0.26 5.4 A 2 Harbour Way South/Wright Avea Side-Street Stopb 0.04 11.5 B 0.13 12.7 B 3 Marina Way/Wright Ave Signal 0.07 6.9 A 0.09 6 A 4 Marina Bay Pkwy/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.35 11.9 B 0.32 17.8 B 5 Marina Bay Pkwy/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.21 6.5 A 0.32 10.6 B 6 Marina Way/Regatta Blvda Side-Street Stopb 0.02 8.8 A 0.01 10.4 B 7 Marina Bay Pkwy/Regatta Blvd Signal 0.25 18.5 B 0.27 16.6 B 8 Harbour Way South/Hall Ave Side-Street Stopb 0.04 9.2 A 0.06 9.4 A 9 Marina Way/Hall Avea Side-Street Stopb 0.06 8.8 A 0.04 10 B SOURCE: Atkins (2012). V/C = volume-to-capacity ratio a. Intersection evaluation does not consider train blockages. b. For side-street stop-controlled intersections, delays for worst movement and average intersection delay are shown: intersection average (worst movement).

San Francisco Bay Area 173 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 CUTTING BLVD

NOT TO SCALE S. 23RD ST

MARINA WY MARINA 4 580 WRIGHT AVE 2 3 5 M A R IN A B A Y

P K

W 6 REGATTA BLVD Y HARBOUR WY 7

REGATTA BLVD 1 Cutting Blvd/Marina Wy HALL AVE (99) 100 9

(53) 53 (95) 95 8 MARINA WY 74 (85) 254 (246) LEGEND 80 (34) # Study Intersections CUTTING BLVD Stop Signal PROJECT AREA (62) 54 Traffic Signal

(280) 213 35 (52) 33 (53) 19 (103) (38) 52 XX AM Volumes (XX) PM Volumes

2 Wright Ave/Harbour Wy 3 Wright Ave/Marina Wy 4 I-580 WB On-Ramp/S 23rd St 5 I-580 EB On-Ramp/S 23rd St (243) 574 (440) 493 (60) 115 (62) 248 (24) 22 (37) 55 (5) 14 (4) 27 (422) 808 S 23RD ST S 23RD ST

26 (83) (85) 248 MARINA WY 148 (622) HARBOUR WY 4 (1) 13 (3) 2 (3) 6 (9) 0 (0) 14 (8) 273 (311)

I-580 WB ON-RAMP WRIGHT AVE WRIGHT AVE I-580 EB ON-RAMP

(12) 4

13 (40) 50 (114) 5 (13) I-580 WB OFF-RAMP 2 (2) 47 (271) 4 (1) (12) 6 I-580 EB OFF-RAMP (38) 17 240 (353) 407 (458)

(5) 1 (20) 33 206 (490) 96 (112) (208) 66 (2) 1 (0) 0 (109) 89

6 Regatta Blvd/Marina Wy 7 Regatta Blvd/Marina Bay Pkwy 8 Hall Ave/Harbour Wy 9 Hall Ave/Marina Wy

MARINA BAY PKWY (25) 149 (58) 79 (32) 28 (15) 23 (18) 18 (32) 29

(294) 101 (22) 5

(0) 5 (162) 134

(4) 33 MARINA WY 37 (28) MARINA WY 1 (1) HARBOUR WY 2 (0) 15 (38) 0 (2) 14 (10) 20 (11) 0 (1) 17 (17) 3 (11) REGATTA BLVD 10 (41) HALL AVE HALL AVE

REGATTA BLVD 22 (96) 7 (25) 10 (137) 8 (14) (6) 0 (18) 13 6 (31) 9 (57) 0 (0) (127) 145 (1) 2 (1) 0 56 (6) 301 (50) (11) 18 25 (18) (7) 38 (0) 1 (19) 9 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project

Source: GIS ArcMap, basemap, 2012; Atkins, 2012. 100003254 | Figure 18 Existing [2012] No Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XVII Transportation/Traffic

Standards of Significance for Intersection Operations In order to evaluate the proposed project’s affect on intersection LOS, performance criteria must be established. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for the maintenance and operation of state routes and highways. Within the project area, I-580 and associated on and off ramps are Caltrans facilities. Caltrans maintains a volume monitoring program and reviews local agencies’ planning documents to assist in its forecasting of future volumes and congestion points. Caltrans’ Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impacts Studies (December 2002) is intended to provide a consistent basis for evaluating traffic impacts on state facilities. According to the Guide “Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS C and LOS D on State highway facilities; however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS”. In addition, Caltrans states that existing LOS should be maintained for existing state highway facilities operating below the target LOS. Currently two study intersections (4 and 5) contain ramp terminal legs. All study intersections currently operate below this threshold; therefore, the target LOS for these intersections is at a transition between LOS C and LOS D. All nine of the study intersections evaluated in this IS are located in the City of Richmond. The City of Richmond General Plan discusses the establishment of LOS performance standards for two classifications of routes: Routes of Regional Significance and Basic Routes. Three of the project study intersections contain at least one leg on a Route of Regional Significance (1, 4, and 5). LOS criteria for Routes of Regional Significance within the study area are determined by the West Contra Costa County Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC). All nine of the project study intersections have at least one leg on a Basic Route. The following standards apply to signalized intersections on Basic Routes: ■ Rural—LOS low C (V/C ratio 0.70 to 0.74) ■ Semi-Rural—LOS high C (V/C ratio 0.75 to 0.79) ■ Suburban– LOS low D (V/C ratio 0.80 to 0.84) ■ Urban—LOS high D (V/C ratio 0.85 to 0.89) ■ Central Business District—LOS low E (V/C ratio 0.90 to 0.94) All nine of the project study intersections fall within the suburban area of Richmond. Therefore, the WCCTAC standard is that all intersections operate with a V/C ratio of 0.84 or better. As shown previously in Table 25, during the weekday AM and PM peak hour, all the study intersections on routes of regional significance operate at acceptable LOS under Existing (2012) No Project Conditions. Similarly, all study intersections function at an acceptable volume-to-capacity ratio based on these various criteria presented above.

Applicable 2003 PEIR Mitigation Measures The 2003 WTA PEIR included many impacts and mitigation measures that are either addressed in this document or are not applicable to this project. A table of impacts and mitigation measures from the PEIR is included as Table 1 of this document. The following 2003 PEIR mitigation measures would be applicable to Land Use and Planning for the proposed project: Mitigation T-1.1, Mitigation T-2.1, and Mitigation T-2.2.

San Francisco Bay Area 175 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XVII Transportation/Traffic May 2014

Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: (a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and nonmotorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including, but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

The following analysis considers the proposed project’s effect on intersection operating conditions under Existing (2012) Conditions and under Cumulative (2035) Conditions83. Although project trips for opening day conditions are projected to be lower than full build-out conditions due to a lower initial level of ferry service, the existing plus project analysis is conducted for full build-out conditions to obtain a conservative analysis of project impacts.

Trip Generation At build-out, the proposed project is projected to generate a total of 1,715 daily trips (inbound and outbound) during the average weekday as shown in Table 26 (Trip Generation). During the AM peak hour, the proposed project would generate approximately 431 person trips as a result of the five vessel trips. Of these trips, 414 are inbound and 17 are outbound trips. During the PM peak hour, the proposed project would generate approximately 431 PM peak hour person trips as a result of the five vessel trips. Of these 431 PM peak hour trips, 17 would be inbound and 414 would be outbound.

Table 26 Trip Generation Vessel Round Trips Ridership (Person Trips) Time No. of Vessel Trips Total Access (In) Egress (Out) Weekday Ridership (Round Trip) 17 1,715 1,616 99 AM Peak Perioda — 647 621 26 PM Peak Perioda — 647 26 621 Off Peak Period (Round Trip) — 421 374 47 AM Peak Hourb 5 431 414 17 PM Peak Hourb 5 431 17 414 SOURCE: WETA, Ridership demand forecast is from WETA Ridership 2035 Model Unconstrained Scenario (2012). a. AM (PM) Peak Period to daily peak period factor is assumed to be 0.50. b. AM (PM) Peak Hour ridership estimated at 66.64 percent of peak period ridership based on ridership counts from 2010 for the Downtown San Francisco Ferry Terminal; SOURCE: Downtown San Francisco Ferry Terminal Expansion Project Report, Appendix G, p. 5.

83 While the analysis was conducted in 2012, the existing land uses and conditions on the project vicinity have been relatively stable during the last five years. No change in existing conditions has been noted in that time.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 176 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XVII Transportation/Traffic

The person trips shown in Table 26 were further assigned to various modes of travel to obtain project- related demand for auto, bicycle, and pedestrian (walk and transit based trips) modes. Percentage of Project trips by various modes of travel are shown in Table 27 (Travel Mode Split).

Table 27 Travel Mode Split Mode Mode Percent AM Person Trips PM Person Trips Autoa 79% 384 (256 vehicle trips) 384 (256 vehicle trips) Transit 5% 26 26 Walk 15% 17 22 Bicycleb 1% 4 4 Total 100% 431 436 SOURCE: WETA, Ridership demand forecast is from WETA Ridership 2035 Model Unconstrained Scenario (2012). a. Assumes an occupancy rate of 1.5 when converting to vehicle trips. b. The WETA ridership model grouped walking and biking in one category; i.e., nonmotorized. The ratio of walkers to bicyclists was estimated at 91% to 9%, based on passenger survey data collected in 2011 for WETA water transit services into the ferry Terminal.

Trip Distribution Trips generated by the project were distributed to the study network based on assumptions in the Richmond South Shoreline project and the assumptions for the Westshore Marina Project (prepared by Dowling Associates). Trip distribution rates used for this study are shown in Table 28 (Project Trip Distribution). Project trips assigned to study intersections as a result of the trip distribution percentages are shown in Figure 19 (Peak Hour Project Trips).

Table 28 Project Trip Distribution Gateway AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour I-580 West of First St 12% 11% I-580 East of Bayview Interchange 33% 35% Carlson Blvd South of Bayview Ave 7% 6% Cutting Blvd east of Carlson Blvd 24% 21% 23rd St north of Cutting Blvd 3% 2% Marina Way South north of Cutting Blvd 7% 8% Harbour Way South north of Cutting Blvd 10% 12% South of Regatta Blvd Residential 2% 2% Marina Way Residential 2% 3% Total 100% 100% SOURCE: Atkins (2012). Trip Distribution based on City of Richmond General Plan Travel Demand Model.

San Francisco Bay Area 177 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 CUTTING BLVD

NOT TO SCALE S. 23RD ST

MARINA WY MARINA 4 580 WRIGHT AVE 2 3 5 M A R IN A B A Y

P K

W 6 REGATTA BLVD Y HARBOUR WY 7

REGATTA BLVD 1 Cutting Blvd/Marina Wy 8 HALL AVE 9 (1) 18 (0) 0 (0) 0 MARINA WY 0 (0) 34 (1) LEGEND 34 (1) # Study Intersections CUTTING BLVD Stop Signal PROJECT AREA (5) 1 Traffic Signal

(15) 0 1 (0) 2 (15) 0 (44) (0) 0 XX AM Volumes (XX) PM Volumes

2 Wright Ave/Harbour Wy 3 Wright Ave/Marina Wy 4 I-580 WB On-Ramp/S 23rd St 5 I-580 EB On-Ramp/S 23rd St (4) 138 (0) 0 (1) 26 (1) 26 (3) 34 (0) 0 0 (0) S 23RD ST S 23RD ST MARINA WY 0 (0)

HARBOUR WY 0 (0) 0 (0) (4) 85 26 (1) 0 (0) (0) 0 0 (0) 0 (0) 53 (0)

I-580 WB ON-RAMP WRIGHT AVE WRIGHT AVE I-580 EB ON-RAMP

(20) 0

2 (0) 0 (39) 0 (0) I-580 WB OFF-RAMP 3 (0) 1 (74) 0 (20) (0) 0 I-580 EB OFF-RAMP

(0) 0 0 (0) 0 (91) 0 (40) (0) 0 (0) 0 0 (0) (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0

6 Regatta Blvd/Marina Wy 7 Regatta Blvd/Marina Bay Pkwy 8 Hall Ave/Harbour Wy 9 Hall Ave/Marina Wy

MARINA BAY PKWY (6) 186 (1) 26 (5) 60 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0

MARINA WY (4) 138 MARINA WY 0 (0) 0 (0) (0) 0 (0) 0 HARBOUR WY 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 160 (5) 186 (6) 0 (0) 0 (0) 18 (1) REGATTA BLVD 0 (0) HALL AVE HALL AVE

REGATTA BLVD 6 (94) 0 (149) 0 (40) 0 (0) 1 (50) 2 (0) 4 (39) 0 (110) (149) 0 (0) 0 (90) 1 (0) 0 (0) 0 0 (0) (16) 0 0 (0) 0 (0) (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project

Source: GIS ArcMap, basemap, 2012; Atkins, 2012. 100003254 | Figure 19 Peak Hour Project Trips Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XVII Transportation/Traffic

Existing (2012) Plus Project Conditions Trips generated by the proposed project were added to existing condition volumes and then compared with City of Richmond performance criteria for intersection LOS to determine potential impacts (refer to Setting, above, for further information regarding performance criteria). Figure 20 (Existing [2012] Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes with Parking Option 1) shows intersection volumes for Existing (2012) Plus Project Conditions with implementation of Parking Option 1. Figure 21 (Existing [2012] Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes with Parking Option 2) shows intersection volumes for Existing (2012) Plus Project Conditions with implementation of Parking Option 2. For the Harbour Way South/Hall Avenue intersection, implementation of Parking Option 2 would result in traffic volumes and intersection operations that are slightly different than Parking Option 1. Volumes and operations at the remaining intersections are identical between Parking Option 1 and Parking Option 2. Table 29 (Intersection Operations for Existing [2012] Conditions) summarizes the results of the intersection operations analysis for the weekday AM and PM peak hours under Existing (2012) Plus Project Conditions. As shown in Table 29, similar to the existing conditions analysis, under Existing (2012) Plus Project Conditions, all study intersections would function at LOS C or better with both Parking Option 1 and Parking Option 2. The addition of project-generated trips would not cause any of the intersections to exceed the applicable significance criteria. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than- significant impact on intersection operations under Existing (2012) Plus Project Conditions.

Cumulative (2035) No Project Conditions Cumulative (2035) background traffic volumes for weekday peak hours were developed by applying estimated growth factors. Growth factors were derived by interpolating volume information for existing and year 2035 conditions from the Richmond General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. The General Plan projections for year 2035 conditions include growth due to planned projects in the project area along with other areawide growth. Table 30 (Intersection Operations for Cumulative [2035] No Project Conditions) presents the traffic volumes for the weekday AM and PM peak hour at all study intersections under Cumulative (2035) No Project Conditions. Anticipated traffic growth between existing and 2035 year conditions is projected to result in substantial increases in traffic volume along Harbour Way South and Marina Way. Similarly, Cutting Boulevard is projected to experience approximately 48 percent growth in traffic volumes. Although I-580 and Marina Bay Parkway would experience 28 percent and 15 percent growth respectively, a growth rate of 28 percent was assumed for both of these corridors to yield a conservative analysis.

San Francisco Bay Area 179 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 CUTTING BLVD

NOT TO SCALE S. 23RD ST

MARINA WY MARINA 4 580 WRIGHT AVE 2 3 5 M A R IN A B A Y

P K

W 6 REGATTA BLVD Y HARBOUR WY 7

REGATTA BLVD 1 Cutting Blvd/Marina Wy HALL AVE (99) 100 9

(54) 71 (95) 95 8 MARINA WY 74 (85) 288 (247) LEGEND 114 (35) # Study Intersections CUTTING BLVD Stop Signal PROJECT AREA (67) 55 Traffic Signal

(295) 213 36 (52) 35 (68) 19 (147) (38) 52 XX AM Volumes (XX) PM Volumes

2 Wright Ave/Harbour Wy 3 Wright Ave/Marina Wy 4 I-580 WB On-Ramp/S 23rd St 5 I-580 EB On-Ramp/S 23rd St (243) 574 (444) 631 (61) 141 (65) 282 (25) 48 (37) 55 (5) 14 (4) 27 (426) 893 S 23RD ST S 23RD ST

26 (83) (85) 248 MARINA WY 148 (622) HARBOUR WY 4 (1) 13 (3) 28 (4) 6 (9) 0 (0) 14 (8) 326 (311)

I-580 WB ON-RAMP WRIGHT AVE WRIGHT AVE I-580 EB ON-RAMP

(32) 4

15 (40) 50 (153) 5 (13) I-580 WB OFF-RAMP 5 (2) 48 (345) 4 (21) (12) 6 I-580 EB OFF-RAMP (38) 17 240 (393) 408 (508)

(5) 1 (20) 33 206 (530) 96 (112) (0) 65 (2) 1 (208) 0 (109) 89

6 Regatta Blvd/Marina Wy 7 Regatta Blvd/Marina Bay Pkwy 8 Hall Ave/Harbour Wy 9 Hall Ave/Marina Wy

MARINA BAY PKWY (59) 105 (30) 209 (24) 204 (32) 28 (15) 23 (32) 29

(294) 101 (22) 5

(0) 5 (166) 272

(4) 33 MARINA WY 37 (28) MARINA WY 1 (1) HARBOUR WY 2 (0) 15 (38) 0 (2) 174 (15) 206 (17) 0 (1) 17 (17) 21 (12) REGATTA BLVD 10 (41) HALL AVE HALL AVE

REGATTA BLVD 6 (31) 9 (57) 0 (0) 16 (231) 8 (163) (6) 0 2 (0) 26 (135) 7 (135) (167) 13 (217) 146 (1) 2 (1) 0 56 (6) 301 (50) (27) 18 25 (18) (7) 38 (0) 1 (19) 9 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project

Source: GIS ArcMap, basemap, 2012; Atkins, 2012. 100003254 | Figure 20 Existing [2012] Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes with Parking Option 1 1 CUTTING BLVD

NOT TO SCALE S. 23RD ST

MARINA WY MARINA 4 580 WRIGHT AVE 2 3 5 M A R IN A B A Y

P K

W 6 REGATTA BLVD Y HARBOUR WY 7

REGATTA BLVD 1 Cutting Blvd/Marina Wy HALL AVE (99) 100 9

(54) 71 (95) 95 8 MARINA WY 74 (85) 288 (247) LEGEND 114 (35) # Study Intersections CUTTING BLVD Stop Signal PROJECT AREA (67) 55 Traffic Signal

(295) 213 36 (52) 35 (68) 19 (147) (38) 52 XX AM Volumes (XX) PM Volumes

2 Wright Ave/Harbour Wy 3 Wright Ave/Marina Wy 4 I-580 WB On-Ramp/S 23rd St 5 I-580 EB On-Ramp/S 23rd St (243) 574 (440) 546 (61) 141 (65) 282 (25) 48 (37) 55 (5) 14 (4) 27 (426) 893 S 23RD ST S 23RD ST

26 (83) (85) 248 MARINA WY 148 (622) HARBOUR WY 4 (1) 13 (3) 28 (4) 6 (9) 0 (0) 14 (8) 326 (311)

I-580 WB ON-RAMP WRIGHT AVE WRIGHT AVE I-580 EB ON-RAMP

(32) 4

15 (40) 50 (153) 5 (13) I-580 WB OFF-RAMP 5 (2) 48 (345) 4 (21) (12) 6 I-580 EB OFF-RAMP (38) 17 240 (353) 407 (549)

(5) 1 (20) 33 206 (490) 96 (112) (0) 65 (2) 1 (208) 0 (109) 89

6 Regatta Blvd/Marina Wy 7 Regatta Blvd/Marina Bay Pkwy 8 Hall Ave/Harbour Wy 9 Hall Ave/Marina Wy

MARINA BAY PKWY (59) 105 (28) 185 (24) 204 (32) 28 (17) 47 (32) 29

(294) 101 (22) 5

(0) 5 (166) 272

(4) 33 MARINA WY 37 (28) MARINA WY 1 (1) HARBOUR WY 2 (0) 17 (75) 0 (2) 174 (15) 133 (15) 0 (1) 17 (17) 21 (12) REGATTA BLVD 10 (41) HALL AVE HALL AVE

REGATTA BLVD 6 (31) 9 (57) 0 (0) 14 (193) 8 (103) (6) 0 2 (0) 26 (135) 7 (135) (167) 13 (217) 146 (1) 2 (1) 0 56 (6) 301 (50) (27) 18 25 (18) (7) 38 (0) 1 (19) 9 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project

Source: GIS ArcMap, basemap, 2012; Atkins, 2012. 100003254 | Figure 21 Existing [2012] Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes with Parking Option 2 SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XVII Transportation/Traffic May 2014

Table 29 Intersection Operations for Existing [2012] Conditions No Project Plus Project No. Intersection Intersection Control AM PM AM PM V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS 1 Cutting Blvd/Marina Waya Signal 0.25 5.2 A 0.26 5.4 A 0.29 5.4 A 0.27 5.5 A 2 Harbour Way South/Wright Avea Side-Street Stopb 0.04 11.5 B 0.13 12.7 B 0.09 11.8 B 0.15 13.8 B 3 Marina Way/Wright Ave Signal 0.07 6.9 A 0.09 6 A 0.09 6.1 A 0.12 6.6 A 4 Marina Bay Pkwy/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.35 11.9 B 0.32 17.8 B 0.39 12.6 B 0.32 17.5 B 5 Marina Bay Pkwy/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.21 6.5 A 0.32 10.6 B 0.23 6.1 A 0.34 9.7 A 6 Marina Way/Regatta Blvda Side-Street Stopb 0.02 8.8 A 0.01 10.4 B 0.24 10.6 B 0.06 10.8 B 7 Marina Bay Pkwy/Regatta Blvd Signal 0.25 18.5 B 0.27 16.6 B 0.27 18.6 B 0.34 20.5 C Parking Option 1—0.04 9.2 A 0.06 9.4 A 0.32 12 B 0.09 10.6 B 8 Harbour Way South/Hall Ave Side-Street Stopb Parking Option 2—0.04 9.2 A 0.06 9.4 A 0.30 11 B 0.07 10.4 B 9 Marina Way/Hall Avea Side-Street Stopb 0.06 8.8 A 0.04 10 B 0.06 8.8 A 0.26 11.7 B SOURCE: Atkins (2012). a. Intersection evaluation does not consider train blockages. b. For side-street stop-controlled intersections, delays for worst movement and average intersection delay are shown: intersection average (worst movement).

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 182 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XVII Transportation/Traffic

Table 30 Intersection Operations for Cumulative [2035] No Project Conditions AM PM No. Intersection Intersection Control V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS 1 Cutting Blvd/Marina Waya Signal 0.35 6.4 A 0.36 6.7 A 2 Harbour Way South/Wright Avea Side-Street Stopb 0.14 26.8 D 0.82 >100 F 3 Marina Way/Wright Ave Signal 0.1 6.8 A 0.11 6 A 4 Marina Bay Pkwy/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.45 12.9 B 0.4 17.2 B 5 Marina Bay Pkwy/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.27 7.2 A 0.42 11 B 6 Marina Way/Regatta Blvda Side-Street Stopb 0.06 9.9 A 0.03 16 C 7 Marina Bay Pkwy/Regatta Blvd Signal 0.33 19.9 B 0.35 18 B 8 Harbour Way South/Hall Ave Side-Street Stopb 0.18 12 B 0.27 13.3 B 9 Marina Way/Hall Avea Side-Street Stopb 0.2 10.1 B 0.2 15.8 C SOURCE: Atkins (2012). Intersections operating at unacceptable levels (LOS E or LOS F) are shown in bold. a. Intersection evaluation does not consider train blockages. b. For side-street stop-controlled intersections, delays for worst movement and average intersection delay are shown: intersection average (worst movement).

Cumulative Year (2035) Plus Project Conditions In order to determine the potential for the proposed project to contribute to future cumulative impacts, project-related traffic was added to cumulative (2035) traffic volumes. Figure 22 (Cumulative [2035] No Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes) shows intersection volumes for Cumulative (2035) No Project Conditions. Figure 23 (Cumulative [2035] Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes with Parking Option 1) shows intersection volumes for Cumulative (2035) Plus Project Conditions with implementation of Parking Option 1. Figure 24 (Cumulative [2035] Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes with Parking Option 2) shows intersection volumes for Cumulative (2035) Plus Project Conditions with implementation of Parking Option 2. Table 31 (Intersection Operations for Cumulative [2035] Conditions) summarizes the results of the intersection operations analysis for weekday peak hours under Cumulative (2035) Plus Project Conditions. As shown, similar to Cumulative (2035) No Project Conditions, the intersection analysis for Cumulative (2035) Plus Project Conditions indicates that all study intersections with the exception of the Harbour Way South/Wright Avenue intersection would function at acceptable levels (LOS D or better) for both Parking Option 1 and Parking Option 2.

San Francisco Bay Area 183 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 CUTTING BLVD

NOT TO SCALE S. 23RD ST

MARINA WY MARINA 4 580 WRIGHT AVE 2 3 5 M A R IN A B A Y

P K

W 6 REGATTA BLVD Y HARBOUR WY 7

REGATTA BLVD 1 Cutting Blvd/Marina Wy

(147) 148 (141) 141 HALL AVE 9

(78) 78 8 MARINA WY 110 (126) 376 (364) LEGEND 118 (50) # Study Intersections CUTTING BLVD Stop Signal PROJECT AREA (92) 80 Traffic Signal

(414) 315 52 (77) 49 (78) 28 (152) (56) 77 XX AM Volumes (XX) PM Volumes

2 Wright Ave/Harbour Wy 3 Wright Ave/Marina Wy 4 I-580 WB On-Ramp/S 23rd St 5 I-580 EB On-Ramp/S 23rd St (311) 735 (563) 631 (186) 744 (111) 165 (77) 147 (31) 28 (12) 81 (6) 18 (540) 1034 (109) 317 33 (106) S 23RD ST S 23RD ST MARINA WY 189 (796) HARBOUR WY 5 (1) 17 (4) 3 (4) 8 (12) 0 (0) 18 (10) 349 (398)

I-580 WB ON-RAMP WRIGHT AVE WRIGHT AVE I-580 EB ON-RAMP

(15) 5

17 (51) 64 (146) 6 (17) I-580 WB OFF-RAMP 141 (813) 12 (3) 6 (6) (15) 8 I-580 EB OFF-RAMP (49) 22 307 (452) 521 (586) 123 (143) (6) 1 (26) 42 264 (627) (0) 83 (3) 1 (266) 0 (140) 114

6 Regatta Blvd/Marina Wy 7 Regatta Blvd/Marina Bay Pkwy 8 Hall Ave/Harbour Wy 9 Hall Ave/Marina Wy

MARINA BAY PKWY (174) 237 (75) 447 (96) 84 (45) 69 (54) 54 (96) 87 (66) 15 (0) 15 (376) 129 (207) 172

(5) 42 MARINA WY 47 (36) MARINA WY 3 (3) HARBOUR WY 3 (0) 45 (114) 0 (6) 18 (13) 60 (33) 0 (3) 22 (22) 4 (14) REGATTA BLVD 13 (52) HALL AVE HALL AVE

REGATTA BLVD 30 (411) 18 (93) 27 (171) 0 (0) 24 (42) (8) 0 0 (0) 66 (288) 21 (75) (54) 39 (163) 186 (3) 6 (1) 0 72 (8) (14) 23 32 (23) 385 (192) (21) 114 (0) 1 (24) 12 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project

Source: GIS ArcMap, basemap, 2012; Atkins, 2012. 100003254 | Figure 22 Cumulative [2035] No Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes 1 CUTTING BLVD

NOT TO SCALE S. 23RD ST

MARINA WY MARINA 4 580 WRIGHT AVE 2 3 5 M A R IN A B A Y

P K

W 6 REGATTA BLVD Y HARBOUR WY 7

REGATTA BLVD 1 Cutting Blvd/Marina Wy

(147) 148 (141) 141 HALL AVE 9

(79) 96 8 MARINA WY 110 (126) 410 (365) LEGEND 152 (51) # Study Intersections CUTTING BLVD Stop Signal PROJECT AREA (97) 81 Traffic Signal

(429) 315 53 (77) 51 (93) 28 (196) (56) 77 XX AM Volumes (XX) PM Volumes

2 Wright Ave/Harbour Wy 3 Wright Ave/Marina Wy 4 I-580 WB On-Ramp/S 23rd St 5 I-580 EB On-Ramp/S 23rd St (311) 735 (567) 769 (189) 778 (111) 165 (78) 173 (32) 54 (12) 81 (6) 18 (544) 1119 (109) 317 33 (106) S 23RD ST S 23RD ST MARINA WY 189 (796) HARBOUR WY 5 (1) 17 (4) 29 (5) 8 (12) 0 (0) 18 (10) 402 (389)

I-580 WB ON-RAMP WRIGHT AVE WRIGHT AVE I-580 EB ON-RAMP

(35) 5

19 (51) 64 (185) 6 (17) I-580 WB OFF-RAMP

9 (6) 142 (887) 12 (23) (15) 8 I-580 EB OFF-RAMP (49) 22 307 (492) 522 (637) 123 (143) (6) 1 (26) 42 264 (667) (0) 83 (3) 1 (266) 0 (140) 114

6 Regatta Blvd/Marina Wy 7 Regatta Blvd/Marina Bay Pkwy 8 Hall Ave/Harbour Wy 9 Hall Ave/Marina Wy

MARINA BAY PKWY (175) 263 (80) 504 (60) 240 (96) 84 (45) 69 (96) 87 (66) 15 (0) 15 (376) 129 (211) 310

(5) 42 MARINA WY 47 (36) MARINA WY 3 (3) HARBOUR WY 3 (0) 45 (114) 0 (6) 178 (18) 246 (39) 0 (3) 22 (22) 22 (15) REGATTA BLVD 13 (52) HALL AVE HALL AVE

REGATTA BLVD 36 (505) 24 (191) 18 (93) 0 (0) 2 (0) 70 (327) 21 (185) (8) 0 (203) 39 27 (171) (253) 187 (3) 6 (1) 0 72 (8) 385 (192) (30) 23 32 (23) (21) 114 (0) 1 (24) 12 Richmond Ferry Terminal

Source: GIS ArcMap, basemap, 2012; Atkins, 2012. 100003254 | Figure 23 Cumulative [2035] Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes with Parking Option 1 1 CUTTING BLVD

NOT TO SCALE S. 23RD ST

MARINA WY MARINA 4 580 WRIGHT AVE 2 3 5 M A R IN A B A Y

P K

W 6 REGATTA BLVD Y HARBOUR WY 7

REGATTA BLVD 1 Cutting Blvd/Marina Wy

(147) 148 (141) 141 HALL AVE 9

(79) 96 8 MARINA WY 110 (126) 410 (365) LEGEND 152 (51) # Study Intersections CUTTING BLVD Stop Signal PROJECT AREA (97) 81 Traffic Signal

(429) 315 53 (77) 51 (93) 28 (196) (56) 77 XX AM Volumes (XX) PM Volumes

2 Wright Ave/Harbour Wy 3 Wright Ave/Marina Wy 4 I-580 WB On-Ramp/S 23rd St 5 I-580 EB On-Ramp/S 23rd St (311) 735 (567) 769 (189) 778 (111) 165 (78) 173 (32) 54 (12) 81 (6) 18 (544) 1119 (109) 317 33 (106) S 23RD ST S 23RD ST MARINA WY 189 (796) HARBOUR WY 5 (1) 17 (4) 29 (5) 8 (12) 0 (0) 18 (10) 402 (389)

I-580 WB ON-RAMP WRIGHT AVE WRIGHT AVE I-580 EB ON-RAMP

(35) 5

19 (51) 64 (185) 6 (17) I-580 WB OFF-RAMP

9 (6) 142 (887) 12 (23) (15) 8 I-580 EB OFF-RAMP (49) 22 307 (492) 522 (637) 123 (143) (6) 1 (26) 42 264 (667) (0) 83 (3) 1 (266) 0 (140) 114

6 Regatta Blvd/Marina Wy 7 Regatta Blvd/Marina Bay Pkwy 8 Hall Ave/Harbour Wy 9 Hall Ave/Marina Wy

MARINA BAY PKWY (175) 263 (78) 480 (60) 240 (96) 84 (47) 93 (96) 87 (66) 15 (0) 15 (376) 129 (211) 310

(5) 42 MARINA WY 47 (36) MARINA WY 3 (3) HARBOUR WY 3 (0) 47 (152) 0 (6) 178 (18) 171 (37) 0 (3) 22 (22) 22 (15) REGATTA BLVD 13 (52) HALL AVE HALL AVE

REGATTA BLVD 34 (467) 24 (131) 18 (93) 0 (0) 2 (0) 70 (327) 21 (185) (8) 0 (203) 39 27 (171) (253) 187 (3) 6 (1) 0 72 (8) 385 (192) (30) 23 32 (23) (21) 114 (0) 1 (24) 12 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project

Source: GIS ArcMap, basemap, 2012; Atkins, 2012. 100003254 | Figure 24 Cumulative [2035] Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Volumes with Parking Option 2 Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XVII Transportation/Traffic

Table 31 Intersection Operations for Cumulative [2035] Conditions No Project Plus Project No. Intersection Intersection Control AM PM AM PM V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS 1 Cutting Blvd/Marina Waya Signal 0.35 6.4 A 0.39 6.7 A 0.36 6.7 A 0.37 6.8 A 2 Harbour Way South/Wright Avea Side-Street Stopb 0.14 26.8 D 0.14 28 D 0.82 >100 F 1.11 >100 F 3 Marina Way/Wright Ave Signal 0.1 6.8 A 0.12 6.2 A 0.11 6 A 0.15 6.4 A 4 Marina Bay Pkwy/I-580 Westbound Ramps Signal 0.45 12.9 B 0.49 13.6 B 0.4 17.2 B 0.41 17.1 B 5 Marina Bay Pkwy/I-580 Eastbound Ramps Signal 0.27 7.2 A 0.32 7 A 0.42 11 B 0.44 11.1 B 6 Marina Way/Regatta Blvda Side-Street Stopb 0.06 9.9 A 0.39 15.2 C 0.03 16 C 0.03 16.9 C 7 Marina Bay Pkwy/Regatta Blvd Signal 0.33 19.9 B 0.35 20.3 C 0.35 18 B 0.42 22.1 C Parking Option 1—0.18 12 B 0.64 24.1 C 0.27 13.3 B 0.35 16.7 C 8 Harbour Way South/Hall Ave Side-Street Stopb Parking Option 2—0.18 12 B 0.64 24.1 C 0.25 13.1 B 0.40 16.5 C 9 Marina Way/Hall Avea Side-Street Stopb 0.2 10.1 B 0.2 10.1 B 0.2 15.8 C 0.67 32.9 D SOURCE: Atkins (2012). Intersections operating at unacceptable levels (LOS E or LOS F) are shown in bold. a. Intersection evaluation does not consider train blockages. b. For side-street stop-controlled intersections, delays for worst movement and average intersection delay are shown: intersection average (worst movement).

San Francisco Bay Area 187 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XVII Transportation/Traffic May 2014

Trips generated by the proposed project would result in minor increases to intersection delays at all study intersections. However, under Cumulative (2035) Plus Project Conditions project-generated trips would not cause any of the intersections to exceed the significance criteria except for the Harbour Way South/Wright Avenue intersection. This intersection is a side-street stop controlled intersection that is projected to operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour due to higher delays experienced for the eastbound stop-controlled approach under Cumulative (2035) No Project Conditions. The LOS F operation at this intersection is primarily due to ambient growth and not a result of project-related traffic. As shown in Table 32 (Project Contribution to Cumulative Conditions), project trips would constitute approximately 8 percent of the total intersection volumes for this intersection, but would not add any volumes to the critical movement (eastbound approach). The addition of project-related trips to this intersection would further increase intersection delay and would result in a potentially significant impact to intersection operations.

Table 32 Project Contribution to Cumulative Conditions Cumulative (2035) No Project Trips Cumulative (2035) Project Trips Percent Contribution Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM Harbour Way South/Wright Avenue 1,214 1,300 1,281 1,398 5% 7.5% SOURCE: Atkins (2012).

A preliminary review of peak hour volumes against signal warrant criteria listed in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices indicate that the intersection volume could potentially meet signal warrants for the Cumulative (2035) No Project Conditions. However, implementation of MM-TRA-1 would reduce intersection operation impacts to less than significant with mitigation. MM-TRA-1 The project sponsor shall contribute the fair share amount of funding towards the signalization of the Harbour Way South/Wright Avenue intersection. Signalization of this intersection would improve operating conditions to acceptable levels (LOS A). Details on the actual improvements and determination of WETA’s fair share contribution will be addressed in the Conditional Use Permit process and conditions of approval for the project.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

As described, above, there are several CMP network roadways within the project vicinity. The 2011 Contra Costa County CMP establishes two types of LOS standards for CMP network roadways: standards for freeway segments and standards for all signalized intersections on the CMP networks. For I-580 the CMP establishes a standard of LOS E for both the eastbound and westbound directions. For all signalized intersections on the CMP network that have an existing LOS E or F, the CMP standard is LOS E or F, respectively. For intersections with an existing LOS D or better, the CMP standard for

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 188 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XVII Transportation/Traffic intersection performance is LOS D or better. As identified in Table 24, the proposed project would add vehicle trips to I-580, Cutting Boulevard, 23rd Street, and Harbour Way South (north of Cutting Boulevard), all of which are included in the CMP network. However, under existing conditions, the intersections that would be affected by the proposed project on CMP network roadways operate at LOS B or better. As shown in Table 31 with implementation of the proposed project, all CMP network roadways affected by the proposed project would continue to operate at LOS B or better. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the 2011 Contra Costa County CMP, resulting in a less-than- significant impact with regard to applicable CMP LOS standards.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

The proposed project would establish ferry service between the City of Richmond and the City of San Francisco. The nearest airport is Oakland International Airport, which is located approximately 14 miles to the south of the project site. As such, the proposed project would not affect existing air traffic patterns in terms of air traffic levels or routes, resulting in no impact.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

As described in the Project Description, the proposed project would result in a new ferry terminal that would replace an existing passenger vessel facility and would include the implementation of landings, gangways, a passenger float, ramping system, and piles. Other project components include vehicle and bicycle parking and an access gate with informational signage. No new structures or roadway modifications are proposed. As such, the proposed project would not modify existing roadways leading to the project site or construct structures that could cause transportation hazards. Further, as described in Section 3.XI (Land Use/Planning), the proposed project would be compatible with existing land uses in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact with regard to increased traffic hazards.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) Result in inadequate emergency access? The project site is located along the southern end of the Ford Peninsula adjacent to the Craneway Pavilion in an area that currently has adequate emergency vehicle access. Emergency vehicle access to the project site would be from Harbour Way South. Because the proposed project would not result in the construction of new structures or modifications to the existing roadway network, it would not affect

San Francisco Bay Area 189 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XVII Transportation/Traffic May 2014 existing emergency vehicle access. All project facilities would comply with applicable federal and state design standards. The project design plans would be reviewed by the City Building Division for compliance with accessibility requirements and the City Fire Department would review project design plans to ensure compliance with requirements for adequacy of emergency vehicle access. In addition, one of the goals of the proposed project is to provide an alternative form of transit for commuter travel that would be able to continue to operate in the event of a natural or man-made emergency event or catastrophe that disables roads, other transit, bridges, or tunnels. Given the Bay Area’s susceptibility to earthquakes and proximity to water, the new ferry service would provide a viable transit option that would be expected to be able to continue operations after such an emergency event, unless severe unanticipated damage to the terminal float were to occur. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on emergency access to the project site.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

The proposed project would be compatible with regional policies to promote alternative modes of transportation by encouraging a bicycle and pedestrian-friendly environment. The proposed project would also be consistent with the City of Richmond Bicycle Master Plan and Pedestrian Plan. As described in the Project Description, the project site is connected to the Bay Trail. The Bay Trail travels along the eastern and southern perimeter of the Ford Peninsula and continues north along Harbour Way South. A Bay Trail spur continues along the southern perimeter of the Ford Peninsula to the east of Harbour Way South and terminates at Sheridan Point Park. The Bay Trail follows the edge of the Marina Bay Yacht Harbor, providing public access to the waterfront and a continuous off-street connection from the project site to Albany, Berkeley, and Emeryville.84 Additional bicycle facilities in the project area include along Harbour Way South (which is part of the on-street Bay Trail to the north of the project site), Marina Way South, and Hall Avenue. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of Harbour Way South. Further, the proposed project would extend the Bay Trail spur past Sheridan Point Park in a north/south direction, increasing bicycle access to the area than under existing conditions. The Bay Trail spur extension would include amenities such as benches, trash receptacles, signage, lighting, and landscaping per the standards outlined in the Bay Trail Design Guidelines. The design of the Bay Trail extension will be finalized in consultation with BCDC. In addition, passengers would be able to access the proposed terminal via the Ford Point AC Transit bus stop located approximately 180 feet north of the proposed terminal access gate. This bus stop is served by Bus Route 74 (Castro Ranch Road/Marina Bay), which provides direct access to the Richmond BART Station and the Richmond Amtrak/Capitol Corridor Station. The proposed project would provide passengers with an alternative transit option for travel between the City of Richmond (and surrounding Bay Area) and San Francisco. Further, the project site is well connected to outlying areas through the

84 Association of Bay Area Governments, San Francisco Bay Trail: East Bay, Map (2011).

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 190 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XVIII Utilities/Service Systems extensive Bay Trail pedestrian and bicycle network and existing public transit. In addition, improvements to project parking lots would include bicycle lockers. Finally, bicycles would be permitted on WETA vessels. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, resulting in no impact.

XVIII. UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS

Setting85 Water Supply. Water supply in the City of Richmond, including the project site, is provided by East Bay Municipal District (EBMUD). EBMUD’s water system serves approximately 1.3 million people in a 331- square-mile area extending from Crockett to the north, south to Hayward (encompassing the major cities of Oakland and Berkeley), east from San Francisco Bay to Walnut Creek and through the San Ramon Valley. Based on a historical average, more than 90 percent of the water delivered to EBMUD’s customers originates from the Mokelumne River watershed, and approximately 10 percent originates as runoff from the protected watershed lands in the East Bay Area. Groundwater is only utilized for some irrigation purposes. EBMUD has water rights that allow for delivery of up to a maximum of 325 million gallons per day (mgd) from the Mokelumne River, subject to the availability of Mokelumne River runoff and senior water rights of other users. Wastewater Treatment. The project area is within the Richmond Municipal Sewer District (RMSD), which operates a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) on the Point Richmond Peninsula. The WWTP has a dry-weather treatment capacity of 24 mgd and wet weather capacities for primary/secondary treatment and primary treatment of 24 mgd and 40 mgd, respectively. Dry weather influent flows received at the WWTP average approximately 7 mgd, with wet weather flows peaking at 56 mgd due to infiltration and inflow, approximately 16 mgd above the capacity of the WWTP. Solid Waste. The City is part of the West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (WCCIWMA). Richmond Sanitary Services, an affiliate of Republic Services, Inc., provides residential and commercial refuse, recycling, and green waste collection services in the City of Richmond. The Golden Bear Transfer Station is a transfer point for the City’s garbage before it is disposed in the Potrero Hills Landfill in Solano County. Potrero Hills Landfill is located at 3675 Potrero Hills Lane Suisun City and has a permitted capacity of 4,330 tons/day and a total permitted capacity of 21.5 million cubic yards. In 2006, the landfill received 520,828 tons of waste, with a peak daily tonnage of 2,342 tons and an average daily tonnage of 1,535 tons. The estimated life of the landfill is 10 years; however, to address the projected shortfall in landfill capacity, the landfill has submitted a permit application to expand the original capacity by approximately 61.6 million cubic yards for a total capacity of 83.1 million cubic yards, which would extend the capacity by approximately 35 years. The expansion project was approved in October 2010. Energy Supply. Energy resources consist of electricity and natural gas. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) is the primary electricity and natural gas supplier in Contra Costa County (including the City of

85 City of Richmond, Richmond General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (August 2011).

San Francisco Bay Area 191 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XVIII Utilities/Service Systems May 2014

Richmond) and provides electricity and natural gas to approximately 15 million people throughout a 70,000-square-mile service area in northern and central California. PG&E has 123,054 circuit miles of electric distribution lines and 18,610 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines, with 5.1 million electric customer accounts. Approximately 51 percent of the electrical generating sources that delivers power to the PG&E grid use fossil fuels. PG&E has 40,123 miles of natural gas distribution pipelines and 6,136 miles of transportation pipelines. PG&E has 4.2 million natural gas customer accounts. Natural gas is obtained from gas fields in northern California and other sources outside its service area. Stormwater Conveyance. There are existing storm drains that serve the project area along Harbour Way South and Hall Avenue. The project area contains a substantial amount of impervious surface cover in the form of concrete and asphalt.

Applicable 2003 PEIR Mitigation Measures The 2003 WTA PEIR included many impacts and mitigation measures that are either addressed in this document or are not applicable to this project. A table of impacts and mitigation measures from the PEIR is included as Table 1 of this document. The following 2003 PEIR mitigation measures would be applicable to Utilities and Service Systems for the proposed project: Mitigation E-2.1.

Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact

Would the project: (a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

The proposed project would include construction of a new ferry terminal to replace the existing gangway, passenger float, ramping system, and piles. No new structures would be added to the Ford Peninsula as a result of the proposed project. Passenger waiting areas would be located within the existing Craneway building and in a designated outdoor queuing area adjacent to the proposed gangway entry gate. Passengers would be allowed to use restrooms within the existing Craneway building. As such, the only form of wastewater generated by the proposed project would be associated with passenger use of the existing restrooms within the Craneway building. According to WETA’s ridership studies for 2015, approximately 700 to 800 riders per day would travel between the proposed Richmond Ferry Terminal and the Downtown San Francisco Ferry Terminal. By 2023, ridership potential is projected to increase to between 1,083 riders to 1,715 riders per day during regular commute hours. In addition, up to 172 riders per day could use the ferry service on weekends. This would equate to an annual ridership in 2035 of approximately 281,600 to 463,800 riders. Passengers would typically only be at the Richmond Ferry Terminal long enough to board the vessel and only a small percentage of total passengers would use the restroom facilities. As such, the proposed project would result in a negligible increase in wastewater generation at the project site and would not cause the WWTP to exceed the treatment requirements defined in its NPDES permit, administered by

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 192 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XVIII Utilities/Service Systems the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. Impacts related to wastewater treatment requirements would be less than significant.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

The WWTP serving the project site has a dry weather capacity of 24 mgd and wet weather capacities for primary/secondary treatment and primary treatment of 24 mgd and 40 mgd, respectively. Average dry weather flows received at the WWTP average approximately 7 mgd, with wet weather flows peaking at 56 mgd due to infiltration and inflow. As such, the WWTP has an available dry weather capacity of approximately 17 mgd. As described under Section 3.VIII(a) above, the proposed project would not result in construction of new structures at the project site. Further, the increase in passengers at the project site would be intermittent and transient. As such, only a small percentage of daily passengers would use the existing restroom facilities in the Craneway building. Therefore, the existing available capacity dry weather capacity at the WWTP would be sufficient to accommodate the negligible increase in wastewater discharge associated with the proposed project and no impact would result.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

The project site and surrounding area are served by existing storm drain lines within the right-of-way of Harbour Way South and Hall Avenue. Depending on the material used, the proposed project could result in a minor increase in impervious surface cover associated with the proposed Bay Trail improvements. This path would be located in the 100-foot BCDC shoreline between Lots 1 and 2 to the east and the Port of Richmond navigation channel to the west. The primary project components would occur within San Francisco Bay and would have no impact on the existing stormwater drainage network in the project area. The minor increase in impervious surface cover would not require the expansion of existing stormwater facilities or the construction of new facilities and no impact would result.

San Francisco Bay Area 193 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XVIII Utilities/Service Systems May 2014

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

The proposed project would not result in construction of new structures at the project site, or increase the size of landscaped areas. As described above, passengers would be allowed to use the existing restroom facilities in the Craneway building while waiting for the ferry. However, passengers represent an intermittent and transient population and it is likely that only a small percentage of passengers would use the restroom facilities on a daily basis. Therefore, the increase in water demand associated with toilet flushing and hand washing would be negligible. As such, the City’s existing water supply entitlements with EBMUD would be sufficient to accommodate the proposed project, resulting in a less-than- significant impact.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

As described under Section 3.VIII(b) above, the WWTP would have sufficient available capacity to accommodate the minor increase in wastewater discharge associated with the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to wastewater treatment capacity.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

The proposed project would not include any new landside structures. The terminal would be consist of an entry gate south of the plaza at the end of Harbour Way South, pile-supported landings, and a gangway leading to a passenger float. The proposed project would not involve uses that would generate substantial amounts of solid waste. Ticketing would be electronic and the proposed terminal would not require any permanent staff. A minor amount of solid waste would be generated by passenger use of the restrooms in the existing Craneway building. However, as described previously, passengers would be intermittent and would only remain in the designated passenger loading area long enough to board the ferry or to disembark and begin the next mode of transit. Only a small percentage of passengers would use the restroom facilities at the Craneway building and the increase in solid waste would be negligible. Therefore, the Potrero Hills Landfill would have sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the proposed project, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 194 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XIX Mandatory Findings of Significance

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

As identified above, operation of the proposed project would generate a negligible amount of solid waste. However, the proposed project would comply with General Plan Policy CN5.3 (Waste Reduction and Recycling) to ensure that the City continues to increase its overall diversion rate in accordance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act as well as with all pertinent federal and state statutes and regulations regarding the disposal of solid waste generated during construction and operation of the proposed project resulting in no impact.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (h) Require or result in the construction of new energy production or transmission facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause a significant environmental impact?

Electricity and natural gas is provided to the project site by PG&E. The proposed project would not result in the construction of new structures that would use electricity or natural gas. Light fixtures could be placed along the proposed gangway; however, the electricity demand of these lights would be negligible. Additionally, the construction of the proposed solar-array carport as a mitigation measure to GHG effects, previously mentioned in Section 3.II (Aesthetics), Section 3.IV (Air Quality), Section 3.IX (Hazards/Hazardous Materials), Section 3.X (Hydrology/Water Quality), and Section 3.XI (Land Use/Planning), would result in beneficial impacts to new energy production with respect to the proposed project. Therefore, as the proposed project would not require the expansion of existing or construction of new energy production or transmission facilities, but instead result in the production of renewable energy through the use of the solar-array carport, a beneficial impact would result.

XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Environmental Checklist and Discussion

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

With implementation of mitigation measures, the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. As discussed in Section 3.V (Biological Resources), with

San Francisco Bay Area 195 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form Draft SECTION XIX Mandatory Findings of Significance May 2014 implementation of mitigation measures, the proposed project would not adversely affect biological resources. The proposed project would not 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 plan or animal community, or reduce the number of rare plants or animals. There is one special-status wildlife species with the potential to occur within the project area, the California least tern; however, implementation of the proposed project would result in a negligible reduction of foraging habitat. Nonetheless, the proposed project could impact special-status fish species with moderate to high potential to occur within the project area. During construction of the proposed project, underwater noise and acoustic pressure resulting from pile driving could affect special-status fish species by deterring fish from the construction area and/or direct sub-lethal or lethal effects. In addition, construction of the proposed project would require minor dredging, which could release contaminates, bury organisms, create siltation, create entrapment opportunities, and alter the physical habitat. MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-4 would reduce these potentially significant impacts to less than significant. The proposed project could also impact riparian habitat, such as eelgrass, through the installation of the new gangway and vessel arrivals and departures. MM-BIO-5 would reduce impacts to eelgrass habitats by conducting additional surveys and implementing avoidance measures. In addition, nesting birds could be impacted by the proposed project due to the potential removal of trees and shrubs, and construction noise and vibration. These activities could disturb nesting birds and nursery sites. MM-BIO-6 would prevent construction-related impacts to nesting birds in violation of MBTA and CFGC. Finally, marine mammals and migrating fish species could be impacted as a result of underwater disturbances related to pile driving and construction dredging. MM-BIO-7, along with the aforementioned mitigation measures, would reduce pile driving and dredging-related impacts on marine mammals to less than significant. The proposed project would also not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. As discussed in Section 3.VI (Cultural Resources), the proposed project would not impact historical or paleontological resources. However, construction activities such as pile-driving, dredging, and minor grading could unearth unknown archeological resources and/or human remains. Implementation of MM-CUL-1 and MM-CUL-2 would reduce these impacts to less than significant. As such, the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, resulting in less-than-significant impacts with mitigation.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

WETA released the Richmond Waterfront TOD Plan in 2008, which discusses potential residential, commercial, and industrial buildout of a portion of the Ford Peninsula. Total buildout on the Ford

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 196 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 3 Environmental Checklist Form May 2014 SECTION XIX Mandatory Findings of Significance

Peninsula under the TOD Plan would add up to 251,000 sf of office uses, 88,000 sf of light industrial/office uses, 99,000 sf of light industrial uses, and 1,550 residential units.86 The proposed project is one component of the TOD Plan, since the ferry terminal would provide a transportation source for the planned residences and employment centers. Without the proposed project, the TOD Plan would not implement its primary principle of creating a viable transit-oriented community centered on the ferry terminal. This would maximize the usefulness and convenience of the ferry service and guarantee high levels of ridership for the ferry. However, the TOD Plan could result in cumulative impacts with the proposed project. Since the proposed project would not create new housing opportunities or substantial employment, the proposed project would not contribute to population-driven cumulative impacts (such as population and housing, utilities, recreation, and public services). The proposed project would also not result in aesthetic, land use, greenhouse gas, hazardous materials, hydrology, or mineral/agricultural resource impacts and would not cumulate with the TOD Plan to a significant level. In addition, implementation of MM-AIR-1 through MM-AIR-4, MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-7, MM-CUL-1 and MM-CUL-2, MM-NOI-1 through MM-NOI-8, and MM-TRA-1 would ensure that the proposed project would not result in cumulative impacts regarding air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geologic resources, noise, and transportation. As such, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact with mitigation.

Less Than Potentially Significant Less-Than- Significant w/Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact (c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

As identified in this document, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause adverse effects to human beings with implementation of mitigation measures. Impacts on topics that could affect the human environment, such as land use, aesthetics, population and housing, recreation, utilities, and public services would be less than significant. In addition, the proposed project would not result in significant hydrologic, hazardous, agricultural/mineral, or greenhouse gas impacts, which could, in turn, impact humans. Although the proposed project could impact traffic, exceed noise and vibration standards, result in soil erosion, violate air quality standards, impact archeological resources and human remains, impact riparian habitats, interfere with nursery sites and migrating marine mammals, and impact special-status species, mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce these impacts. As such, implementation of mitigation measures for transportation, noise, geological resources, air quality, cultural resources, and biological resources would result in less-than-significant impacts with mitigation.

86 San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority, Richmond Waterfront Transit-Oriented Development Plan (January 2008).

San Francisco Bay Area 197 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration SECTION 4 List of Preparers Draft SECTION I Lead Agency May 2014

SECTION 4. List of Preparers

I. LEAD AGENCY

San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority Pier 9, Suite #111, The Embarcadero San Francisco, CA 94111

Manager: Kevin Connolly Senior Planner: Chad Mason

II. CONTRIBUTING AGENCY

City of Richmond Successor Agency 450 Civic Center Plaza, 2nd Floor Richmond, CA 94804

Director: Alan Wolken Development Project Manager (II): Chad Smalley

III. EIR CONSULTANTS

Atkins 322 Pine Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104

Project Director: Kimberly M. Avila, AICP Project Manager: Julian Capata Technical Contributors: Greta Brownlow Carrie Garlett Tomo Demers Heather Dubois Lora Holland, RPA Jessica Nadolski Sandra Pentney Alison Rondone Alice Tackett Mohan Garakhalli, PE, TE Graphics: James Songco Document Production and Administrative Support: Joel Miller

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project 198 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Draft SECTION 4 List of Preparers May 2014 SECTION IV Project Design Team

Technical Contributors

Merkel & Associates, Inc. 5435 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123

Eelgrass survey Principal: Keith W. Merkel Alan Merkel Kathy Rogers

Coast & Harbor Engineering 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 301 San Francisco, CA 94104

Technical contributors to coastal engineering report

Principal: Scott Fenical

Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 3685 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, Suite 301 Lafayette, CA 94549

Technical contributors to the transportation analysis Senior Associate: Rob Rees, C.E. Associate: Ellen Poling, P.E.

IV. PROJECT DESIGN TEAM

Marcy Wong Donn Logan 800 Bancroft Way, Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94710

Partner: Marcy Wong Associate Principal: Kent Royle

San Francisco Bay Area 199 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Appendix A Air Quality Analysis Assumptions

RichmondFerryTerminalProject CalEEModInput

Note:OnlynonͲdefaultinputsareincludedinthissheet. TwoCalEEModrunsmodelingscenarioswereconducted.Onetoestimateconstructionemissionsand onetoestimateoperationalemissions.

CalEEMod (Construction)ProjectName: RichmondFerryTerminalͲConstructionOnly (Construction)FileName: RFTconstruction2 (Operation)ProjectName: RichmondFerryTerminalͲOperationalOnly (Operation)FileName: RFToperational Location: County ContraCosta windspeed(m/s): 2.2 Default Precipitation(days): 58 Default ClimateZone: 5 Default LandUseSetting: Urban OperationalYear: 2015 UtilityCompany: PG&E

LandUseType: Construction: Parking ParkingLot ProjectParking 515 spaces 4.36 acres OtherNonͲAsphaltSurface TerminalFacility 5.78 1,000KSF OtherNonͲAsphaltSurface Trail 11.18 1,000KSF Operational: Parking Parkinglot 515 spaces 4.36 acres Educational PlaceofWorship *Althoughthemajorityofsiteisaparkinglotandagangway/float,only ParkinglotisacategoryinCalEEMod.However,theCalEEModModel currentlydoesn'tallowforelectricalgenerationemissionstobe calculated.Therefore,anotherlandusecategoryhadtobeusedto estimateelectricalemissions."PlaceofWorship"wasusedtoprovide theabilitytocalculateelectricalemissionsfromprojectlighting.

ConstructionPhasingandEquipment: See"ConstructionAssumptions" RichmondFerryTerminalProject CalEEModInput

OperationalͲMobile 1,355 trips 1.99 milespertrip 2,689 DailyVMT 515 spaces 2.640 tripsperspace *CalEEModcalculatesbytripspersizemetric. *Sizemetricforparkinglotsisspaces.

EnergyUse 3.43 KWhr/seat/yr Lightingonly 18.75 KBTU/seat/yr NaturalGasforwaterheateronly WaterConsumption 1580.25 perseatperyearinternalwateruse 2,141,002 gallons/yr WasteGeneration 12.25 tonsperspace(parkinglot) 6,308.75 tonsperyear

Sources  TrafficInformation: Atkins,September2012 EnergyUse1 CalEEModdefaultconsumptionrates,placeofworship. WaterConsumption1 CalEEModdefaultconsumptionrates,placeofworship. WasteConsumption1 CalEEModdefaultconsumptionrates,parkinglot.

1 SCAQMD.CaliforniaEmissionsEstimatorModelUser'sGuide,Version2011.1 .February2011. RichmondFerryTerminalProject ConstructionAssumptions

LandsideImprovements # Hours HP LF SitePreparation Dozer 1 8 358 0.59 Backhoe 1 8 75 0.55 Trenching Trencher 1 8 69 0.75 Grader 1 8 162 0.61 PavingͲParkinglot&resurfacingofTrenchedarea Pavers 1 8 89 0.62 PavingEquipment 1 8 82 0.53 Rollers 1 8 84 0.56 TrailResurfasing Dozer 1 8 358 0.59 Grader 1 8 162 0.61 Backhoe 1 8 75 0.55 InͲWaterImprovements Demolition Bargew/crane 1 8 800 tug 1 4 850 piledriver 1 8 1100 Buildingconstruction Bargew/crane 1 8 800 tug 1 4 850 piledriver 1 8 1100 supportboats 2 8 480 OverwaterImprovements BuildingConstruction Crane 1 8 208 0.43 Bargew/crane 1 8 800 tug 1 4 850 supportboats 2 8 480

Constructionassumptionsandequipmentbasedonprojectdescription. ProjectConstruction ‘•–”— –‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†’”‘Œ‡ –™‘—Ž†”‡“—‹”‡ʹ–‘ͳͷ™‘”‡”•ˆ‘”–Š‡†—”ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡ ‘•–”— –‹‘’‡”‹‘†Ǥ–ƒ›‰‹˜‡–‹‡ǡ—’–‘ͳͷ™‘”‡”•™‘—Ž†„‡‘–Š‡•‹–‡Ǥƒ”‹‰ˆ‘” ‘•–”— –‹‘™‘”‡”• ‘—Ž†„‡ƒ†‡ƒ˜ƒ‹Žƒ„Ž‡„›–Š‡‹–›ƒ† ‹–Š‡ƒ†Œƒ ‡–’ƒ”‹‰Ž‘–‘”‹ –Š‡’ƒ”‹‰Ž‘–‘”–Š‘ˆ–Š‡ ‘”†—‹Ž†‹‰Ǥ LandsideImprovements Š‡ƒŒ‘”Žƒ†•‹†‡ ‘•–”— –‹‘ƒ –‹˜‹–‹‡•‹ Ž—†‡•‹–‡’”‡’ƒ”ƒ–‹‘ǡ‹‘”†‡‘Ž‹–‹‘ǡ‰”‘—† ‹’”‘˜‡‡–•ǡƒ†—–‹Ž‹–›‹•–ƒŽŽƒ–‹‘Ǥ‘•–”— –‹‘‡“—‹’‡–™‘—Ž†‹ Ž—†‡ƒ•ƒŽŽ„ƒ Š‘‡ƒ† „—ŽŽ†‘œ‡”Ȁ„‘„ ƒ–ǡŠƒ—Ž–”— •ǡƒ–‡”‹ƒŽ†‡Ž‹˜‡”›–”— •ǡƒ ”ƒ‡ǡƒ††‡Ž‹˜‡”›ƒ†•—’’‘”––”— •ǤŽŽ ‡“—‹’‡–™‘—Ž†„‡’‘™‡”‡†„›†‹‡•‡Ž‘”‰ƒ•‘Ž‹‡Ǥ

‹‘”‡š ƒ˜ƒ–‹‘™‘—Ž†„‡”‡“—‹”‡†–‘‹•–ƒŽŽ–Š‡—†‡”‰”‘—†—–‹Ž‹–‹‡•‹ Ž—†‹‰™ƒ–‡”ƒ† ‡Ž‡ –”‹ ‹–›ǤŠ‡’”‘’‘•‡†’ƒ”‹‰Ž‘–•‹–‡•™‘—Ž†‹˜‘Ž˜‡‹‘”’ƒ˜‹‰ƒ†”‡•–”‹’‹‰ǡŠ‘˜‡”‡”‘Ž› ‹‘”‰”ƒ†‹‰‹•ƒ–‹ ‹’ƒ–‡†Ǥ–”‹’‹‰‘” ‘ ”‡–‡’ƒ˜‡”•™‘—Ž†„‡‹•–ƒŽŽ‡†–‘‹†‡–‹ˆ›–Š‡ ’ƒ••‡‰‡”“—‡—‹‰ƒ”‡ƒǤ‘•–”— –‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†ƒ›”ƒ‹Ž‡š–‡•‹‘ƒŽ‘‰–Š‡™‡•–‡†‰‡‘ˆ–Š‡ ’ƒ”‹‰Ž‘–™‘—Ž†”‡“—‹”‡•‘‡‡š ƒ˜ƒ–‹‘ƒ†‰”ƒ†‹‰Ǥƒ†•‹†‡ ‘•–”— –‹‘™‘—Ž†ƒŽ•‘‹ Ž—†‡ ‹•–ƒŽŽƒ–‹‘‘ˆ‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽƒ†’—„Ž‹ ƒ ‡•••‹‰ƒ‰‡Ǥ

Š‡’‹Ž‡•—’’‘”–‡† ‘ ”‡–‡ƒ ‡••Žƒ†‹‰™‘—Ž†„‡‹•–ƒŽŽ‡†ˆ”‘–Š‡’Žƒœƒƒ†™Šƒ”ˆǤ‘–Š‡ ‡š–‡–ˆ‡ƒ•‹„Ž‡ǡ’‹Ž‡•ˆ‘”–Š‡Žƒ†‹‰™‘—Ž†„‡‹•–ƒŽŽ‡†ˆ”‘Žƒ†™‹–Šƒ ”ƒ‡ǤŠ‡‡š‹•–‹‰ƒ ‡•• ‰ƒ–‡ˆ”‘–Š‡ ‘”†—‹Ž†‹‰™Šƒ”ˆ™‘—Ž†„‡”‡‘˜‡†ƒ†”‡’Žƒ ‡†™‹–Š‡™”ƒ‹Ž‹‰••‹‹Žƒ”–‘™Šƒ– ‡š‹•–•‘”‹•’Žƒ‡†ƒ•’ƒ”–‘ˆ ‹’”‘˜‡‡–•Ǥ‡™ ‘˜‡”‡†‡–”›‰ƒ–‡•–”— –—”‡™‹–Š ƒ••‘ ‹ƒ–‡†Ž‹‰Š–‹‰ƒ†•‹‰ƒ‰‡™‘—Ž†„‡ ‘•–”— –‡†ƒ––Š‡’ŽƒœƒǤ

ŽŽ”ƒ’•ƒ†’Žƒ–ˆ‘”•™‘—Ž†„‡†‡•‹‰‡†–‘ ‘ˆ‘”–‘•–ƒ†ƒ”†•ǤŠ‡’”‘’‘•‡†ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–› ™‘—Ž†„‡‹ ‘’Ž‹ƒ ‡™‹–Šǯ•‘™•‡ —”‹–›”‡“—‹”‡‡–•ƒ•™‡ŽŽƒ••‡ —”‹–›”‡“—‹”‡‡–• ‡•–ƒ„Ž‹•Š‡†„›–Š‡ǤǤ‘ƒ•– —ƒ”†ȋ ͵͵ƒ”–•ͳͲͳȂͳͲ͸Ȍ”‡‰ƒ”†‹‰˜‡••‡Žƒ†–‡”‹ƒŽ•‡ —”‹–› ”‡‰—Žƒ–‹‘•ƒ†‰—‹†ƒ ‡Ǥ TerminalFacilityandWatersideImprovements ‡‘Ž‹–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡‡š‹•–‹‰ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–›™‘—Ž†„‡”‡“—‹”‡†’”‹‘”–‘‹•–ƒŽŽƒ–‹‘‘ˆƒ›‡™™ƒ–‡”•‹†‡ –‡”‹ƒŽ ‘’‘‡–•ǤŠ‡†‡‘Ž‹–‹‘™‘”‹ Ž—†‡•”‡‘˜ƒŽ‘ˆ–Š‡’‹Ž‡•ǡ‰ƒ‰™ƒ›ƒ†ˆŽ‘ƒ–ǤŠ‹• ™‘”™‘—Ž†„‡ ‘†— –‡†ˆ”‘„ƒ”‰‡•ǡ‘‡ˆ‘”ƒ–‡”‹ƒŽ••–‘”ƒ‰‡ƒ†‘‡‘—–ˆ‹––‡†™‹–Š†‡‘Ž‹–‹‘ ‡“—‹’‡–ȋ ”ƒ‡ƒ† Žƒ•Š‡ŽŽ„— ‡–‘”˜‹„”ƒ–‘”›’‹Ž‡†”‹˜‡”ˆ‘”’—ŽŽ‹‰‘ˆ’‹Ž‡•ƒ†ƒ ”ƒ‡ˆ‘” ‰ƒ‰™ƒ›”‡‘˜ƒŽȌǤ‹‡•‡Ž’‘™‡”–—‰„‘ƒ–•™‘—Ž†„”‹‰–Š‡„ƒ”‰‡•–‘–Š‡’”‘Œ‡ –•‹–‡ǡ™Š‡”‡–Š‡ „ƒ”‰‡•™‘—Ž†„‡ƒ Š‘”‡†Ǥ

‹Ž‡•™‘—Ž†„‡”‡‘˜‡†„›‡‹–Š‡”’—ŽŽ‹‰–Š‡’‹Ž‡‘” —––‹‰–Š‡’‹Ž‡•‘ˆˆ„‡Ž‘™–Š‡—†Ž‹‡ǤŠ‡ †‡‘Ž‹–‹‘™ƒ•–‡ˆ”‘–Š‡•‡ƒ –‹˜‹–‹‡•™‘—Ž†„‡†‹•’‘•‡†‘ˆƒ––Š‡‡ƒ”‡•–™ƒ•–‡ƒ†”‡ › Ž‹‰ ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–›Ǥ‹„‡”’‹Ž‡•–Šƒ–Šƒ˜‡„‡‡–”‡ƒ–‡†™‹–Š ”‡‘•‘–‡ǡ‘”–Šƒ– ‘–ƒ‹‘–Š‡”’‘–‡–‹ƒŽŽ› Šƒœƒ”†‘—••—„•–ƒ ‡•ǡ™‘—Ž†„‡Šƒ†Ž‡†’”‘’‡”Ž›ƒ††‹•’‘•‡†‘ˆƒ–ƒˆƒ ‹Ž‹–›’‡”‹––‡†–‘Šƒ†Ž‡ Šƒœƒ”†‘—•™ƒ•–‡Ǥ

 

Š‡ƒŒ‘”™ƒ–‡”•‹†‡ ‘•–”— –‹‘ƒ –‹˜‹–‹‡•‹ Ž—†‡ƒ”‹‡’‹Ž‡‹•–ƒŽŽƒ–‹‘ǡƒ”‹‡ˆŽ‘ƒ– ‹•–ƒŽŽƒ–‹‘ǡˆ‹š‡†’‹‡” ‘•–”— –‹‘ǡƒ†ƒ”‹‡—–‹Ž‹–›ƒ†‘—–ˆ‹––‹‰ǤŠ‡ƒ”‹‡’‹Ž‡‹•–ƒŽŽƒ–‹‘ ™‘—Ž†”‡“—‹”‡–Š‡—•‡‘ˆƒ•—’’‘”–ƒ†ƒ–‡”‹ƒŽ„ƒ”‰‡ǡƒ„ƒ”‰‡Ǧ‘—–‡†’‹Ž‡†”‹˜‡”ǡƒ•—’’‘”–„‘ƒ–ǡ ƒ†ƒ‘ ƒ•‹‘ƒŽ–—‰ǤŠ‡ƒ”‹‡ˆŽ‘ƒ–‹•–ƒŽŽƒ–‹‘™‘—Ž†”‡“—‹”‡™‘”„‘ƒ–•ǡƒ–—‰„‘ƒ–ǡ•—’’‘”– „ƒ”‰‡•ǡƒ†ƒ„ƒ”‰‡Ǧ‘—–‡† ”ƒ‡•Ǥ‘•–”— –‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡ƒ ‡••Žƒ†‹‰ ‘—Ž†”‡“—‹”‡™‘”„‘ƒ–•ǡƒ •—’’‘”–„ƒ”‰‡ǡƒ„ƒ”‰‡Ǧ‘—–‡† ”ƒ‡ǡƒ™Š‡‡Ž‡† ”ƒ‡ǡƒ†•—’’‘”–ƒ†Šƒ—Ž–”— •Ǥƒ”‹‡—–‹Ž‹–› ƒ†‘—–ˆ‹––‹‰™‘—Ž†”‡“—‹”‡ƒ™Š‡‡Ž‡† ”ƒ‡ƒ†•—’’‘”––”— •Ǥ

’’”‘š‹ƒ–‡Ž›ͳͺ‡™’‹Ž‡•™‘—Ž†„‡‹•–ƒŽŽ‡†ǡ ‘•‹•–‹‰‘ˆˆ‹š‡†’‹‡”•—’’‘”–‹‰’‹Ž‡•ǡ‰—‹†‡’‹Ž‡• ƒ––Š‡ˆŽ‘ƒ–•ǡˆ‡†‡”’‹Ž‡•ǡƒ†ˆ”‡‡•–ƒ†‹‰†‘Ž’Š‹•ǤŠ‡’‹Ž‡•ˆ‘”–Š‡–‡”‹ƒŽˆŽ‘ƒ–ƒ†ƒ ‡••’‹‡” ƒ†‰ƒ‰™ƒ›’Žƒ–ˆ‘”™‘—Ž†„‡‹•–ƒŽŽ‡†„›ƒ„ƒ”‰‡Ǧ‘—–‡† ”ƒ‡—•‹‰ƒ˜‹„”ƒ–‘”›’‹Ž‡†”‹˜‡”‘” ‹’ƒ –Šƒ‡”Ǥ ConstructionSchedule ‘•–”— –‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†’”‘Œ‡ –™‘—Ž†”‡“—‹”‡—’–‘ͳͲ‘–Š•™‹–Š‘‹‰Š––‹‡ ‘•–”— –‹‘ ‡ ‡••ƒ”›Ǥ ƒ„”‹ ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡ˆŽ‘ƒ–ǡ‰ƒ‰™ƒ›ǡ”ƒ’‹‰ƒ†’‹Ž‡•™‘—Ž†”‡“—‹”‡ƒ’’”‘š‹ƒ–‡Ž›ͷ–‘͸ ‘–Š•ƒ†™‘—Ž†„‡ ‘’Ž‡–‡†‘ˆˆǦ•‹–‡Ǥ ‡‡”ƒŽŽ›ǡ•‹–‡’”‡’ƒ”ƒ–‹‘ǡƒ†‰”‘—†‹’”‘˜‡‡–• ™‘—Ž†‘ —”‘˜‡”‘‡‘–Šƒ† ‘—Ž†‘˜‡”Žƒ’™‹–Š™ƒ–‡”•‹†‡™‘”Ǣ ‘•–”— –‹‘‘ˆŽƒ†•‹†‡ ‹’”‘˜‡‡–•™‘—Ž†”‡“—‹”‡ƒ’’”‘š‹ƒ–‡Ž›‘‡‘–ŠǢ‹Ǧ™ƒ–‡”™‘”ȋ†‡‘Ž‹–‹‘Ȁ”‡‘˜ƒŽ‘ˆ ‡š‹•–‹‰ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–›ƒ†‹•–ƒŽŽƒ–‹‘‘ˆ’”‘’‘•‡†–‡”‹ƒŽ ‘’‘‡–•Ȍ™‘—Ž†„‡ ‘’Ž‡–‡†‹ ƒ’’”‘š‹ƒ–‡Ž›ʹ™‡‡•Ǣƒ†–Š‡‘˜‡”™ƒ–‡”™‘”–‘‹•–ƒŽŽ”ƒ’‹‰ƒ†—–‹Ž‹–‹‡•™‘—Ž†‘ —”‘˜‡”͵ ™‡‡•ǤŽŽ‹Ǧ™ƒ–‡” ‘•–”— –‹‘™‘”ƒ –‹˜‹–‹‡•ȋ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡ’‹Ž‡†”‹˜‹‰Ȍ™‘—Ž†‘ —”„‡–™‡‡–Š‡’‡”‹‘† ˆ”‘ —Ž›͵ͳ–‘‘˜‡„‡”͵ͲǤ RichmondFerryTerminalProject ConstructionEmissionsUnmitigated

ConstructionUnmitigatedEmissions

Phase ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10*PM2.5* LandsideSitePrep 3.15 25.49 14.57 0.02 1.21 1.21 LandsideTrenching 2.23 15.26 9.99 0.02 1.04 1.04 LandsidePavingͲParkinglot 3.38 16.98 11.06 0.02 1.47 1.47 LandsidePavingͲTrailResurface 4.35 34.46 20.66 0.03 1.71 1.71 InͲwaterDemolition 6.62 51.43 38.92 0.11 3.85 3.85 InͲwaterinstallation 8.84 64.08 48.95 0.14 4.99 4.99 OverwaterConstruction 9.52 62.79 56.93 0.15 4.86 4.86 BAAQMDThresholds 54 54 82 54 IndividualPhaseSignificant No Yes No No Source:Atkins2012,CalEEModModeling

*PM10andPM2.5representexhaustemissionsonly

59.95 OverlappingPhases

Option1 ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10*PM2.5* LandsideSitePrep 3.15 25.49 14.57 0.02 1.21 1.21 InͲwaterDemolition 6.62 51.43 38.92 0.11 3.85 3.85 Subtotal 9.77 76.92 53.49 0.13 5.06 5.06 Threshold 54 54 82 54 Significant No Yes No No Option2 LandsideSitePrep 3.15 25.49 14.57 0.02 1.21 1.21 LandsideTrenching 2.23 15.26 9.99 0.02 1.04 1.04 LandsidePavingͲParkinglot 3.38 16.98 11.06 0.02 1.47 1.47 Subtotal 8.76 57.73 35.62 0.06 3.72 3.72 Threshold 54 54 82 54 Significant No Yes No No Option3 LandsideTrenching 2.23 15.26 9.99 0.02 1.04 1.04 LandsidePavingͲParkinglot 3.38 16.98 11.06 0.02 1.47 1.47 LandsidePavingͲTrailResurface 4.35 34.46 20.66 0.03 1.71 1.71 Subtotal 9.96 66.70 41.71 0.07 4.22 4.22 Threshold 54 54 82 54 Significant No Yes No No Option4 LandsidePavingͲParkinglot 3.38 16.98 11.06 0.02 1.47 1.47 LandsidePavingͲTrailResurface 4.35 34.46 20.66 0.03 1.71 1.71 Subtotal 7.73 51.44 31.72 0.05 3.18 3.18 Threshold 54 54 82 54 Significant No No No No RichmondFerryTerminalProject ConstructionEmissionsUnmitigated

Option5 ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10*PM2.5* LandsideSitePrep 3.15 25.49 14.57 0.02 1.21 1.21 LandsidePavingͲParkinglot 3.38 16.98 11.06 0.02 1.47 1.47 Subtotal 6.53 42.47 25.63 0.04 2.68 2.68 Threshold 54 54 82 54 Significant No No No No Option6 LandsideSitePrep 3.15 25.49 14.57 0.02 1.21 1.21 LandsidePavingͲTrailResurface 4.35 34.46 20.66 0.03 1.71 1.71 Subtotal 7.50 59.95 35.23 0.05 2.92 2.92 Threshold 54 54 82 54 Significant No Yes No No

Option7 LandsideSitePrep 3.15 25.49 14.57 0.02 1.21 1.21 LandsidePavingͲParkinglot 3.38 16.98 11.06 0.02 1.47 1.47 LandsidePavingͲTrailResurface 4.35 34.46 20.66 0.03 1.71 1.71 Subtotal 10.88 76.93 46.29 0.07 4.39 4.39 Threshold 54 54 82 54 Significant No Yes No No

PhaseDescriptions Phase1:LandsideSitePrep Clearinglandfortrailexpansion Phase2:LandsideTrenching Installationofutilitiesforwater&electricasnecessary Phase3:LandsidePavingͲParkinglot Asphaltpavingandstripingofparkinglot Phase4:LandsidePavingͲTrailResurface Replacingdecomposedgranite Phase5:InͲwaterDemolition Removalofexistingpierandpilings Phase6:InͲwaterinstallation Installationofnewpiersupportstructure Phase7:OverwaterConstruction Installationofnewpierandgangwayfacilities.

PhaseOverlapUnmitigatedEmissions a.Phase1&2 b.Phase1&3 c.Phase2&3 d.Phase2&4 e.Phasse3&4 RichmondFerryTerminalProject ConstructionEmissionsMitigated

ConstructionMitigatedEmissions

Phase ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10*PM2.5* LandsideSitePrep 13.93 16.11 11.85 0.02 0.56 0.56 LandsideTrenching 3.85 13.45 9.63 0.02 0.78 0.78 LandsidePavingͲParkinglot 8.06 12.65 10.12 0.02 0.77 0.77 LandsidePavingͲTrailResurface 15.13 25.07 17.95 0.03 1.06 1.06 InͲwaterDemolition 3.54 42.22 19.67 0.11 2.57 2.57 InͲwaterinstallation 4.30 52.38 25.52 0.14 3.26 3.26 OverwaterConstruction 10.53 51.72 39.52 0.15 3.26 3.26 BAAQMDThresholds 5454 8254 IndividualPhaseSignificant No No No No Source:Atkins2012,CalEEModModeling

*PM10andPM2.5representexhaustemissionsonly

OverlappingPhases

Phase1 ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10*PM2.5* LandsideSitePrep 13.93 16.11 11.85 0.02 0.56 0.56 InͲwaterDemolition 3.54 42.22 19.67 0.11 2.57 2.57 Subtotal 17.47 58.33 31.52 0.13 3.13 3.13 Threshold 54 54 82 54 Significant No Yes No No Option2 LandsideSitePrep 13.93 16.11 11.85 0.02 0.56 0.56 LandsideTrenching 3.85 13.45 9.63 0.02 0.78 0.78 LandsidePavingͲParkinglot 8.06 12.65 10.12 0.02 0.77 0.77 Subtotal 25.84 42.21 31.60 0.06 2.11 2.11 Threshold5454 8254 Significant No No No No Option3 LandsideTrenching 3.85 13.45 9.63 0.02 0.78 0.78 LandsidePavingͲParkinglot 8.06 12.65 10.12 0.02 0.77 0.77 LandsidePavingͲTrailResurface 15.13 25.07 17.95 0.03 1.06 1.06 Subtotal 27.04 51.17 37.70 0.07 2.61 2.61 Threshold5454 8254 Significant No No No No Option4 LandsidePavingͲParkinglot 8.06 12.65 10.12 0.02 0.77 0.77 LandsidePavingͲTrailResurface 15.13 25.07 17.95 0.03 1.06 1.06 Subtotal 23.19 37.72 28.07 0.05 1.83 1.83 Threshold5454 8254 Significant No No No No RichmondFerryTerminalProject ConstructionEmissionsMitigated

Option5 ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10*PM2.5* LandsideSitePrep 13.93 16.11 11.85 0.02 0.56 0.56 LandsidePavingͲParkinglot 8.06 12.65 10.12 0.02 0.77 0.77 Subtotal 21.99 28.76 21.97 0.04 1.33 1.33 Threshold 54 54 82 54 Significant No No No No Option6 LandsideSitePrep 13.93 16.11 11.85 0.02 0.56 0.56 LandsidePavingͲTrailResurface 15.13 25.07 17.95 0.03 1.06 1.06 Subtotal 29.06 41.18 29.80 0.05 1.62 1.62 Threshold5454 8254 Significant No No No No

Option7 LandsideSitePrep 13.93 16.11 11.85 0.02 0.56 0.56 LandsidePavingͲParkinglot 8.06 12.65 10.12 0.02 0.77 0.77 LandsidePavingͲTrailResurface 15.13 25.07 17.95 0.03 1.06 1.06 Subtotal 37.12 53.83 39.92 0.07 2.39 2.39 Threshold 54 54 82 54 Significant No No No No

MitigationMeasures: 1 BAAQMDBasicMitigationMeasuresRecommendedforAll ProposedProjects. 2 Allmarinebasedequipmentshallbe2006ornewerengine modelsorhaveaftermarketfilterstoequateto2006ornewer engines. 3 Land based construction activities cannot occur at the same time as marine based activities. None of the marine based phases can overlap time frames. 4 Alllandbasedequipmentgreaterthan50HPshallberatedEPA Tier2orbetteriflandbasedconstructionphaseswilloccur simultaneously.EvenwithEPATier2equipmentonlycertain phasescanoverlapwithoutexceedingregulatorythresholds. Thesephasesinclude: a: Phase1&2 b: Phase1&3 c: Phase1&4 d: Phase2&3 e: Phase2&4 f: Phasse3&4 g: Phase1,2&3 h: Phase1,3&4 i: Phase2,3&4 RichmondFerryTerminalProject MarineEquipmentMitigatedEmissionsCalculations

ConversionFactors 1.10231EͲ06 shorttonspergram 0.002204623 lbs/gram 2204.62 lbs/metricton

ROG NOX CO Hours/ load gr/hpͲ lbs/hpͲ lbs/ gr/hpͲ lbs/hpͲ Equipment HP day factor hr lbs/hpͲhr lbs/day gr/hpͲhr hr day hr hr lbs/day Bargew/crane 800 6 0.43 0.23 0.0005 2.43 4.9500 0.0109 22.52 0.9200 0.0020 9.74 tug 850 4 0.20 0.23 0.0005 0.34 4.9500 0.0109 7.42 0.9200 0.0020 6.90 piledriver 750 2 0.75 0.23 0.0005 0.76 4.9500 0.0109 12.28 0.9200 0.0020 3.04 supportboats 480 6 0.40 0.12 0.0003 0.76 4.0000 0.0088 10.16 0.9200 0.0020 5.84

SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Horse Hours/ load gr/hpͲ lbs/hpͲ lbs/ gr/hpͲ lbs/hpͲ Equipment Power day factor hr lbs/hpͲhr lbs/day gr/hpͲhr hr day hr hr lbs/day Bargew/crane 800 6 0.43 0.005 1.10EͲ05 0.0529 0.1200 0.0003 1.27 0.1200 0.0003 1.27 tug 850 4 0.20 0.005 1.10EͲ05 0.0375 0.1200 0.0003 0.90 0.1200 0.0003 0.90 piledriver 750 2 0.75 0.005 1.10EͲ05 0.0165 0.1200 0.0003 0.40 0.1200 0.0003 0.40 supportboats 480 6 0.40 0.005 1.10EͲ05 0.0317 0.1100 0.0002 0.70 0.1100 0.0002 0.70

lbs/day

ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 InͲWaterDemolition 3.54 42.22 19.67 0.11 2.57 2.57 InͲWaterInstallation 4.30 52.38 25.52 0.14 3.26 3.26 OverwaterWork 3.54 40.10 22.47 0.12 2.87 2.87

Source: CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard.OFFROAD2011emissionsmodel. 2011. 2006emissionfactorsforROG,NOX,CO,andPMonly.SO2notavailableinOFFROAD2011. RichmondFerryTerminalProject MarineEquipmentUnmitigatedEmissionsCalculations

ConversionFactors 1.10231EͲ06 shorttonspergram 0.002204623 lbs/gram 2204.62 lbs/metricton

ROG NOX CO Hours/ load gr/hpͲ lbs/hpͲ lbs/ gr/hpͲ lbs/hpͲ Equipment HP day factor hr lbs/hpͲhr lbs/day gr/hpͲhr hr day hr hr lbs/day Bargew/crane 800 6 0.43 0.43 0.0009 4.55 6.0300 0.0133 27.44 1.8200 0.0040 19.26 tug 850 4 0.20 0.43 0.0009 0.64 6.0300 0.0133 9.04 1.8200 0.0040 13.64 piledriver 750 2 0.75 0.43 0.0009 1.42 6.0300 0.0133 14.96 1.8200 0.0040 6.02 supportboats 480 6 0.40 0.35 0.0008 2.22 4.9800 0.0110 12.65 1.5800 0.0035 10.03

SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Horse Hours/ load gr/hpͲ lbs/hpͲ lbs/ gr/hpͲ lbs/hpͲ Equipmentqu p e Poweroe day factorao hr lbs/hpbs/ pͲhr lbs/daybs/day g/ gr/hp pͲhr hr day hr hr lbs/daybs/day Bargew/crane 800 6 0.43 0.005 1.10EͲ05 0.0529 0.1800 0.0004 1.90 0.1800 0.0004 1.90 tug 850 4 0.20 0.005 1.10EͲ05 0.0375 0.1800 0.0004 1.35 0.1800 0.0004 1.35 piledriver 750 2 0.75 0.005 1.10EͲ05 0.0165 0.1800 0.0004 0.60 0.1800 0.0004 0.60 supportboats 480 6 0.40 0.005 1.10EͲ05 0.0317 0.1800 0.0004 1.14 0.1800 0.0004 1.14

lbs/day

ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 InͲWaterDemolition 6.62 51.43 38.92 0.11 3.85 3.85 InͲWaterInstallation 8.84 64.08 48.95 0.14 4.99 4.99 OverwaterWork 7.42 49.13 42.93 0.12 4.40 4.40

Source: CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard.OFFROAD2007emissionsmodel. 2007. &DO((0RG9HUVLRQ&DO((0RG 'DWH

Richmond Ferry Terminal - Construction Only Contra Costa County, Winter

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

/DQG8VHV 6L]H 0HWULF

2WKHU1RQ$VSKDOW6XUIDFHV  VTIW

2WKHU1RQ$VSKDOW6XUIDFHV  VTIW

3DUNLQJ/RW  6SDFH

1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization 8UEDQ Wind Speed (m/s)  Utility Company 3DFLILF*DV (OHFWULF&RPSDQ\

Climate Zone  Precipitation Freq (Days) 

1.3 User Entered Comments

3URMHFW&KDUDFWHULVWLFV /DQG8VH3DUNLQJ/RW 3DUNLQJORWNVIRWKHUQRQDVSKDOW )HUU\7HUPLQDONVIRWKHUQRQDVSKDOW WUDLOH[WHQVLRQ &RQVWUXFWLRQ3KDVH%DVHGRQ3URMHFW'HVLJQRQO\ODQGEDVHGHTXLSPHQWFDOFXODWHGLQ&DO((0RG:DWHUEDVHGHTXLSPHQWFDOFXODWHGVHSDUDWHO\ 2IIURDG(TXLSPHQW3URMHFW'HVLJQ 2IIURDG(TXLSPHQW%DVHGRQ3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ

RI 2IIURDG(TXLSPHQW%DVHGRQ3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ 2IIURDG(TXLSPHQW%DVHGRQ3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ 2IIURDG(TXLSPHQW%DVHGRQ3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ 'HPROLWLRQEDVHGRQUHPRYDORIDOODVSKDOWLQH[LVWLQJSDUNLQJORWV &RQVWUXFWLRQ2IIURDG(TXLSPHQW0LWLJDWLRQ 2IIURDG(TXLSPHQW%DVHGRQSURMHFWGHVFULSWLRQ *UDGLQJ%DVHGRQDUHDWREHGLVWXUEHG

2.0 Emissions Summary

RI 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)

Unmitigated Construction

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

                

Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Mitigated Construction

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

                

Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

RI 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

8VH&OHDQHU(QJLQHVIRU&RQVWUXFWLRQ(TXLSPHQW 8VH'3)IRU&RQVWUXFWLRQ(TXLSPHQW :DWHU([SRVHG$UHD 5HGXFH9HKLFOH6SHHGRQ8QSDYHG5RDGV

3.2 Landside Site Preparation - 2013

Unmitigated Construction On-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

)XJLWLYH'XVW       

2II5RDG           

Total 3.11 25.45 14.18 0.02 6.04 1.21 7.25 3.31 1.21 4.52 2,528.21 0.28 2,534.09

RI 3.2 Landside Site Preparation - 2013

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

+DXOLQJ             

9HQGRU             

:RUNHU             

Total 0.04 0.04 0.39 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 55.29 0.00 55.36

Mitigated Construction On-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

)XJLWLYH'XVW       

2II5RDG            

Total 13.89 16.07 11.46 0.02 2.72 0.56 3.28 1.49 0.56 2.05 0.00 2,528.21 0.28 2,534.09

RI 3.2 Landside Site Preparation - 2013

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

+DXOLQJ             

9HQGRU             

:RUNHU             

Total 0.04 0.04 0.39 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 55.29 0.00 55.36

3.3 Overwater - Construction - 2013

Unmitigated Construction On-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

2II5RDG           

Total 0.73 6.95 2.06 0.01 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 783.69 0.06 785.05

RI 3.3 Overwater - Construction - 2013

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

+DXOLQJ             

9HQGRU             

:RUNHU             

Total 1.37 6.71 11.94 0.02 1.75 0.22 1.97 0.08 0.22 0.30 2,021.24 0.10 2,023.32

Mitigated Construction On-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

2II5RDG            

Total 5.62 4.91 5.11 0.01 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.00 783.69 0.06 785.05

RI 3.3 Overwater - Construction - 2013

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

+DXOLQJ             

9HQGRU             

:RUNHU             

Total 1.37 6.71 11.94 0.02 1.75 0.22 1.97 0.08 0.22 0.30 2,021.24 0.10 2,023.32

3.4 Landside Trenching - 2013

Unmitigated Construction On-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

2II5RDG           

Total 2.19 15.22 9.60 0.02 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1,507.79 0.20 1,511.92

RI 3.4 Landside Trenching - 2013

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

+DXOLQJ             

9HQGRU             

:RUNHU             

Total 0.04 0.04 0.39 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 55.29 0.00 55.36

Mitigated Construction On-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

2II5RDG            

Total 3.81 13.41 9.24 0.02 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.00 1,507.79 0.20 1,511.92

RI 3.4 Landside Trenching - 2013

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

+DXOLQJ             

9HQGRU             

:RUNHU             

Total 0.04 0.04 0.39 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 55.29 0.00 55.36

3.5 Landside Paving - Parking - 2013

Unmitigated Construction On-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

2II5RDG           

3DYLQJ      

Total 3.31 16.91 10.44 0.02 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47 1,458.82 0.25 1,464.03

RI 3.5 Landside Paving - Parking - 2013

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

+DXOLQJ             

9HQGRU             

:RUNHU             

Total 0.07 0.07 0.62 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 88.46 0.01 88.58

Mitigated Construction On-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

2II5RDG            

3DYLQJ      

Total 7.99 12.58 9.50 0.02 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.00 1,458.82 0.25 1,464.03

RI 3.5 Landside Paving - Parking - 2013

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

+DXOLQJ             

9HQGRU             

:RUNHU             

Total 0.07 0.07 0.62 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 88.46 0.01 88.58

3.6 Trail Resurfacing w/DG - 2013

Unmitigated Construction On-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

)XJLWLYH'XVW       

2II5RDG           

Total 4.28 34.39 20.04 0.03 6.05 1.71 7.76 3.31 1.71 5.02 3,517.78 0.38 3,525.85

RI 3.6 Trail Resurfacing w/DG - 2013

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

+DXOLQJ             

9HQGRU             

:RUNHU             

Total 0.07 0.07 0.62 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 88.46 0.01 88.58

Mitigated Construction On-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

)XJLWLYH'XVW       

2II5RDG            

Total 15.06 25.00 17.33 0.03 2.72 1.06 3.78 1.49 1.06 2.55 0.00 3,517.78 0.38 3,525.85

RI 3.6 Trail Resurfacing w/DG - 2013

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

+DXOLQJ             

9HQGRU             

:RUNHU             

Total 0.07 0.07 0.62 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 88.46 0.01 88.58

RI &DO((0RG9HUVLRQ&DO((0RG 'DWH

Richmond Ferry Terminal - Construction Only Contra Costa County, Summer

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

/DQG8VHV 6L]H 0HWULF

2WKHU1RQ$VSKDOW6XUIDFHV  VTIW

2WKHU1RQ$VSKDOW6XUIDFHV  VTIW

3DUNLQJ/RW  6SDFH

1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization 8UEDQ Wind Speed (m/s)  Utility Company 3DFLILF*DV (OHFWULF&RPSDQ\

Climate Zone  Precipitation Freq (Days) 

1.3 User Entered Comments

3URMHFW&KDUDFWHULVWLFV /DQG8VH3DUNLQJ/RW 3DUNLQJORWNVIRWKHUQRQDVSKDOW )HUU\7HUPLQDONVIRWKHUQRQDVSKDOW WUDLOH[WHQVLRQ &RQVWUXFWLRQ3KDVH%DVHGRQ3URMHFW'HVLJQRQO\ODQGEDVHGHTXLSPHQWFDOFXODWHGLQ&DO((0RG:DWHUEDVHGHTXLSPHQWFDOFXODWHGVHSDUDWHO\ 2IIURDG(TXLSPHQW3URMHFW'HVLJQ 2IIURDG(TXLSPHQW%DVHGRQ3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ

RI 2IIURDG(TXLSPHQW%DVHGRQ3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ 2IIURDG(TXLSPHQW%DVHGRQ3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ 2IIURDG(TXLSPHQW%DVHGRQ3URMHFW'HVFULSWLRQ 'HPROLWLRQEDVHGRQUHPRYDORIDOODVSKDOWLQH[LVWLQJSDUNLQJORWV &RQVWUXFWLRQ2IIURDG(TXLSPHQW0LWLJDWLRQ 2IIURDG(TXLSPHQW%DVHGRQSURMHFWGHVFULSWLRQ *UDGLQJ%DVHGRQDUHDWREHGLVWXUEHG

2.0 Emissions Summary

RI 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)

Unmitigated Construction

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

                

Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Mitigated Construction

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

                

Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

RI 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

8VH&OHDQHU(QJLQHVIRU&RQVWUXFWLRQ(TXLSPHQW 8VH'3)IRU&RQVWUXFWLRQ(TXLSPHQW :DWHU([SRVHG$UHD 5HGXFH9HKLFOH6SHHGRQ8QSDYHG5RDGV

3.2 Landside Site Preparation - 2013

Unmitigated Construction On-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

)XJLWLYH'XVW       

2II5RDG           

Total 3.11 25.45 14.18 0.02 6.04 1.21 7.25 3.31 1.21 4.52 2,528.21 0.28 2,534.09

RI 3.2 Landside Site Preparation - 2013

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

+DXOLQJ             

9HQGRU             

:RUNHU             

Total 0.04 0.04 0.42 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 62.49 0.00 62.57

Mitigated Construction On-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

)XJLWLYH'XVW       

2II5RDG            

Total 13.89 16.07 11.46 0.02 2.72 0.56 3.28 1.49 0.56 2.05 0.00 2,528.21 0.28 2,534.09

RI 3.2 Landside Site Preparation - 2013

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

+DXOLQJ             

9HQGRU             

:RUNHU             

Total 0.04 0.04 0.42 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 62.49 0.00 62.57

3.3 Overwater - Construction - 2013

Unmitigated Construction On-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

2II5RDG           

Total 0.73 6.95 2.06 0.01 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 783.69 0.06 785.05

RI 3.3 Overwater - Construction - 2013

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

+DXOLQJ             

9HQGRU             

:RUNHU             

Total 1.28 6.57 11.59 0.02 1.75 0.21 1.96 0.08 0.21 0.30 2,163.13 0.10 2,165.24

Mitigated Construction On-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

2II5RDG            

Total 5.62 4.91 5.11 0.01 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.00 783.69 0.06 785.05

RI 3.3 Overwater - Construction - 2013

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

+DXOLQJ             

9HQGRU             

:RUNHU             

Total 1.28 6.57 11.59 0.02 1.75 0.21 1.96 0.08 0.21 0.30 2,163.13 0.10 2,165.24

3.4 Landside Trenching - 2013

Unmitigated Construction On-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

2II5RDG           

Total 2.19 15.22 9.60 0.02 1.04 1.04 1.04 1.04 1,507.79 0.20 1,511.92

RI 3.4 Landside Trenching - 2013

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

+DXOLQJ             

9HQGRU             

:RUNHU             

Total 0.04 0.04 0.42 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 62.49 0.00 62.57

Mitigated Construction On-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

2II5RDG            

Total 3.81 13.41 9.24 0.02 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.00 1,507.79 0.20 1,511.92

RI 3.4 Landside Trenching - 2013

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

+DXOLQJ             

9HQGRU             

:RUNHU             

Total 0.04 0.04 0.42 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 62.49 0.00 62.57

3.5 Landside Paving - Parking - 2013

Unmitigated Construction On-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

2II5RDG           

3DYLQJ      

Total 3.31 16.91 10.44 0.02 1.47 1.47 1.47 1.47 1,458.82 0.25 1,464.03

RI 3.5 Landside Paving - Parking - 2013

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

+DXOLQJ             

9HQGRU             

:RUNHU             

Total 0.06 0.06 0.67 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 99.98 0.01 100.11

Mitigated Construction On-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

2II5RDG            

3DYLQJ      

Total 7.99 12.58 9.50 0.02 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.00 1,458.82 0.25 1,464.03

RI 3.5 Landside Paving - Parking - 2013

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

+DXOLQJ             

9HQGRU             

:RUNHU             

Total 0.06 0.06 0.67 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 99.98 0.01 100.11

3.6 Trail Resurfacing w/DG - 2013

Unmitigated Construction On-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

)XJLWLYH'XVW       

2II5RDG           

Total 4.28 34.39 20.04 0.03 6.05 1.71 7.76 3.31 1.71 5.02 3,517.78 0.38 3,525.85

RI 3.6 Trail Resurfacing w/DG - 2013

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

+DXOLQJ             

9HQGRU             

:RUNHU             

Total 0.06 0.06 0.67 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 99.98 0.01 100.11

Mitigated Construction On-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

)XJLWLYH'XVW       

2II5RDG            

Total 15.06 25.00 17.33 0.03 2.72 1.06 3.78 1.49 1.06 2.55 0.00 3,517.78 0.38 3,525.85

RI 3.6 Trail Resurfacing w/DG - 2013

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

52* 12[ &2 62 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 )XJLWLYH ([KDXVW 30 %LR&2 1%LR 7RWDO&2 &+ 12 &2H 30 30 7RWDO 30 30 7RWDO &2

&DWHJRU\ OEGD\ OEGD\

+DXOLQJ             

9HQGRU             

:RUNHU             

Total 0.06 0.06 0.67 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 99.98 0.01 100.11

RI RichmondFerryTerminalProject OperationalEmissions

TierIIOperational

ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10*PM2.5* Phase Lbs/day Area 8.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.11 1.04 0.87 0.01 0.00 0.00 Mobile 3.91 5.19 30.27 0.03 0.15 0.15 FacilitySubtotal 12.84 6.23 31.14 0.04 0.15 0.15 FerryEmissions 4.55 85.74 60.27 2.95 5.12 4.61 ReducedVMT** 9.49 6.18 67.10 0.10 0.34 0.34 NetTotal 7.90 85.79 24.31 2.89 4.93 4.42 BAAQMDThreshold(1999) 80.00 80.00 80.00 Significant No Yes No BAAQMDThreshold(2009) 54.00 54.00 82.00 54.00 Tons/year Area 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.02 0.19 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mobile 0.60 0.91 5.09 0.01 0.03 0.03 FacilitySubtotal 2.23 1.10 5.25 0.01 0.03 0.03 FerryEmissions 0.83 15.65 11.00 0.54 0.93 0.84 ReducedVMT** 1.63 1.05 11.83 0.02 0.06 0.06 NetTotal 1.43 15.70 4.42 0.53 0.90 0.81 BAAQMDThreshold(1999) ͲͲ Ͳ BAAQMDThreshold(2009) 10.00 10.00 15.00 10.00 Source:Atkins2012,CalEEModModeling

*PM10andPM2.5representexhaustemissionsonly **EmissionsthattheprojectisreplacingthroughreductioninVMT. 2009Thresholdsareforinformationalpurposesonlyandarenotusedinsignificancedetermination. RichmondFerryTerminalProject OperationalEmissions

TierIII

ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10*PM2.5* Lbs/day(Winter) Area 8.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.11 1.04 0.87 0.01 0.00 0.00 Mobile 3.91 5.19 30.27 0.03 0.15 0.15 FacilitySubtotal 12.84 6.23 31.14 0.04 0.15 0.15 FerryEmissions 3.71 69.77 60.27 2.95 1.81 1.63 ReducedVMT** 9.49 6.18 67.10 0.10 0.34 0.34 NetTotal 7.06 69.82 24.31 2.89 1.62 1.44 BAAQMDThreshold(1999) 80.00 80.00 80.00 Significant No No No BAAQMDThreshold(2009) 54.00 54.00 82.00 54.00 Tons/year Area 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.02 0.19 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mobile 0.60 0.91 5.09 0.01 0.03 0.03 FacilitySubtotal 2.23 1.10 5.25 0.01 0.03 0.03 FerryEmissions 0.68 12.73 11.00 0.54 0.33 0.30 ReducedVMT** 1.63 1.05 11.83 0.02 0.06 0.06 NetTotal 1.28 12.78 4.42 0.53 0.30 0.27 BAAQMDThreshold(1999) ͲͲ Ͳ BAAQMDThreshold(2009) 10.00 10.00 15.00 10.00 Source:Atkins2012,CalEEModModeling

*PM10andPM2.5representexhaustemissionsonly **EmissionsthattheprojectisreplacingthroughreductioninVMT. 2009Thresholdsareforinformationalpurposesonlyandarenotusedinsignificancedetermination. RichmondFerryTerminalProject OperationalEmissions

TierIII+WETARegulation

ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10*PM2.5* Lbs/day(Winter) Area 8.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.11 1.04 0.87 0.01 0.00 0.00 Mobile 3.91 5.19 30.27 0.03 0.15 0.15 FacilitySubtotal 12.84 6.23 31.14 0.04 0.15 0.15 FerryEmissions 3.71 12.86 60.27 2.95 0.77 0.69 ReducedVMT** 9.49 6.18 67.10 0.10 0.34 0.34 NetTotal 7.06 12.91 24.31 2.89 0.58 0.50 BAAQMDThreshold(1999) 80.00 80.00 80.00 Significant No No No BAAQMDThreshold(2009) 54.00 54.00 82.00 54.00 Tons/year Area 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.02 0.19 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mobile 0.60 0.91 5.09 0.01 0.03 0.03 FacilitySubtotal 2.23 1.10 5.25 0.01 0.03 0.03 FerryEmissions 0.68 2.35 11.00 0.54 0.14 0.13 ReducedVMT** 1.63 1.05 11.83 0.02 0.06 0.06 NetTotal 1.28 2.40 4.42 0.53 0.11 0.10 BAAQMDThreshold(1999) ͲͲ Ͳ BAAQMDThreshold(2009) 10.00 10.00 15.00 10.00 Source:Atkins2012,CalEEModModeling

*PM10andPM2.5representexhaustemissionsonly **EmissionsthattheprojectisreplacingthroughreductioninVMT. 2009Thresholdsareforinformationalpurposesonlyandarenotusedinsignificancedetermination. RichmondFerryTerminalProject FerryEmissions

EmissionFactors

A C Pollutant (lbs/kWͲhr) B(g/kWͲhr) (lbs/kWͲhr)

NOX 0.015721 5.8

SO2 0.000542 0.000542 Running PM 0.000939 0.15 CO 0.011023 5 ROG 0.00083 0.0006754

NOX 0.125 0.125 PM 0.0057 0.0057 Idle CO 0.2086 0.2086 ROG 0.0278 0.0278

A EPATierII TakenfromPreviousenvironmentaldocumentwiththeexceptionofCOemissionswhichweretakenfromCodeof FederalRegulationsPart94.

B EPATierIII TakenfromCodeofFederalRegulations1042forrunningemissionsforNO X,PM,andCO. 1 C EPATierIII IdleemissionsandrunningemissionsforSO 2usedsameemissionfactorsaspreviousenvironmentaldocument as

emissionfactorsforSO2donotchangefromTierIItoTierIII.ROGisreducedbythesameamountasNO X.

22.5 runningminpertrip 10 minutesidlepertrip 14 Averagenumberofdailytrips 5.25 Averagerunninghoursperday 1.225 Averageidletimeperday 0.002204623 lbs/gram RichmondFerryTerminalProject FerryEmissions

EPATierII EPATierIII

EFlbs/hpͲ tons/ Pollutant Hours/day KwͲhr hr lbs/day tons/year EFgr/kWͲhr g/day lbs/day year RunningEmissions

NOX 5.25 1037 0.015721 85.589054 1.62052184 5.8 31576.65 69.6145969 12.70466

SO2 5.25 1037 0.000542 2.9507835 0.71934875 2.9507835 0.538518 PM 5.25 1037 0.000939 5.1121508 0.04868521 0.15 816.6375 1.80037751 0.328569 CO 5.25 1037 0.011023 60.011968 10.9521841 5 27221.25 60.0125835 10.9523 ROG 5.25 1037 0.00083 4.5187275 0.44114758 3.67688857 0.671032 IdleEmissions

NOX 1.225 1037 0.125 0.153125 0.00292867 0.153125 0.027945 PM 1.225 1037 0.0057 0.0069825 6.7069EͲ05 0.0069825 0.001274 CO 1.225 1037 0.2086 0.255535 0.04663514 0.255535 0.046635 ROG 1.225 1037 0.0278 0.034055 0.00333108 0.034055 0.006215 TotalEmissions

NOX 85.742179 1.62345051 69.7677219 12.73261

SO2 2.9507835 0.71934875 2.9507835 0.538518 PM 5.1191333 0.04875227 1.80736001 0.329843 CO 60.267503 10.9988193 60.2681185 10.99893 ROG 4.5527825 0.44447866 3.71094357 0.677247 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date: 9/26/2012

Richmond Ferry Terminal - Operational Only Contra Costa County, Summer

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric

Place of Worship 1715 Seat

Parking Lot 515 Space

1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Climate Zone 5 Precipitation Freq (Days) 58

1.3 User Entered Comments

Project Characteristics - This is operational emissions only. Construction calculated separately Land Use - Based on 1715 riders per day, 515 parking spaces, and an approximately 4 acre lot. Place of worship used to best approximate operational energy consumptions. Both land uses are used to offset CalEEMod issues. Construction Phase - No construction Off-road Equipment - No Construction Vehicle Trips - 100% commute trips assumed. 2689 daily VMT per rider. 2 miles per trip and 515 spaces = 2.62trips per space. Area Coating - no surfaces to re-paint 1 of 8 Energy Use - Only lighting and water heating associated with the project. Parkinglot option does not calculate electricity even if defaults are overridden. Water And Wastewater - No landscaping and no septic Solid Waste - Solid waste based on 12.25 tons per year per parking space.

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.2 Overall Operational

Unmitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category lb/day lb/day

Area 8.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Energy 0.11 1.04 0.87 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 1,246.96 0.02 0.02 1,254.54

Mobile 3.91 4.94 24.86 0.03 3.25 0.15 3.40 0.11 0.15 0.26 3,111.47 0.15 3,114.53

Total 12.84 5.98 25.73 0.04 3.25 0.15 3.48 0.11 0.15 0.34 4,358.43 0.17 0.02 4,369.07

2 of 8 2.2 Overall Operational

Mitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category lb/day lb/day

Area 8.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Energy 0.11 1.04 0.87 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 1,246.96 0.02 0.02 1,254.54

Mobile 3.91 4.94 24.86 0.03 3.25 0.15 3.40 0.11 0.15 0.26 3,111.47 0.15 3,114.53

Total 12.84 5.98 25.73 0.04 3.25 0.15 3.48 0.11 0.15 0.34 4,358.43 0.17 0.02 4,369.07

3.0 Construction Detail

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

4.0 Mobile Detail

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

3 of 8 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category lb/day lb/day

Mitigated 3.91 4.94 24.86 0.03 3.25 0.15 3.40 0.11 0.15 0.26 3,111.47 0.15 3,114.53

Unmitigated 3.91 4.94 24.86 0.03 3.25 0.15 3.40 0.11 0.15 0.26 3,111.47 0.15 3,114.53

Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4.2 Trip Summary Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT

Parking Lot 1,349.30 1,349.30 1349.30 982,290 982,290 Place of Worship 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1,349.30 1,349.30 1,349.30 982,290 982,290

4.3 Trip Type Information

Miles Trip %

Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Place of Worship 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 95.00 5.00

5.0 Energy Detail

4 of 8 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category lb/day lb/day

NaturalGas 0.11 1.04 0.87 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 1,246.96 0.02 0.02 1,254.54 Mitigated NaturalGas 0.11 1.04 0.87 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 1,246.96 0.02 0.02 1,254.54 Unmitigated Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas

Unmitigated

NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Land Use kBTU lb/day lb/day

Parking Lot 10599.1 0.11 1.04 0.87 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 1,246.96 0.02 0.02 1,254.54

Place of Worship 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.11 1.04 0.87 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 1,246.96 0.02 0.02 1,254.54

5 of 8 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas

Mitigated

NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Land Use kBTU lb/day lb/day

Parking Lot 10.5991 0.11 1.04 0.87 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 1,246.96 0.02 0.02 1,254.54

Place of Worship 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.11 1.04 0.87 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 1,246.96 0.02 0.02 1,254.54

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category lb/day lb/day

Mitigated 8.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Unmitigated 8.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

6 of 8 6.2 Area by SubCategory

Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

SubCategory lb/day lb/day

Architectural 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Consumer 8.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 8.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

SubCategory lb/day lb/day

Architectural 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Consumer 8.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 8.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7.0 Water Detail

7 of 8 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

9.0 Vegetation

8 of 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date: 9/26/2012

Richmond Ferry Terminal - Operational Only Contra Costa County, Winter

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric

Place of Worship 1715 Seat

Parking Lot 515 Space

1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Climate Zone 5 Precipitation Freq (Days) 58

1.3 User Entered Comments

Project Characteristics - This is operational emissions only. Construction calculated separately Land Use - Based on 1715 riders per day, 515 parking spaces, and an approximately 4 acre lot. Place of worship used to best approximate operational energy consumptions. Both land uses are used to offset CalEEMod issues. Construction Phase - No construction Off-road Equipment - No Construction Vehicle Trips - 100% commute trips assumed. 2689 daily VMT per rider. 2 miles per trip and 515 spaces = 2.62trips per space. Area Coating - no surfaces to re-paint 1 of 8 Energy Use - Only lighting and water heating associated with the project. Parkinglot option does not calculate electricity even if defaults are overridden. Water And Wastewater - No landscaping and no septic Solid Waste - Solid waste based on 12.25 tons per year per parking space.

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.2 Overall Operational

Unmitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category lb/day lb/day

Area 8.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Energy 0.11 1.04 0.87 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 1,246.96 0.02 0.02 1,254.54

Mobile 3.50 5.19 30.27 0.03 3.25 0.15 3.40 0.11 0.15 0.26 2,818.20 0.16 2,821.53

Total 12.43 6.23 31.14 0.04 3.25 0.15 3.48 0.11 0.15 0.34 4,065.16 0.18 0.02 4,076.07

2 of 8 2.2 Overall Operational

Mitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category lb/day lb/day

Area 8.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Energy 0.11 1.04 0.87 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 1,246.96 0.02 0.02 1,254.54

Mobile 3.50 5.19 30.27 0.03 3.25 0.15 3.40 0.11 0.15 0.26 2,818.20 0.16 2,821.53

Total 12.43 6.23 31.14 0.04 3.25 0.15 3.48 0.11 0.15 0.34 4,065.16 0.18 0.02 4,076.07

3.0 Construction Detail

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

4.0 Mobile Detail

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

3 of 8 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category lb/day lb/day

Mitigated 3.50 5.19 30.27 0.03 3.25 0.15 3.40 0.11 0.15 0.26 2,818.20 0.16 2,821.53

Unmitigated 3.50 5.19 30.27 0.03 3.25 0.15 3.40 0.11 0.15 0.26 2,818.20 0.16 2,821.53

Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4.2 Trip Summary Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT

Parking Lot 1,349.30 1,349.30 1349.30 982,290 982,290 Place of Worship 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1,349.30 1,349.30 1,349.30 982,290 982,290

4.3 Trip Type Information

Miles Trip %

Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Place of Worship 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 95.00 5.00

5.0 Energy Detail

4 of 8 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category lb/day lb/day

NaturalGas 0.11 1.04 0.87 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 1,246.96 0.02 0.02 1,254.54 Mitigated NaturalGas 0.11 1.04 0.87 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 1,246.96 0.02 0.02 1,254.54 Unmitigated Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas

Unmitigated

NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Land Use kBTU lb/day lb/day

Parking Lot 10599.1 0.11 1.04 0.87 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 1,246.96 0.02 0.02 1,254.54

Place of Worship 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.11 1.04 0.87 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 1,246.96 0.02 0.02 1,254.54

5 of 8 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas

Mitigated

NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Land Use kBTU lb/day lb/day

Parking Lot 10.5991 0.11 1.04 0.87 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 1,246.96 0.02 0.02 1,254.54

Place of Worship 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.11 1.04 0.87 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 1,246.96 0.02 0.02 1,254.54

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category lb/day lb/day

Mitigated 8.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Unmitigated 8.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

6 of 8 6.2 Area by SubCategory

Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

SubCategory lb/day lb/day

Architectural 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Consumer 8.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 8.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

SubCategory lb/day lb/day

Architectural 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Consumer 8.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 8.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7.0 Water Detail

7 of 8 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

9.0 Vegetation

8 of 8 Appendix B Special-Status Species

California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database CNDDB Wide Tabular Report

Element Occ Ranks Population Status Presence CNDDB Total Historic Recent Pres. Poss. Name (Scientific/Common) Ranks Other Lists Listing Status EO's A B C D X U >20 yr <=20 yr Extant Extirp. Extirp.

Accipiter cooperii G5 CDFG: Fed: None 102 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 Cooper's hawk S3 Cal:None S:1

Ambystoma californiense G2G3 CDFG: SC Fed: Threatened 1057 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 California tiger salamander S2S3 Cal:Threatened S:1

Amsinckia lunaris G2? CNPS: 1B.2 Fed: None 64 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 3 0 0 bent-flowered fiddleneck S2? Cal:None S:3

Antrozous pallidus G5 CDFG: SC Fed: None 402 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 5 0 0 pallid bat S3 Cal:None S:5

Archoplites interruptus G3 CDFG: SC Fed: None 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 Sacramento perch S1 Cal:None S:2

Arctostaphylos pallida G1 CNPS: 1B.1 Fed: Threatened 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 pallid manzanita S1 Cal:Endangered S:1

Ardea alba G5 CDFG: Fed: None 35 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 great egret S4 Cal:None S:1

Ardea herodias G5 CDFG: Fed: None 132 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 great blue heron S4 Cal:None S:2

Asio flammeus G5 CDFG: SC Fed: None 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 short-eared owl S3 Cal:None S:1

Astragalus tener var. tener G2T2 CNPS: 1B.2 Fed: None 65 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 2 1 alkali milk-vetch S2 Cal:None S:3

Athene cunicularia G4 CDFG: SC Fed: None 1808 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 burrowing owl S2 Cal:None S:1

Atriplex joaquinana G2 CNPS: 1B.2 Fed: None 107 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 San Joaquin spearscale S2 Cal:None S:1

California macrophylla G2 CNPS: 1B.1 Fed: None 141 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 round-leaved filaree S2 Cal:None S:2

Calochortus tiburonensis G1 CNPS: 1B.1 Fed: Threatened 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Tiburon mariposa-lily S1 Cal:Threatened

Calystegia purpurata ssp. saxicola G4T2 CNPS: 1B.2 Fed: None 30 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 coastal bluff morning-glory S2.2 Cal:None S:1

Commercial Version -- Dated July 01, 2012 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 Report Printed on Monday, July 30, 2012 Information Expires 01/01/2013 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database CNDDB Wide Tabular Report

Element Occ Ranks Population Status Presence CNDDB Total Historic Recent Pres. Poss. Name (Scientific/Common) Ranks Other Lists Listing Status EO's A B C D X U >20 yr <=20 yr Extant Extirp. Extirp.

Carex comosa G5 CNPS: 2.1 Fed: None 29 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 bristly sedge S2 Cal:None S:1

Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta G4G5T1 CNPS: 1B.2 Fed: Endangered 9 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 Tiburon paintbrush S1 Cal:Threatened S:3

Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre G4?T2 CNPS: 1B.2 Fed: None 61 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 4 0 Point Reyes bird's-beak S2.2 Cal:None S:4

Chloropyron molle ssp. molle G2T1 CNPS: 1B.2 Fed: Endangered 26 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 2 1 0 soft bird's-beak S1 Cal:Rare S:3

Chorizanthe cuspidata var. cuspidata G2T2 CNPS: 1B.2 Fed: None 20 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 San Francisco Bay spineflower S2.2 Cal:None S:1

Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta G2T1 CNPS: 1B.1 Fed: Endangered 22 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 robust spineflower S1 Cal:None S:1

Cicindela hirticollis gravida G5T2 CDFG: Fed: None 34 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 sandy beach tiger beetle S1 Cal:None S:1

Circus cyaneus G5 CDFG: SC Fed: None 43 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 northern harrier S3 Cal:None S:2

Coastal Terrace Prairie G2 Fed: None 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 S2.1 Cal:None S:1

Danaus plexippus G5 CDFG: Fed: None 334 0 3 1 0 0 4 3 5 8 0 0 monarch butterfly S3 Cal:None S:8

Dirca occidentalis G2G3 CNPS: 1B.2 Fed: None 52 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 3 0 0 western leatherwood S2S3 Cal:None S:3

Egretta thula G5 CDFG: Fed: None 15 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 snowy egret S4 Cal:None S:2

Elanus leucurus G5 CDFG: Fed: None 157 1 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 white-tailed kite S3 Cal:None S:4

Emys marmorata G3G4 CDFG: SC Fed: None 1134 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 western pond turtle S3 Cal:None S:3

Eriogonum luteolum var. caninum G5T2 CNPS: 1B.2 Fed: None 19 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 3 0 0 Tiburon buckwheat S2 Cal:None S:3

Commercial Version -- Dated July 01, 2012 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 Report Printed on Monday, July 30, 2012 Information Expires 01/01/2013 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database CNDDB Wide Tabular Report

Element Occ Ranks Population Status Presence CNDDB Total Historic Recent Pres. Poss. Name (Scientific/Common) Ranks Other Lists Listing Status EO's A B C D X U >20 yr <=20 yr Extant Extirp. Extirp.

Eucyclogobius newberryi G3 CDFG: SC Fed: Endangered 117 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 tidewater goby S2S3 Cal:None S:2

Fritillaria liliacea G2 CNPS: 1B.2 Fed: None 69 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 5 0 fragrant fritillary S2 Cal:None S:5

Geothlypis trichas sinuosa G5T2 CDFG: SC Fed: None 111 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 2 4 0 0 saltmarsh common yellowthroat S2 Cal:None S:4

Gilia capitata ssp. chamissonis G5T2 CNPS: 1B.1 Fed: None 29 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 blue coast gilia S2.1 Cal:None S:1

Helianthella castanea G2 CNPS: 1B.2 Fed: None 97 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 2 3 0 0 Diablo helianthella S2 Cal:None S:3

Helminthoglypta nickliniana bridgesi G2T1 CDFG: Fed: None 6 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 Bridges' coast range shoulderband S1 Cal:None S:3

Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta G5T2T3 CNPS: 1B.2 Fed: None 33 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 white seaside tarplant S2S3 Cal:None S:1

Hesperolinon congestum G2 CNPS: 1B.1 Fed: Threatened 27 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 3 4 1 0 Marin western flax S2 Cal:Threatened S:5

Hoita strobilina G2 CNPS: 1B.1 Fed: None 30 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Loma Prieta hoita S2 Cal:None S:1

Holocarpha macradenia G1 CNPS: 1B.1 Fed: Threatened 37 0 0 0 3 8 1 4 8 4 2 6 Santa Cruz tarplant S1 Cal:Endangered S:12

Horkelia cuneata var. sericea G4T1 CNPS: 1B.1 Fed: None 38 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 Kellogg's horkelia S1.1 Cal:None S:2

Hydroprogne caspia G5 CDFG: Fed: None 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Caspian tern S4 Cal:None S:1

Hypomesus transpacificus G1 CDFG: Fed: Threatened 27 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 Delta smelt S1 Cal:Endangered S:2

Isocoma arguta G1 CNPS: 1B.1 Fed: None 14 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Carquinez goldenbush S1 Cal:None S:1

Lasionycteris noctivagans G5 CDFG: Fed: None 138 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 silver-haired bat S3S4 Cal:None S:1

Commercial Version -- Dated July 01, 2012 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 Report Printed on Monday, July 30, 2012 Information Expires 01/01/2013 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database CNDDB Wide Tabular Report

Element Occ Ranks Population Status Presence CNDDB Total Historic Recent Pres. Poss. Name (Scientific/Common) Ranks Other Lists Listing Status EO's A B C D X U >20 yr <=20 yr Extant Extirp. Extirp.

Lasiurus cinereus G5 CDFG: Fed: None 235 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 hoary bat S4? Cal:None S:3

Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus G4T1 CDFG: Fed: None 236 3 1 1 0 0 5 5 5 10 0 0 California black rail S1 Cal:Threatened S:10

Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii G5T2 CNPS: 1B.2 Fed: None 129 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Delta tule pea S2.2 Cal:None S:1

Layia carnosa G2 CNPS: 1B.1 Fed: Endangered 22 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 beach layia S2 Cal:Endangered S:1

Leptosiphon rosaceus G1 CNPS: 1B.1 Fed: None 25 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 rose leptosiphon S1.1 Cal:None S:1

Lilaeopsis masonii G2 CNPS: 1B.1 Fed: None 196 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 Mason's lilaeopsis S2 Cal:Rare S:4

Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus G4T2 CDFG: Fed: Threatened 145 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 3 0 0 Alameda whipsnake S2 Cal:Threatened S:3

Melospiza melodia pusillula G5T2? CDFG: SC Fed: None 38 0 2 0 0 0 6 6 2 8 0 0 Alameda song sparrow S2? Cal:None S:8

Melospiza melodia samuelis G5T2? CDFG: SC Fed: None 41 0 3 0 0 0 8 8 3 11 0 0 San Pablo song sparrow S2? Cal:None S:11

Microcina leei G1 CDFG: Fed: None 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Lee's micro-blind harvestman S1 Cal:None S:1

Microcina tiburona G1 CDFG: Fed: None 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 Tiburon micro-blind harvestman S1 Cal:None

Microtus californicus sanpabloensis G5T1T2 CDFG: SC Fed: None 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 8 0 0 San Pablo vole S1S2 Cal:None

Northern Coastal Salt Marsh G3 Fed: None 53 0 0 1 0 0 9 10 0 10 0 0 S3.2 Cal:None S:10

Northern Maritime Chaparral G1 Fed: None 17 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 S1.2 Cal:None S:1

Nycticorax nycticorax G5 CDFG: Fed: None 25 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 black-crowned night heron S3 Cal:None S:2

Commercial Version -- Dated July 01, 2012 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 4 Report Printed on Monday, July 30, 2012 Information Expires 01/01/2013 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database CNDDB Wide Tabular Report

Element Occ Ranks Population Status Presence CNDDB Total Historic Recent Pres. Poss. Name (Scientific/Common) Ranks Other Lists Listing Status EO's A B C D X U >20 yr <=20 yr Extant Extirp. Extirp.

Nyctinomops macrotis G5 CDFG: SC Fed: None 32 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 big free-tailed bat S2 Cal:None S:1

Pandion haliaetus G5 CDFG: Fed: None 482 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 osprey S3 Cal:None S:1

Pentachaeta bellidiflora G1 CNPS: 1B.1 Fed: Endangered 14 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 white-rayed pentachaeta S1 Cal:Endangered S:2

Phalacrocorax auritus G5 CDFG: Fed: None 37 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 double-crested cormorant S3 Cal:None S:2

Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. G3T2Q CNPS: 1B.2 Fed: None 12 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Choris' popcorn-flower S2.2 Cal:None S:1

Plagiobothrys glaber GH CNPS: 1A Fed: None 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 hairless popcorn-flower SH Cal:None S:1

Pogonichthys macrolepidotus G2 CDFG: SC Fed: None 15 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Sacramento splittail S2 Cal:None S:1

Rallus longirostris obsoletus G5T1 CDFG: Fed: Endangered 92 2 5 1 1 0 6 9 6 15 0 0 California clapper rail S1 Cal:Endangered S:15

Rana draytonii G4T2T3 CDFG: SC Fed: Threatened 1327 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 California red-legged frog S2S3 Cal:None S:4

Reithrodontomys raviventris G1G2 CDFG: Fed: Endangered 137 1 2 1 0 0 6 7 3 10 0 0 salt-marsh harvest mouse S1S2 Cal:Endangered S:10

Sanicula maritima G2 CNPS: 1B.1 Fed: None 16 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 adobe sanicle S2.2 Cal:Rare S:1

Scapanus latimanus parvus G5T1Q CDFG: SC Fed: None 8 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 7 0 0 Alameda Island mole S1 Cal:None S:7

Senecio aphanactis G3? CNPS: 2.2 Fed: None 35 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 chaparral ragwort S1.2 Cal:None S:1

Serpentine Bunchgrass G2 Fed: None 22 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 3 0 0 S2.2 Cal:None S:3

Sorex ornatus sinuosus G5T1 CDFG: SC Fed: None 15 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 Suisun shrew S1 Cal:None S:3

Commercial Version -- Dated July 01, 2012 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 5 Report Printed on Monday, July 30, 2012 Information Expires 01/01/2013 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database CNDDB Wide Tabular Report

Element Occ Ranks Population Status Presence CNDDB Total Historic Recent Pres. Poss. Name (Scientific/Common) Ranks Other Lists Listing Status EO's A B C D X U >20 yr <=20 yr Extant Extirp. Extirp.

Sorex vagrans halicoetes G5T1 CDFG: SC Fed: None 12 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 salt-marsh wandering shrew S1 Cal:None S:2

Sternula antillarum browni G4T2T3Q CDFG: Fed: Endangered 67 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 California least tern S2S3 Cal:Endangered S:1

Streptanthus glandulosus ssp. niger G4T1 CNPS: 1B.1 Fed: Endangered 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 Tiburon jewel-flower S1 Cal:Endangered

Suaeda californica G1 CNPS: 1B.1 Fed: Endangered 17 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 California seablite S1 Cal:None S:1

Symphyotrichum lentum G2 CNPS: 1B.2 Fed: None 169 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Suisun Marsh aster S2 Cal:None S:1

Trachusa gummifera G1 CDFG: Fed: None 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 San Francisco Bay Area leaf-cutter bee S1 Cal:None S:1

Trifolium amoenum G1 CNPS: 1B.1 Fed: Endangered 26 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 showy rancheria clover S1 Cal:None S:1

Trifolium hydrophilum G2 CNPS: 1B.2 Fed: None 44 0 0 0 0 4 1 5 0 1 1 3 saline clover S2 Cal:None S:5

Triquetrella californica G1 CNPS: 1B.2 Fed: None 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 coastal triquetrella S1 Cal:None S:1

Tryonia imitator G2G3 CDFG: Fed: None 34 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater S2S3 Cal:None S:2 snail)

Valley Needlegrass Grassland G3 Fed: None 45 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 S3.1 Cal:None S:1

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus G5 CDFG: SC Fed: None 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 yellow-headed blackbird S3S4 Cal:None S:1

Commercial Version -- Dated July 01, 2012 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 6 Report Printed on Monday, July 30, 2012 Information Expires 01/01/2013 Administrative Draft 4—Subject to Change APPENDIX B Special-Status Species April 2014

Table B-2 Special-Status Species and Habitats Potentially Occurring on the Richmond Ferry Terminal Site Likelihood of Occurrence on the Richmond Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status Habitat and Seasonal Distribution in California Ferry Terminal Site MAMMALS California sea Zalopus Protected under the Forages for fish in San Francisco Bay. Haul-out sites include man-made Moderate. Suitable foraging habitat is lion californianus MMPA structures such as docks and piers present within the project site; existing float provides a haul-out. Harbor Seal Phoca vitulina Protected under the Year-round resident of San Francisco Bay. Breeds at sites including Moderate. Suitable foraging habitat is MMPA Corte Madera Marsh and Castro Rocks in the Central Bay. Forages for present within the project site. fish and crustaceans in San Francisco Bay, and has been observed on Brooks Island.

BIRDS California least Sternula Endangered Endangered; Nests along the California Coast, areas of the San Francisco Bay; Not likely (nesting). No suitable habitat is tern antillarum Fully Protected colonial breeder on sparsely vegetated flats substrates such as sandy present within the project site. browni beaches, alkali flats, and levees. The closest documented nesting site for Moderate (foraging). Suitable foraging California least tern is the Alameda Naval Air Station. Forages on mainly habitat is present within the project site. on small fish in shallow marshes and bays.

FISH Winter-run Oncorhynchus Endangered None Adult winter-run Chinook salmon enter the San Francisco Bay from Moderate. Winter-run Chinook salmon smolt Chinook salmon, tshawytscha November through May or June. Spawning occurs in the Sacramento may pass through and forage within the Sacramento River upstream of the Red Bluff Diversion Dam. Pre-smolt/smolt proposed project during emigration to the River ESU emigration through the Lower Sacramento River Delta and San Francisco Pacific Ocean. The project site is within the Bay occurs from September through June. designated critical habitat for winter-run Chinook salmon. Central Valley Oncorhynchus Threatened None Central Valley Spring-run Chinook salmon probably enter the San Moderate. Central Valley spring-run spring-run tshawytscha Francisco Bay between late January and mid-February, based on their Chinook salmon smolt may pass through Chinook salmon return to natal tributaries as immature adults. Spawning occurs between and forage within the project site during ESU September and October. The pre-smolt/smolt emigration period typically emigration to the Pacific Ocean. extends from November to early May. Central Valley fall Oncorhynchus Species of Concern Species of Central Valley fall late-fall run Chinook salmon adults enter the San Moderate. Fall late fall-run Chinook salmon late-fall-run tshawytscha Special Francisco Bay between July and November. Spawning occurs from smolt may pass through and forage within Chinook salmon Concern August through December. The pre-smolt/smolt emigration period the project site during emigration to the ESU through the Delta and San Francisco Bay typically extends from March Pacific Ocean. through July.

San Francisco Bay Area B-7 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration APPENDIX B Special-Status Species Administrative Draft 4—Subject to Change April 2014

Table B-2 Special-Status Species and Habitats Potentially Occurring on the Richmond Ferry Terminal Site Likelihood of Occurrence on the Richmond Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status Habitat and Seasonal Distribution in California Ferry Terminal Site Central California Oncorhynchus Threatened None Adult Central California coast steelhead migrate from Pacific Ocean Moderate. Central California coast coast steelhead mykiss through the San Francisco Bay from November through February and steelhead smolt may pass through and DPS spawn in streams tributary to the San Francisco Bay. Spawning occurs forage within the project site during from December through April, Juvenile Central California Coast steelhead emigration to the Pacific Ocean. The rear in freshwater for one to three years (usually two years) before proposed project site is within the emigrating as smolts through the San Francisco Bay to the Pacific Ocean, designated critical habitat for Central generally from January through June. California coast steelhead. Central Valley Oncorhynchus Threatened None Central Valley steelhead adults migrate from the Pacific Ocean through Moderate. Central Valley steelhead smolt steelhead DPS mykiss the San Francisco Bay from September through December. Spawning may pass through and forage within the occurs mainly in tributaries to the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. proposed project during emigration to the Juvenile steelhead spend one to three years in freshwater before Pacific Ocean. The project site is within the emigrating as smolts. In general, smolt emigration through the designated critical habitat for Central Valley Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay occurs from steelhead. December through July. Green sturgeon Acipenser Threatened None Spawning occurs in the Sacramento River from Keswick Dam High. Green sturgeon juveniles and adults Southern DPS medirostris downstream to Hamilton City. Juveniles rear in the Sacramento River, forage on benthic invertebrates and small Delta, and San Francisco Bay from one-three years. Adults typically fish in the Suisun, San Pablo, and San forage in the Pacific Ocean from Mexico north to the Bering Sea, and Francisco Bays. Suitable foraging habitat often occur in estuaries and bays during summer. Some adults and occurs within the project site. juveniles are present year-round in San Francisco Bay. Eelgrass Zostera marina Protected under the None The species’ range extends from Baja to northern Alaska along the West Observed. A small (appx. 50 m2) eelgrass meadows 404(b)(1) guidelines Coast of North America. Eelgrass beds occur on shallow, soft-bottom bed was observed within the project site of the Clean Water habitats of the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. Eelgrass meadows during the general biological resources Act (40 C.F.R. and beds have been mapped in the project vicinity. survey. § 230.43).

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project B-8 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Administrative Draft 4—Subject to Change APPENDIX B Special-Status Species April 2014

Table B-3 Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Project Vicinity Federal CNPS Common Name Scientific Name State Status Habitat Associations Potential to Occur Status List Amsinckia lunaris bent-flowered None None 1.B.2 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill Not expected. No suitable vegetation fiddleneck grassland. associations are present within the project site. Astragalus tener var. tener alkali milk-vetch None None 1.B.2 Alkali playa, valley and foothill grassland vernal Not expected. No suitable vegetation pools. associations or habitat present within the project site. Atriplex joaquinana San Joaquin None None 1.B.2 Chenopod scrub, alkali meadow, valley and Not expected. No suitable vegetation spearscale foothill grassland. associations are present within the project site. California macrophylla round-leaved filaree None None 1.B.1 Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill Not expected. No suitable vegetation grassland. associations are present within the project site. Calochortus tiburonensis Tiburon mariposa-lily Threatened Threatened 1.B.1 Valley and foothill grassland. Not expected. No suitable vegetation associations are present within the project site. Calystegia purpurata ssp. coastal bluff None None 1.B.2 Coastal dunes, coastal scrub. Not expected. No suitable vegetation saxicola morning-glory associations are present within the project site. Carex comosa bristly sedge None None 2.1 Marshes and swamps Not expected. No suitable vegetation associations are present within the project site. Castilleja affinis ssp. Tiburon paintbrush Endangered Threatened 1.B.2 Valley and foothill grassland. Not expected. No suitable vegetation neglecta associations are present within the project site. Chloropyron maritimum Point Reyes bird's- None None 1.B.2 Coastal salt marsh Not expected. No suitable vegetation ssp. palustre beak associations are present within the project site. Chloropyron molle ssp. soft bird's-beak Endangered Threatened Coastal salt marsh Not expected. No suitable vegetation molle associations are present within the project site. Chorizanthe cuspidata var. San Francisco Bay None None 1.B.2 Coastal scrub, coastal bluffs, coastal prairie Not expected. No suitable vegetation cuspidata spineflower associations are present within the project site. Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood None None 1.B.2 Broadleaf upland forest, chaparral, cismontane Not expected. No suitable vegetation woodland, coastal conifer forest associations are present within the project site. Eriogonum luteolum var. Tiburon buckwheat None None 1.B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and Not expected. No suitable vegetation caninum foothill grassland, coastal prairie associations are present within the project site. Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary None None 1.B.2 Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, Not expected. No suitable vegetation coastal prairie associations are present within the project site.

San Francisco Bay Area B-9 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration APPENDIX B Special-Status Species Administrative Draft 4—Subject to Change April 2014

Table B-3 Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Project Vicinity Federal CNPS Common Name Scientific Name State Status Habitat Associations Potential to Occur Status List Gilia capitata ssp. blue coast gilia None None 1.B.2 Coastal dune, coastal scrub Not expected. No suitable vegetation chamissonis associations are present within the project site. Helianthella castanea Diablo helianthella None None 1.B.2 Broadleaf upland forest, chaparral, cismontane Not expected. No suitable vegetation woodland, valley and foothill grassland. associations are present within the project site. Hemizonia congesta ssp. white seaside None None 1.B.2 Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland Not expected. No suitable vegetation congesta tarplant associations are present within the project site. Hesperolinon congestum Marin western flax Threatened Threatened 1.B.1 Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland Not expected. No suitable vegetation associations are present within the project site. Hoita strobilina Loma Prieta hoita None None 1.B.1 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian Not expected. No suitable vegetation woodland associations are present within the project site. Holocarpha macradenia Santa Cruz tarplant Threatened Endangered 1.B.1 Coastal prairie, valley and foothill grassland Not expected. No suitable vegetation associations are present within the project site. Horkelia cuneata var. Kellogg's horkelia None None 1.B.1 Closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal scrub, Not expected. No suitable vegetation sericea chaparral associations are present within the project site. Isocoma arguta Carquinez None None 1.B.1 Valley and foothill grassland Not expected. No suitable vegetation goldenbush associations are present within the project site. Lathyrus jepsonii var. Delta tule pea None None 1.B.2 Freshwater and brackish marshes Not expected. No suitable vegetation jepsonii associations are present within the project site. Layia carnosa beach layia Endangered Endangered 1.B.1 Coastal dunes Not expected. No suitable vegetation associations are present within the project site. Leptosiphon rosaceus rose leptosiphon None None 1.B.1 Coastal bluff scrub Not expected. No suitable vegetation associations are present within the project site. Lilaeopsis masonii Mason's lilaeopsis None None 1.B.1 Freshwater and brackish marshes, riparian Not expected. No suitable vegetation scrub associations are present within the project site. Pentachaeta bellidiflora white-rayed Endangered 1.B.1 Valley and foothill grassland Not expected. No suitable vegetation pentachaeta associations are present within the project site. Plagiobothrys chorisianus Choris' popcorn- None None 1.B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub, coastal prairie Not expected. No suitable vegetation var. chorisianus flower associations are present within the project site. Streptanthus glandulosus Tiburon jewel-flower Endangered Endangered 1.B.1 Valley and foothill grassland Not expected. No suitable vegetation ssp. niger associations are present within the project site.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project B-10 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Administrative Draft 4—Subject to Change APPENDIX B Special-Status Species April 2014

Table B-3 Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Project Vicinity Federal CNPS Common Name Scientific Name State Status Habitat Associations Potential to Occur Status List Suaeda californica California seablite Endangered None 1.B.1 Marshes and swamps Not expected. No suitable vegetation associations are present within the project site. Trifolium amoenum showy rancheria Endangered None 1.B.1 Valley and foothill grassland, coastal scrub Not expected. No suitable vegetation clover associations are present within the project site. Trifolium hydrophilum saline clover None None 1.B.2 Marshes and swamps, foothill grassland, vernal Not expected. No suitable vegetation pools associations are present within the project site.

San Francisco Bay Area B-11 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration APPENDIX B Special-Status Species Administrative Draft 4—Subject to Change April 2014

Table B-4 Special-status Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Project Vicinity Common Scientific Federal State CDFG Habitat Associations Potential to Occur Name Name Status Status Status FISH Archoplites Sacramento None None SC Historically found in slow moving rivers, sloughs, and lakes in the Not expected. Required habitat not interruptus perch Central Valley, occasionally brackish waters of Suisun Marsh present within project site. Eucyclogobius tidewater goby Endangered None SC Estuaries and lower river reaches along California coast from Smith Not expected. No confirmed newberryi River to San Diego County. Found in brackish to fresh water; requires records of occurrence in San mud and sand bottoms with vegetation cover for breeding. Apparently Francisco Bay after 1950. extirpated from San Francisco Bay. Hypomesus Delta smelt Threatened Endangered Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta; seasonally to Suisun Bay, Carquinez Not expected. Salinity values in transpacificus Strait, and San Pablo Bay; rarely found at salinities > 10 parts per project area greater than upper thousand reported limits of occurrence for Delta smelt. Pogonichthys Sacramento None None SC Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Suisun Bay, and shallow-water habitat Not expected. Required habitat not macrolepidotus splittail marsh areas. present within project site.

AMPHIBIANS Ambystoma California tiger Threatened Threatened Breeds in vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, ponds, and stock ponds; Not expected. Required habitat not californiense salamander requires upland habitat with ground squirrel or gopher burrows for present within project site. aestivation Antrozous pallidus pallid bat None None SC Rocky areas in dry regions for roosting; forages in deserts, open Not expected. Required habitat not grassland, chaparral, and woodlands present within project site. Rana draytonii California red- Threatened None SC Lowlands and foothills in or near semi-permanent to permanent water Not expected. Required habitat not legged frog sources, with emergent or shoreline vegetation, occasionally in slightly present within project site. brackish waters.

REPTILES Emys marmorata western pond None None SC Ponds, lakes, marshes, low moving streams, rivers, sloughs, Not expected. Required habitat not turtle occasionally in brackish waters with basking sites; requires upland present within project site. habitat of sandy or grassland banks for nests Masticophis lateralis Alameda Threatened Threatened Chaparral, scrub, also adjacent oak savannahs and grasslands; usually Not expected. Required habitat not euryxanthus whipsnake south-facing ravines with abundant rodent burrows and rocky crevices. present within project site.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project B-12 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Administrative Draft 4—Subject to Change APPENDIX B Special-Status Species April 2014

Table B-4 Special-status Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Project Vicinity Common Scientific Federal State CDFG Habitat Associations Potential to Occur Name Name Status Status Status BIRDS Athene cunicularia burrowing owl None None SC Open, dry annual and perennial grasslands, deserts, and scrublands Not expected. Required habitat not with low growing vegetation; subterranean nester dependent on animal present within project site. burrows for nesting sites. Circus cyaneus northern harrier None None SC Coastal marshes and grasslands, mountain valleys, nests on ground Not expected. Required habitat not near marsh edges in shrubby vegetation present within project site. Geothlypis trichas saltmarsh None None SC San Francisco Bay region in salt and freshwater marshes; requires Not expected. Required habitat not sinuosa common dense vegetation such as tules, tall grasses, and willows for nesting present within project site. yellowthroat and foraging Laterallus California black None Threatened FP Freshwater marshes, wet meadows, saltwater marsh margins Not expected. Required habitat not jamaicensis rail bordering bays, nests in dense vegetation over shallow water or wet present within project site. coturniculus areas Melospiza melodia Alameda song None None SC Resident of salt marshes surrounding south arm San Francisco Bay. Not expected. Required habitat not pusillula sparrow Prefers dense Salicornia or Grindelia for nesting. present within project site. Melospiza melodia San Pablo song None None SC Resident of salt marshes surrounding North San Francisco Bay and Not expected. Required habitat not samuelis sparrow San Pablo Bay. Prefers dense Salicornia or Grindelia bordering present within project site. sloughs for nesting.. Rallus longirostris California Endangered Endangered Saltwater and brackish marshes bordering San Francisco Bay with Not expected. Required habitat not obsoletus clapper rail dense growth of Salicornia, forages on open mudflats away from cover. present within project site. Sternula antillarum California least Endangered Endangered Nests along the California Coast, areas of the San Francisco Bay; Nesting: Not expected. Required browni tern colonial breeder on sparsely vegetated flats substrates such as sandy nesting habitat not present within beaches, alkali flats, and levees. project site. Foraging: Moderate potential to forage in the project vicinity. Xanthocephalus yellow-headed None None SC Nests in freshwater marshes and wetlands with dense emergent Not expected. Required habitat not xanthocephalus blackbird vegetation, often on borders of lakes and ponds. present within project site. Microtus californica San Pablo vole None None SC Salt marshes of San Pablo Creek on the south shore of San Pablo Bay; Not expected. Required habitat not sanpabloensis constructs burrows in soft soil. present within project site.

San Francisco Bay Area B-13 Richmond Ferry Terminal Project Water Emergency Transportation Authority Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration APPENDIX B Special-Status Species Administrative Draft 4—Subject to Change April 2014

Table B-4 Special-status Wildlife Species Known to Occur in the Project Vicinity Common Scientific Federal State CDFG Habitat Associations Potential to Occur Name Name Status Status Status MAMMALS Reithrodontomys salt-marsh Endangered Endangered Saline emergent wetlands on the San Francisco Bay; requires dense Not expected. Required habitat not raviventris harvest mouse Salicornia for forage and cover; also needs refugia in upland habitat to present within project site. escape flooding. Scapanus latimanus Alameda Island None None SC Known only from Alameda Island; prefers moist, friable soils in annual Not expected. Required habitat not parvus mole and perennial grasslands. present within project site, and found only on Alameda Island. Sorex ornatus Suisun shrew None None SC Tidal marshes of northern shores of Suisun and San Pablo Bays; Not expected. Required habitat not sinuosus requires driftwood and dense low-lying vegetation for cover above present within project site. mean high tide level. Sorex vagrans salt-marsh None None SC Salt marshes in south arm of San Francisco Bay; requires medium to Not expected. Required habitat not halicoetes wandering shrew high vegetation with abundant driftwood and Salicornia for cover. present within project site, project site outside range of species.

Richmond Ferry Terminal Project B-14 San Francisco Bay Area Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Water Emergency Transportation Authority Appendix C Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Assumptions

RichmondFerryTerminalProject CalEEModInput

Note:OnlynonͲdefaultinputsareincludedinthissheet. TwoCalEEModrunsmodelingscenarioswereconducted.Onetoestimateconstructionemissionsand onetoestimateoperationalemissions.

CalEEMod (Construction)ProjectName: RichmondFerryTerminalͲConstructionOnly (Construction)FileName: RFTconstruction2 (Operation)ProjectName: RichmondFerryTerminalͲOperationalOnly (Operation)FileName: RFToperational Location: County ContraCosta windspeed(m/s): 2.2 Default Precipitation(days): 58 Default ClimateZone: 5 Default LandUseSetting: Urban OperationalYear: 2015 UtilityCompany: PG&E

LandUseType: Construction: Parking ParkingLot ProjectParking 515 spaces 4.36 acres OtherNonͲAsphaltSurface TerminalFacility 5.78 1,000KSF OtherNonͲAsphaltSurface Trail 11.18 1,000KSF Operational: Parking Parkinglot 515 spaces 4.36 acres Educational PlaceofWorship *Althoughthemajorityofsiteisaparkinglotandagangway/float,only ParkinglotisacategoryinCalEEMod.However,theCalEEModModel currentlydoesn'tallowforelectricalgenerationemissionstobe calculated.Therefore,anotherlandusecategoryhadtobeusedto estimateelectricalemissions."PlaceofWorship"wasusedtoprovide theabilitytocalculateelectricalemissionsfromprojectlighting.

ConstructionPhasingandEquipment: See"ConstructionAssumptions" RichmondFerryTerminalProject CalEEModInput

OperationalͲMobile 1,355 trips 1.99 milespertrip 2,689 DailyVMT 515 spaces 2.640 tripsperspace *CalEEModcalculatesbytripspersizemetric. *Sizemetricforparkinglotsisspaces.

EnergyUse 3.43 KWhr/seat/yr Lightingonly 18.75 KBTU/seat/yr DefaultNaturalGasUsage WaterConsumption 1580.25 perseatperyearinternalwateruse 2,141,002 gallons/yr WasteGeneration 12.25 tonsperspace(parkinglot) 6,308.75 tonsperyear

Sources  TrafficInformation: Atkins,September2012 EnergyUse1 CalEEModdefaultconsumptionrates,placeofworship. WaterConsumption1 CalEEModdefaultconsumptionrates,placeofworship. WasteConsumption1 CalEEModdefaultconsumptionrates,parkinglot.

1 SCAQMD.CaliforniaEmissionsEstimatorModelUser'sGuide,Version2011.1 .February2011. RichmondFerryTerminalProject ConstructionAssumptions

LandsideImprovements # Hours HP LF SitePreparation Dozer 1 8 358 0.59 Backhoe 1 8 75 0.55 Trenching Trencher 1 8 69 0.75 Grader 1 8 162 0.61 PavingͲParkinglot&resurfacingofTrenchedarea Pavers 1 8 89 0.62 PavingEquipment 1 8 82 0.53 Rollers 1 8 84 0.56 TrailResurfasing Dozer 1 8 358 0.59 Grader 1 8 162 0.61 Backhoe 1 8 75 0.55 InͲWaterImprovements Demolition Bargew/crane 1 8 800 tug 1 4 850 piledriver 1 8 1100 Buildingconstruction Bargew/crane 1 8 800 tug 1 4 850 piledriver 1 8 1100 supportboats 2 8 480 OverwaterImprovements BuildingConstruction Crane 1 8 208 0.43 Bargew/crane 1 8 800 tug 1 4 850 supportboats 2 8 480

Constructionassumptionsandequipmentbasedonprojectdescription. ProjectConstruction ‘•–”— –‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†’”‘Œ‡ –™‘—Ž†”‡“—‹”‡ʹ–‘ͳͷ™‘”‡”•ˆ‘”–Š‡†—”ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡ ‘•–”— –‹‘’‡”‹‘†Ǥ–ƒ›‰‹˜‡–‹‡ǡ—’–‘ͳͷ™‘”‡”•™‘—Ž†„‡‘–Š‡•‹–‡Ǥƒ”‹‰ˆ‘” ‘•–”— –‹‘™‘”‡”• ‘—Ž†„‡ƒ†‡ƒ˜ƒ‹Žƒ„Ž‡„›–Š‡‹–›ƒ† ‹–Š‡ƒ†Œƒ ‡–’ƒ”‹‰Ž‘–‘”‹ –Š‡’ƒ”‹‰Ž‘–‘”–Š‘ˆ–Š‡ ‘”†—‹Ž†‹‰Ǥ LandsideImprovements Š‡ƒŒ‘”Žƒ†•‹†‡ ‘•–”— –‹‘ƒ –‹˜‹–‹‡•‹ Ž—†‡•‹–‡’”‡’ƒ”ƒ–‹‘ǡ‹‘”†‡‘Ž‹–‹‘ǡ‰”‘—† ‹’”‘˜‡‡–•ǡƒ†—–‹Ž‹–›‹•–ƒŽŽƒ–‹‘Ǥ‘•–”— –‹‘‡“—‹’‡–™‘—Ž†‹ Ž—†‡ƒ•ƒŽŽ„ƒ Š‘‡ƒ† „—ŽŽ†‘œ‡”Ȁ„‘„ ƒ–ǡŠƒ—Ž–”— •ǡƒ–‡”‹ƒŽ†‡Ž‹˜‡”›–”— •ǡƒ ”ƒ‡ǡƒ††‡Ž‹˜‡”›ƒ†•—’’‘”––”— •ǤŽŽ ‡“—‹’‡–™‘—Ž†„‡’‘™‡”‡†„›†‹‡•‡Ž‘”‰ƒ•‘Ž‹‡Ǥ

‹‘”‡š ƒ˜ƒ–‹‘™‘—Ž†„‡”‡“—‹”‡†–‘‹•–ƒŽŽ–Š‡—†‡”‰”‘—†—–‹Ž‹–‹‡•‹ Ž—†‹‰™ƒ–‡”ƒ† ‡Ž‡ –”‹ ‹–›ǤŠ‡’”‘’‘•‡†’ƒ”‹‰Ž‘–•‹–‡•™‘—Ž†‹˜‘Ž˜‡‹‘”’ƒ˜‹‰ƒ†”‡•–”‹’‹‰ǡŠ‘˜‡”‡”‘Ž› ‹‘”‰”ƒ†‹‰‹•ƒ–‹ ‹’ƒ–‡†Ǥ–”‹’‹‰‘” ‘ ”‡–‡’ƒ˜‡”•™‘—Ž†„‡‹•–ƒŽŽ‡†–‘‹†‡–‹ˆ›–Š‡ ’ƒ••‡‰‡”“—‡—‹‰ƒ”‡ƒǤ‘•–”— –‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†ƒ›”ƒ‹Ž‡š–‡•‹‘ƒŽ‘‰–Š‡™‡•–‡†‰‡‘ˆ–Š‡ ’ƒ”‹‰Ž‘–™‘—Ž†”‡“—‹”‡•‘‡‡š ƒ˜ƒ–‹‘ƒ†‰”ƒ†‹‰Ǥƒ†•‹†‡ ‘•–”— –‹‘™‘—Ž†ƒŽ•‘‹ Ž—†‡ ‹•–ƒŽŽƒ–‹‘‘ˆ‹ˆ‘”ƒ–‹‘ƒŽƒ†’—„Ž‹ ƒ ‡•••‹‰ƒ‰‡Ǥ

Š‡’‹Ž‡•—’’‘”–‡† ‘ ”‡–‡ƒ ‡••Žƒ†‹‰™‘—Ž†„‡‹•–ƒŽŽ‡†ˆ”‘–Š‡’Žƒœƒƒ†™Šƒ”ˆǤ‘–Š‡ ‡š–‡–ˆ‡ƒ•‹„Ž‡ǡ’‹Ž‡•ˆ‘”–Š‡Žƒ†‹‰™‘—Ž†„‡‹•–ƒŽŽ‡†ˆ”‘Žƒ†™‹–Šƒ ”ƒ‡ǤŠ‡‡š‹•–‹‰ƒ ‡•• ‰ƒ–‡ˆ”‘–Š‡ ‘”†—‹Ž†‹‰™Šƒ”ˆ™‘—Ž†„‡”‡‘˜‡†ƒ†”‡’Žƒ ‡†™‹–Š‡™”ƒ‹Ž‹‰••‹‹Žƒ”–‘™Šƒ– ‡š‹•–•‘”‹•’Žƒ‡†ƒ•’ƒ”–‘ˆ ‹’”‘˜‡‡–•Ǥ‡™ ‘˜‡”‡†‡–”›‰ƒ–‡•–”— –—”‡™‹–Š ƒ••‘ ‹ƒ–‡†Ž‹‰Š–‹‰ƒ†•‹‰ƒ‰‡™‘—Ž†„‡ ‘•–”— –‡†ƒ––Š‡’ŽƒœƒǤ

ŽŽ”ƒ’•ƒ†’Žƒ–ˆ‘”•™‘—Ž†„‡†‡•‹‰‡†–‘ ‘ˆ‘”–‘•–ƒ†ƒ”†•ǤŠ‡’”‘’‘•‡†ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–› ™‘—Ž†„‡‹ ‘’Ž‹ƒ ‡™‹–Šǯ•‘™•‡ —”‹–›”‡“—‹”‡‡–•ƒ•™‡ŽŽƒ••‡ —”‹–›”‡“—‹”‡‡–• ‡•–ƒ„Ž‹•Š‡†„›–Š‡ǤǤ‘ƒ•– —ƒ”†ȋ ͵͵ƒ”–•ͳͲͳȂͳͲ͸Ȍ”‡‰ƒ”†‹‰˜‡••‡Žƒ†–‡”‹ƒŽ•‡ —”‹–› ”‡‰—Žƒ–‹‘•ƒ†‰—‹†ƒ ‡Ǥ TerminalFacilityandWatersideImprovements ‡‘Ž‹–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡‡š‹•–‹‰ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–›™‘—Ž†„‡”‡“—‹”‡†’”‹‘”–‘‹•–ƒŽŽƒ–‹‘‘ˆƒ›‡™™ƒ–‡”•‹†‡ –‡”‹ƒŽ ‘’‘‡–•ǤŠ‡†‡‘Ž‹–‹‘™‘”‹ Ž—†‡•”‡‘˜ƒŽ‘ˆ–Š‡’‹Ž‡•ǡ‰ƒ‰™ƒ›ƒ†ˆŽ‘ƒ–ǤŠ‹• ™‘”™‘—Ž†„‡ ‘†— –‡†ˆ”‘„ƒ”‰‡•ǡ‘‡ˆ‘”ƒ–‡”‹ƒŽ••–‘”ƒ‰‡ƒ†‘‡‘—–ˆ‹––‡†™‹–Š†‡‘Ž‹–‹‘ ‡“—‹’‡–ȋ ”ƒ‡ƒ† Žƒ•Š‡ŽŽ„— ‡–‘”˜‹„”ƒ–‘”›’‹Ž‡†”‹˜‡”ˆ‘”’—ŽŽ‹‰‘ˆ’‹Ž‡•ƒ†ƒ ”ƒ‡ˆ‘” ‰ƒ‰™ƒ›”‡‘˜ƒŽȌǤ‹‡•‡Ž’‘™‡”–—‰„‘ƒ–•™‘—Ž†„”‹‰–Š‡„ƒ”‰‡•–‘–Š‡’”‘Œ‡ –•‹–‡ǡ™Š‡”‡–Š‡ „ƒ”‰‡•™‘—Ž†„‡ƒ Š‘”‡†Ǥ

‹Ž‡•™‘—Ž†„‡”‡‘˜‡†„›‡‹–Š‡”’—ŽŽ‹‰–Š‡’‹Ž‡‘” —––‹‰–Š‡’‹Ž‡•‘ˆˆ„‡Ž‘™–Š‡—†Ž‹‡ǤŠ‡ †‡‘Ž‹–‹‘™ƒ•–‡ˆ”‘–Š‡•‡ƒ –‹˜‹–‹‡•™‘—Ž†„‡†‹•’‘•‡†‘ˆƒ––Š‡‡ƒ”‡•–™ƒ•–‡ƒ†”‡ › Ž‹‰ ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–›Ǥ‹„‡”’‹Ž‡•–Šƒ–Šƒ˜‡„‡‡–”‡ƒ–‡†™‹–Š ”‡‘•‘–‡ǡ‘”–Šƒ– ‘–ƒ‹‘–Š‡”’‘–‡–‹ƒŽŽ› Šƒœƒ”†‘—••—„•–ƒ ‡•ǡ™‘—Ž†„‡Šƒ†Ž‡†’”‘’‡”Ž›ƒ††‹•’‘•‡†‘ˆƒ–ƒˆƒ ‹Ž‹–›’‡”‹––‡†–‘Šƒ†Ž‡ Šƒœƒ”†‘—•™ƒ•–‡Ǥ

 

Š‡ƒŒ‘”™ƒ–‡”•‹†‡ ‘•–”— –‹‘ƒ –‹˜‹–‹‡•‹ Ž—†‡ƒ”‹‡’‹Ž‡‹•–ƒŽŽƒ–‹‘ǡƒ”‹‡ˆŽ‘ƒ– ‹•–ƒŽŽƒ–‹‘ǡˆ‹š‡†’‹‡” ‘•–”— –‹‘ǡƒ†ƒ”‹‡—–‹Ž‹–›ƒ†‘—–ˆ‹––‹‰ǤŠ‡ƒ”‹‡’‹Ž‡‹•–ƒŽŽƒ–‹‘ ™‘—Ž†”‡“—‹”‡–Š‡—•‡‘ˆƒ•—’’‘”–ƒ†ƒ–‡”‹ƒŽ„ƒ”‰‡ǡƒ„ƒ”‰‡Ǧ‘—–‡†’‹Ž‡†”‹˜‡”ǡƒ•—’’‘”–„‘ƒ–ǡ ƒ†ƒ‘ ƒ•‹‘ƒŽ–—‰ǤŠ‡ƒ”‹‡ˆŽ‘ƒ–‹•–ƒŽŽƒ–‹‘™‘—Ž†”‡“—‹”‡™‘”„‘ƒ–•ǡƒ–—‰„‘ƒ–ǡ•—’’‘”– „ƒ”‰‡•ǡƒ†ƒ„ƒ”‰‡Ǧ‘—–‡† ”ƒ‡•Ǥ‘•–”— –‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡ƒ ‡••Žƒ†‹‰ ‘—Ž†”‡“—‹”‡™‘”„‘ƒ–•ǡƒ •—’’‘”–„ƒ”‰‡ǡƒ„ƒ”‰‡Ǧ‘—–‡† ”ƒ‡ǡƒ™Š‡‡Ž‡† ”ƒ‡ǡƒ†•—’’‘”–ƒ†Šƒ—Ž–”— •Ǥƒ”‹‡—–‹Ž‹–› ƒ†‘—–ˆ‹––‹‰™‘—Ž†”‡“—‹”‡ƒ™Š‡‡Ž‡† ”ƒ‡ƒ†•—’’‘”––”— •Ǥ

’’”‘š‹ƒ–‡Ž›ͳͺ‡™’‹Ž‡•™‘—Ž†„‡‹•–ƒŽŽ‡†ǡ ‘•‹•–‹‰‘ˆˆ‹š‡†’‹‡”•—’’‘”–‹‰’‹Ž‡•ǡ‰—‹†‡’‹Ž‡• ƒ––Š‡ˆŽ‘ƒ–•ǡˆ‡†‡”’‹Ž‡•ǡƒ†ˆ”‡‡•–ƒ†‹‰†‘Ž’Š‹•ǤŠ‡’‹Ž‡•ˆ‘”–Š‡–‡”‹ƒŽˆŽ‘ƒ–ƒ†ƒ ‡••’‹‡” ƒ†‰ƒ‰™ƒ›’Žƒ–ˆ‘”™‘—Ž†„‡‹•–ƒŽŽ‡†„›ƒ„ƒ”‰‡Ǧ‘—–‡† ”ƒ‡—•‹‰ƒ˜‹„”ƒ–‘”›’‹Ž‡†”‹˜‡”‘” ‹’ƒ –Šƒ‡”Ǥ ConstructionSchedule ‘•–”— –‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡’”‘’‘•‡†’”‘Œ‡ –™‘—Ž†”‡“—‹”‡—’–‘ͳͲ‘–Š•™‹–Š‘‹‰Š––‹‡ ‘•–”— –‹‘ ‡ ‡••ƒ”›Ǥ ƒ„”‹ ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡ˆŽ‘ƒ–ǡ‰ƒ‰™ƒ›ǡ”ƒ’‹‰ƒ†’‹Ž‡•™‘—Ž†”‡“—‹”‡ƒ’’”‘š‹ƒ–‡Ž›ͷ–‘͸ ‘–Š•ƒ†™‘—Ž†„‡ ‘’Ž‡–‡†‘ˆˆǦ•‹–‡Ǥ ‡‡”ƒŽŽ›ǡ•‹–‡’”‡’ƒ”ƒ–‹‘ǡƒ†‰”‘—†‹’”‘˜‡‡–• ™‘—Ž†‘ —”‘˜‡”‘‡‘–Šƒ† ‘—Ž†‘˜‡”Žƒ’™‹–Š™ƒ–‡”•‹†‡™‘”Ǣ ‘•–”— –‹‘‘ˆŽƒ†•‹†‡ ‹’”‘˜‡‡–•™‘—Ž†”‡“—‹”‡ƒ’’”‘š‹ƒ–‡Ž›‘‡‘–ŠǢ‹Ǧ™ƒ–‡”™‘”ȋ†‡‘Ž‹–‹‘Ȁ”‡‘˜ƒŽ‘ˆ ‡š‹•–‹‰ˆƒ ‹Ž‹–›ƒ†‹•–ƒŽŽƒ–‹‘‘ˆ’”‘’‘•‡†–‡”‹ƒŽ ‘’‘‡–•Ȍ™‘—Ž†„‡ ‘’Ž‡–‡†‹ ƒ’’”‘š‹ƒ–‡Ž›ʹ™‡‡•Ǣƒ†–Š‡‘˜‡”™ƒ–‡”™‘”–‘‹•–ƒŽŽ”ƒ’‹‰ƒ†—–‹Ž‹–‹‡•™‘—Ž†‘ —”‘˜‡”͵ ™‡‡•ǤŽŽ‹Ǧ™ƒ–‡” ‘•–”— –‹‘™‘”ƒ –‹˜‹–‹‡•ȋ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡ’‹Ž‡†”‹˜‹‰Ȍ™‘—Ž†‘ —”„‡–™‡‡–Š‡’‡”‹‘† ˆ”‘ —Ž›͵ͳ–‘‘˜‡„‡”͵ͲǤ RichmondFerryTerminalProject GreenhouseGasEmissionsSummary

MT/yr 1 1 1 Phase CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e LandConstruction 72.2 0.01 0.0000 72.37 WaterConstruction 157.76 0.02 0.00 158.76 Total 229.96 0.03 0.00 231.13 Amortized2 7.70 Source:Atkins2013andCalEEModModeling

1TotalswillnotaddacrossrowsasemissionsfromCH4andN2Oneedtobemultipliedbytheir

globalwarmingpotentialinordertocovertthemtocarbondioxideequivalents(CO2e).Themathis

notshowninthetable.TheglobalwarmingpotentialforCH4andN2Oare21and310respectively. Further,theCalEEModmodelonlyreportstothehundredththereforeroundingmayhavealso occurred.

2Amortizationassumesprojectlifetimeof30years.

MT/yr 1 1 1 Source CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Area 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EnergyͲElectricity 205.55 0.01 0.00 206.84 EnergyͲRenewableelectricity Ͳ205.55 Ͳ0.01 0.00 Ͳ206.84 EnergyͲNaturalGas 20.65 0 0 20.77 Mobile 473.69 0.03 0.00 474.24 Waste 2.49 0.15 0.00 5.57 Water 4.3 0.02 0.00 5.46 OperationalSourceSubTotal 506.04 FerryEmissions 1,508 AmortizedConstruction2 7.70 ProjectTotal 2,022 ReducedVMT3 1,535.08 0.07 0.00 1,537 NetTotalEmissions 485.56 Threshold 0 Significant? Yes Source:Atkins2013andCalEEModModeling 1 TotalswillnotaddacrossrowsasemissionsfromCH4andN2Oneedtobemultipliedbytheir

globalwarmingpotentialinordertocovertthemtocarbondioxideequivalents(CO2e).Themathis

notshowninthetable.TheglobalwarmingpotentialforCH4andN2Oare21and310respectively. Further,theCalEEModmodelonlyreportstothehundredththereforeroundingmayhavealso occurred.

2Amortizationassumesprojectlifetimeof30years. 3EmissionsthattheprojectisreplacingthroughreductioninVMT.

EmissionsfromCalEEModforNaturalGasconsumptionhasbeenreducedby90%toconservatelyrepresentthe * useofhotwaterintherestrooms.Thereisnootheronsiteuseofnaturalgas.TheCalEEModprogramassumes naturalgasusageforheatingaswellashotwateruse,whichaccountsforthemajorityofnaturalgas consumption. RichmondFerryTerminalProject ConstructionMarineEquipmentGHGEmissionsCalculations

ConversionFactors 1.10231EͲ06 shorttonspergram 0.002204623 lbs/gram 2204.62 lbs/metricton

CO2 CH4 N2O Horse Hours/ load gr/hpͲ lbs/ gr/hpͲ lbs/hpͲ Equipment Power day factor hr lbs/hpͲhr lbs/day gr/hpͲhr lbs/hpͲhr day hr hr lbs/day Bargew/crane 800 6 0.43 568.3 1.25 6,013.86 0.0840 0.0002 0.89 0.0060 1.32EͲ05 0.063 tug 850 4 0.20 568.3 1.25 4,259.82 0.0840 0.0002 0.63 0.0060 1.32EͲ05 0.045 piledriver 750 2 0.75 568.3 1.25 1,879.33 0.0840 0.0002 0.28 0.0060 1.32EͲ05 0.020 supportboats 480 6 0.40 568.3 1.25 3,608.31 0.0820 0.0002 0.52 0.0058 1.28EͲ05 0.037 2900 22.678 0.40 568.3 1.25 32,959.05

lbs/day days MT/yr

CO2 CH4 N2OCO2 CH4 N2OCO2e InͲWaterDemolition 12,153.00 1.80 0.1283 5 27.56 0.00407 0.00029 27.74 InͲWaterInstallation 15,761.32 2.32 0.1651 5 35.75 0.00525 0.00037 35.97 OverwaterWork 13,881.99 2.04 0.1453 15 94.45 0.01387 0.00099 95.05 32,959.05 0.91 0.0648 365 5,456.75 0.15023 0.01073 5,463.23

Source: CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard.OFFROAD2007emissionsmodel. 2007. CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date: 10/8/2012

Richmond Ferry Terminal - Construction Only Contra Costa County, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric

Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 5.78 1000sqft

Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 11.18 1000sqft

Parking Lot 515 Space

1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Climate Zone 5 Precipitation Freq (Days) 58

1.3 User Entered Comments

Project Characteristics - Land Use - Parking Lot = Parking lot. 5.78 ksf other non-asphalt = Ferry Terminal. 11.18 ksf other non-asphalt = trail extension Construction Phase - Based on Project Design, only land based equipment calculated in CalEEMod. Water based equipment calculated separately. Off-road Equipment - Project Design Off-road Equipment - Based on Project Description.

1 of 24 Off-road Equipment - Based on Project Description. Off-road Equipment - Based on Project Description. Off-road Equipment - Based on Project Description. Demolition - based on removal of all asphalt in existing parking lots. Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Off-road Equipment - Based on project description Grading - Based on area to be disturbed

2.0 Emissions Summary

2 of 24 2.1 Overall Construction

Unmitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Year tons/yr MT/yr

2013 0.10 0.69 0.46 0.00 0.09 0.04 0.13 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.00 72.20 72.20 0.01 0.00 72.37

Total 0.10 0.69 0.46 0.00 0.09 0.04 0.13 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.00 72.20 72.20 0.01 0.00 72.37

Mitigated Construction

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Year tons/yr MT/yr

2013 0.33 0.50 0.44 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.00 72.20 72.20 0.01 0.00 72.37

Total 0.33 0.50 0.44 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.00 72.20 72.20 0.01 0.00 72.37

3 of 24 2.2 Overall Operational

Unmitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Area 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4 of 24 2.2 Overall Operational

Mitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Area 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.0 Construction Detail

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment Use DPF for Construction Equipment Water Exposed Area Reduce Vehicle Speed on Unpaved Roads

5 of 24 3.2 Landside Site Preparation - 2013

Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Fugitive Dust 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Off-Road 0.02 0.19 0.11 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 17.20 17.20 0.00 0.00 17.24

Total 0.02 0.19 0.11 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 17.20 17.20 0.00 0.00 17.24

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.38

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.38

6 of 24 3.2 Landside Site Preparation - 2013

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Fugitive Dust 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Off-Road 0.10 0.12 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.20 17.20 0.00 0.00 17.24

Total 0.10 0.12 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 17.20 17.20 0.00 0.00 17.24

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.38

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.38

7 of 24 3.3 Overwater - Construction - 2013

Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.33 5.33 0.00 0.00 5.34

Total 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.33 5.33 0.00 0.00 5.34

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vendor 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.70 6.70 0.00 0.00 6.71

Worker 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.23 7.23 0.00 0.00 7.24

Total 0.01 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.93 13.93 0.00 0.00 13.95

8 of 24 3.3 Overwater - Construction - 2013

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.33 5.33 0.00 0.00 5.34

Total 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.33 5.33 0.00 0.00 5.34

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vendor 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.70 6.70 0.00 0.00 6.71

Worker 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.23 7.23 0.00 0.00 7.24

Total 0.01 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.93 13.93 0.00 0.00 13.95

9 of 24 3.4 Landside Trenching - 2013

Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.42 3.42 0.00 0.00 3.43

Total 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.42 3.42 0.00 0.00 3.43

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.13

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.13

10 of 24 3.4 Landside Trenching - 2013

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.42 3.42 0.00 0.00 3.43

Total 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.42 3.42 0.00 0.00 3.43

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.13

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.13

11 of 24 3.5 Landside Paving - Parking - 2013

Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 0.03 0.19 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 14.55 14.55 0.00 0.00 14.61

Paving 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.04 0.19 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 14.55 14.55 0.00 0.00 14.61

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Worker 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.90

Total 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.90

12 of 24 3.5 Landside Paving - Parking - 2013

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Off-Road 0.08 0.14 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 14.55 14.55 0.00 0.00 14.61

Paving 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.09 0.14 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 14.55 14.55 0.00 0.00 14.61

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Worker 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.90

Total 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.90

13 of 24 3.6 Trail Resurfacing w/DG - 2013

Unmitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Fugitive Dust 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Off-Road 0.02 0.17 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 15.95 15.95 0.00 0.00 15.99

Total 0.02 0.17 0.10 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 15.95 15.95 0.00 0.00 15.99

Unmitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.41

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.41

14 of 24 3.6 Trail Resurfacing w/DG - 2013

Mitigated Construction On-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Fugitive Dust 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Off-Road 0.08 0.12 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 15.95 15.95 0.00 0.00 15.99

Total 0.08 0.12 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 15.95 15.95 0.00 0.00 15.99

Mitigated Construction Off-Site

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.41

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.41

4.0 Mobile Detail

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 15 of 24 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Mitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Unmitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4.2 Trip Summary Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT

Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00

4.3 Trip Type Information

Miles Trip %

Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Non-Asphalt Surfaces 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00

16 of 24 Miles Trip %

Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Parking Lot 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Electricity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mitigated Electricity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unmitigated NaturalGas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mitigated NaturalGas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unmitigated Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

17 of 24 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas

Unmitigated

NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Land Use kBTU tons/yr MT/yr

Other Non-Asphalt 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfaces Parking Lot 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mitigated

NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Land Use kBTU tons/yr MT/yr

Other Non-Asphalt 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfaces Parking Lot 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

18 of 24 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity

Unmitigated

Electricity Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Land Use kWh tons/yr MT/yr

Other Non-Asphalt 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfaces Parking Lot 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mitigated

Electricity Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Land Use kWh tons/yr MT/yr

Other Non-Asphalt 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfaces Parking Lot 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

19 of 24 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Mitigated 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Unmitigated 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

6.2 Area by SubCategory

Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr

Architectural 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Consumer 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

20 of 24 6.2 Area by SubCategory

Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr

Architectural 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Consumer 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

21 of 24 ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Mitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Unmitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

7.2 Water by Land Use

Unmitigated

Indoor/Outdoor ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use

Land Use Mgal tons/yr MT/yr

Other Non-Asphalt 0 / 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfaces Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

22 of 24 7.2 Water by Land Use

Mitigated

Indoor/Outdoor ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use

Land Use Mgal tons/yr MT/yr

Other Non-Asphalt 0 / 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfaces Parking Lot 0 / 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

Category/Year

ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

tons/yr MT/yr

Mitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Unmitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

23 of 24 8.2 Waste by Land Use

Unmitigated

Waste ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed

Land Use tons tons/yr MT/yr

Other Non-Asphalt 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfaces Parking Lot 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mitigated

Waste ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed

Land Use tons tons/yr MT/yr

Other Non-Asphalt 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Surfaces Parking Lot 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

9.0 Vegetation

24 of 24 RichmondFerryTerminalProject FerryGHGEmissions

1 Emissions = gf*EF #trips*hourspertrip trips= 14 (oneway) minutes/trip2= 32.5 minutespertrip 3,4,5 EF : emissionfactor=0.01MTCO2e/gal

Averagedailytrips gallonsoffuelperday2= 469 Weekday 4165 gallonsoffuelperyear= 171,172 Weekend 784 WithLowCarbonFuelReduction= 1,567 Holiday 112 WithBiofuelReduction= 1,508 5061

MTCO 2 e/year= 1,508 ADT 14

Emissions/gallonoffuel CO2e(grams/gallon) 3 4 5 CO2 CH4 N2O TotalCO2eMTCO2e(pergallon) Ferry 10,138 5.31 25.8 10,169 0.01016911 9124.2 5.31 25.8 9,155 0.00915531 LowCarbonFuelStandard(10%reduction)6 5%biofuelmixture7: 0.0375 BioDieselreduction(3.75%reduction) Sources: 1 CaliforniaairResourcesBoard.AppendixBEmissionsEstimationMethodologyforCommercialHarborCraftOperatinginCalifornia.2007at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/chcͲappendixͲbͲemissionͲestimatesͲver02Ͳ27Ͳ2012.pdf 2 WETA,personalcommunication.May2013.

3 CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard.DocumentationofCalifornia'sGreenhouseGasInventory.February2013.AccessedApril2013

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/doc/docs1/1a3dii_waterͲborne_intrastate_harborcraft_fuelcombustion_distillate_co2_2000.htm

10,138 gofCO2pergalofdistillate 4 CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard.DocumentationofCalifornia'sGreenhouseGasInventory.February2013.AccessedApril2013

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/doc/docs1/1a3dii_waterͲborne_intrastate_harborcraft_fuelcombustion_distillate_ch4_2000.htm

5.31 gofCO2e(fromCH4)pergaloffuel 5 CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard.DocumentationofCalifornia'sGreenhouseGasInventory.February2013.AccessedApril2013

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/doc/docs1/1a3dii_waterͲborne_intrastate_harborcraft_fuelcombustion_distillate_n2o_2000.htm

25.8 gofCO2e(fromN2O)pergaloffuel

6 CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard.LowCarbonFuelStandardProgram.June14,2013.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs.htm 10%reduction accessedJune17,2013. 7 U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergy.BiodieselBenefitsandConsiderations. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/biodiesel_benefits.html accessed6/14/2013. B20(20%biofuels)= 15 %reduction B5(5%biofuels)= 3.75 %reduction Richmond Ferry Terminal Project WETA Fuel consumption

HP/KW HP DayFactor GPD Hrs/day Gal/hr Service Gal/hr #engs Total Factor Total Gal/hr Mains 16V2000 1410 1.2 1692 24 70.5 0.43 30.3 2 60.6 Gens NL65KW 18 1.346 24.2 1.2 29.1 24 1.2 1 1.2

Gal/hr 61.8 Gal/min 1.03069 gal/trip 33.49743 Notes:14tripsperday&32.5minutespertrip gal/day 468.964 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date: 9/26/2012

Richmond Ferry Terminal - Operational Only Contra Costa County, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric

Place of Worship 1715 Seat

Parking Lot 515 Space

1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Climate Zone 5 Precipitation Freq (Days) 58

1.3 User Entered Comments

Project Characteristics - This is operational emissions only. Construction calculated separately Land Use - Based on 1715 riders per day, 515 parking spaces, and an approximately 4 acre lot. Place of worship used to best approximate operational energy consumptions. Both land uses are used to offset CalEEMod issues. Construction Phase - No construction Off-road Equipment - No Construction Vehicle Trips - 100% commute trips assumed. 2689 daily VMT per rider. 2 miles per trip and 515 spaces = 2.62trips per space. Area Coating - no surfaces to re-paint 1 of 11 Energy Use - Only lighting and water heating associated with the project. Parkinglot option does not calculate electricity even if defaults are overridden. Water And Wastewater - No landscaping and no septic Solid Waste - Solid waste based on 12.25 tons per year per parking space.

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.2 Overall Operational

Unmitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Area 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Energy 0.02 0.19 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 412.00 412.00 0.01 0.01 414.54

Mobile 0.60 0.91 5.09 0.01 0.48 0.03 0.51 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.00 473.69 473.69 0.03 0.00 474.24

Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.49 0.00 2.49 0.15 0.00 5.57

Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.30 4.30 0.02 0.00 5.46

Total 2.23 1.10 5.25 0.01 0.48 0.03 0.52 0.02 0.03 0.06 2.49 889.99 892.48 0.21 0.01 899.81

2 of 11 2.2 Overall Operational

Mitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Area 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Energy 0.02 0.19 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 412.00 412.00 0.01 0.01 414.54

Mobile 0.60 0.91 5.09 0.01 0.48 0.03 0.51 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.00 473.69 473.69 0.03 0.00 474.24

Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.49 0.00 2.49 0.15 0.00 5.57

Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.30 4.30 0.02 0.00 5.46

Total 2.23 1.10 5.25 0.01 0.48 0.03 0.52 0.02 0.03 0.06 2.49 889.99 892.48 0.21 0.01 899.81

3.0 Construction Detail

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

4.0 Mobile Detail

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

3 of 11 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Mitigated 0.60 0.91 5.09 0.01 0.48 0.03 0.51 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.00 473.69 473.69 0.03 0.00 474.24

Unmitigated 0.60 0.91 5.09 0.01 0.48 0.03 0.51 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.00 473.69 473.69 0.03 0.00 474.24

Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4.2 Trip Summary Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT

Parking Lot 1,349.30 1,349.30 1349.30 982,290 982,290 Place of Worship 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 1,349.30 1,349.30 1,349.30 982,290 982,290

4.3 Trip Type Information

Miles Trip %

Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Place of Worship 9.50 7.30 7.30 0.00 95.00 5.00

5.0 Energy Detail

4 of 11 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Electricity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 205.55 205.55 0.01 0.00 206.84 Mitigated Electricity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 205.55 205.55 0.01 0.00 206.84 Unmitigated NaturalGas 0.02 0.19 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 206.45 206.45 0.00 0.00 207.70 Mitigated NaturalGas 0.02 0.19 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 206.45 206.45 0.00 0.00 207.70 Unmitigated Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas

Unmitigated

NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Land Use kBTU tons/yr MT/yr

Parking Lot 3.86868e+006 0.02 0.19 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 206.45 206.45 0.00 0.00 207.70

Place of Worship 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.02 0.19 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 206.45 206.45 0.00 0.00 207.70

5 of 11 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas

Mitigated

NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Land Use kBTU tons/yr MT/yr

Parking Lot 3.86868e+006 0.02 0.19 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 206.45 206.45 0.00 0.00 207.70

Place of Worship 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.02 0.19 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 206.45 206.45 0.00 0.00 207.70

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity

Unmitigated

Electricity Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Land Use kWh tons/yr MT/yr

Parking Lot 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Place of Worship 706580 205.55 0.01 0.00 206.84

Total 205.55 0.01 0.00 206.84

6 of 11 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity

Mitigated

Electricity Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Land Use kWh tons/yr MT/yr

Parking Lot 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Place of Worship 706580 205.55 0.01 0.00 206.84

Total 205.55 0.01 0.00 206.84

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Mitigated 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Unmitigated 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

7 of 11 6.2 Area by SubCategory

Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr

Architectural 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Consumer 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr

Architectural 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Consumer 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7.0 Water Detail

8 of 11 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Mitigated 4.30 0.02 0.00 5.46

Unmitigated 4.30 0.02 0.00 5.46

Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

7.2 Water by Land Use

Unmitigated

Indoor/Outdoor ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use

Land Use Mgal tons/yr MT/yr

Parking Lot 2.71013 / 0 4.30 0.02 0.00 5.46

Place of Worship 0 / 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 4.30 0.02 0.00 5.46

9 of 11 7.2 Water by Land Use

Mitigated

Indoor/Outdoor ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use

Land Use Mgal tons/yr MT/yr

Parking Lot 2.71013 / 0 4.30 0.02 0.00 5.46

Place of Worship 0 / 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 4.30 0.02 0.00 5.46

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

Category/Year

ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

tons/yr MT/yr

Mitigated 2.49 0.15 0.00 5.57

Unmitigated 2.49 0.15 0.00 5.57

Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

10 of 11 8.2 Waste by Land Use

Unmitigated

Waste ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed

Land Use tons tons/yr MT/yr

Parking Lot 12.25 2.49 0.15 0.00 5.57

Place of Worship 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 2.49 0.15 0.00 5.57

Mitigated

Waste ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed

Land Use tons tons/yr MT/yr

Parking Lot 12.25 2.49 0.15 0.00 5.57

Place of Worship 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 2.49 0.15 0.00 5.57

9.0 Vegetation

11 of 11 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2011.1.1 Date: 4/15/2013

Richmond Ferry Terminal Reduced - VMT 2015 Contra Costa County, Annual

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage

Land Uses Size Metric

Place of Worship 1715 Seat

1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Climate Zone 5 Precipitation Freq (Days) 58

1.3 User Entered Comments

Project Characteristics - GHG Emissions from reduced vehicle miles traveled. Land Use - Used same land use as project. Construction Phase - No construction Off-road Equipment - No construction Vehicle Trips - Altered to equal 11,343 vehicle miles per day Area Coating - mobile sources only Landscape Equipment - mobile sources only

1 of 11 Energy Use - mobile sources only Water And Wastewater - mobile sources only Solid Waste - mobile sources only Vechicle Emission Factors - Only commuter trips Vechicle Emission Factors - Only commuter trips Vechicle Emission Factors - Commuter trips only

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.2 Overall Operational

Unmitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Area 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mobile 1.19 1.05 11.83 0.02 2.02 0.06 2.09 0.08 0.06 0.14 0.00 1,535.08 1,535.08 0.07 0.00 1,536.55

Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 1.63 1.05 11.83 0.02 2.02 0.06 2.09 0.08 0.06 0.14 0.00 1,535.08 1,535.08 0.07 0.00 1,536.55

2 of 11 2.2 Overall Operational

Mitigated Operational

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Area 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mobile 1.19 1.05 11.83 0.02 2.02 0.06 2.09 0.08 0.06 0.14 0.00 1,535.08 1,535.08 0.07 0.00 1,536.55

Waste 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Water 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 1.63 1.05 11.83 0.02 2.02 0.06 2.09 0.08 0.06 0.14 0.00 1,535.08 1,535.08 0.07 0.00 1,536.55

3.0 Construction Detail

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction

4.0 Mobile Detail

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

3 of 11 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Mitigated 1.19 1.05 11.83 0.02 2.02 0.06 2.09 0.08 0.06 0.14 0.00 1,535.08 1,535.08 0.07 0.00 1,536.55

Unmitigated 1.19 1.05 11.83 0.02 2.02 0.06 2.09 0.08 0.06 0.14 0.00 1,535.08 1,535.08 0.07 0.00 1,536.55

Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

4.2 Trip Summary Information

Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT

Place of Worship 1,715.00 1,715.00 1715.00 4,126,359 4,126,359 Total 1,715.00 1,715.00 1,715.00 4,126,359 4,126,359

4.3 Trip Type Information

Miles Trip %

Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Place of Worship 0.00 6.61 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

4 of 11 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Electricity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mitigated Electricity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unmitigated NaturalGas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mitigated NaturalGas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unmitigated Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas

Unmitigated

NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Land Use kBTU tons/yr MT/yr

Place of Worship 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5 of 11 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas

Mitigated

NaturalGas Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Land Use kBTU tons/yr MT/yr

Place of Worship 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity

Unmitigated

Electricity Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Land Use kWh tons/yr MT/yr

Place of Worship 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6 of 11 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity

Mitigated

Electricity Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Land Use kWh tons/yr MT/yr

Place of Worship 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Mitigated 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Unmitigated 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

7 of 11 6.2 Area by SubCategory

Unmitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr

Architectural 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Consumer 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mitigated

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total CO2

SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr

Architectural 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Consumer 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Products Landscaping 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

7.0 Water Detail

8 of 11 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Category tons/yr MT/yr

Mitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Unmitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

7.2 Water by Land Use

Unmitigated

Indoor/Outdoor ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use

Land Use Mgal tons/yr MT/yr

Place of Worship 0 / 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

9 of 11 7.2 Water by Land Use

Mitigated

Indoor/Outdoor ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Use

Land Use Mgal tons/yr MT/yr

Place of Worship 0 / 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

Category/Year

ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

tons/yr MT/yr

Mitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Unmitigated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

10 of 11 8.2 Waste by Land Use

Unmitigated

Waste ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed

Land Use tons tons/yr MT/yr

Place of Worship 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Mitigated

Waste ROG NOx CO SO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Disposed

Land Use tons tons/yr MT/yr

Place of Worship 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

9.0 Vegetation

11 of 11 RichmondFerryTerminalProject EmissionReductionCalculations

1 Biofueluseincrease.

BiofuelMixture ReductionfromMixture AdditionalFerryEmission AdditonalProjectEmission (%) (%)1 Reduction(%)2 Reduction(%)2 00.00 N/A N/A 1 0.75 N/A N/A 2 1.50 N/A N/A 32.25 N/A N/A 43.00 N/A N/A 5 3 3.75 0 0 6 4.50 0.75 2.42% 7 5.25 1.50 4.84% 8 6.00 2.25 7.26% 9 6.75 3.00 9.68% 10 7.50 3.75 12.10% 11 8.25 4.50 14.52% 12 9.00 5.25 16.95% 13 9.75 6.00 19.37% 14 10.50 6.75 21.79% 15 11.25 7.50 24.21% 16 12.00 8.25 26.63% 17 12.75 9.00 29.05% 18 13.50 9.75 31.47% 19 14.25 10.50 33.89% 20 15.00 11.25 36.31% 25 18.75 15.00 48.41% 30 22.50 18.75 60.52% 35 26.25 22.50 72.62% 40 30.00 26.25 84.72% 45 33.75 30.00 96.82% 50 37.50 33.75 108.93%

1 U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.EnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergy.BiodieselBenefitsandConsiderations. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/biodiesel_benefits.html accessed6/14/2013. B20(20%biofuels)= 15 %reduction B5(5%biofuels)= 3.75 %reduction 2 Additionalferryreductionandadditionalprojectreductionrefertotheincreaseovercurrent5percentbiofuelmix.

3 The5percentbiodieselmixtureisthecurrentoperatingmixtureusedbyWETA. RichmondFerryTerminalProject EmissionReductionCalculations

2EVChargingStations Implementationofelectricvehiclechargingstationswillreducetransportationemissionsbasedonthe electricalvehiclepopulationofthecommunityandthenumberofavailablechargingstations.Typically speakingoncarwouldoccupyachargingstationforthedurationoftheday.Thereforeamaximumof onecarperchargingstationisassumed.

AverageAnnualGHGEmissionspervehicle: 0.351549296 MTCO2e

AnnualTotalGHGfromCommuterTraffic: 474.24 MTCO2e Total#dailycommutervehicles: 1,349 #ofChargingstations: 5 AnnualGHGReduction: 1.757746479

AverageAnnualGHGEmissionsfromElectricalConsumptionfromChargingStations: Kwh/fullcharge: 15 miles/charge: 70 kwh/mile: 0.214285714 Averagemilespertrip: 1.994519736 Kwhusedperchargingstationperday: 0.427397086 AnnualKwhperchargingstation: 155.9999365 lbsCO2/kw 0.64135 lbsCH4/kwh 0.029 lbsNO2/kwh 0.000011 lbsCO2e/kwh: 1.25376 AnnuallbsCO2eperchargingstation: 195.5864804 AnnualMetrictonsCO2eperchargingstation: 0.088716535 #ChargingStations: 5 MTCO2e/chargingStation: 0.443582676 RichmondFerryTerminalProject EmissionReductionCalculations

3 OnsiteSolar DailyElectricalOffset: 1,240,000 kWh AnnualEmissionsReduction 656,000 lbs/year

AnnualGHGEmissionReduction 297.56 MTCO2e

ValuesbasedonestimatesprovidedbySunpowerasincludedinthefollowingsitelayoutand eͲmail. SITE ( 5 1 0 ) 5 4 0 - 0 5 5 0 1414 HARBOUR WAY SOUTH 1 RICHMOND, CA 94804 USA X 2 6 X X 3

X 4

X X

X 5 X

X X X X X Dubois, Heather M

From: Dubois, Heather M Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 6:56 PM To: Dubois, Heather M Subject: FW: Solar PV carports: 1414 Harbour Way South

  From: Emily Humphreys [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 5:13 PM To: Chad Mason Subject: RE: Solar PV carports: 1414 Harbour Way South

Hi Chad,

Apologies for the delay. Below is a summary table of approximate expected production and savings from the proposed PV system.

1st Year Carbon Savings25 Year Carbon Savings

Capacity (kW) Cost 1st Year kWh25 Year kWh (lbs CO2) (lbs CO2) Value of Solar 809 $3,400,000 1,300,000 31,000,000 675,000 16,400,000 $4,400,000

The PV system would cost approximately $3.4 million. This is a very rough figure based on similar past projects. It includes modules and balance of systems but not O&M.

The system would produce approximately 1.3 million kWh in the first year and 31.2 million kWh over 25 years. This would produce approximately 675,000 lbs CO2 savings in the first year and 16.4 million lbs CO2 savings over 25 years, based on average PG&E emissions rates. Note that this is actually a very conservative figure because solar PV offsets peak power which tends to have a significantly “dirtier” emissions profile.

We believe that a RES-BCT approach makes the most sense for this situation. This means that SunPower would find appropriate public entity electricity consumer(s), who does not need to be on-site, and you would be credited with the solar generation. Under this approach, the value of solar would be worth approximately $4.3 million over 25 years, well exceeding the initial capital cost of the project.

1 Note also that SunPower modules have an expected lifetime of 40 years or more, so your dollar savings and CO2 savings would continue well beyond the 25-year mark.

I’m happy to refine all of these numbers as we move forward and get more information about the site, offtakers, tie-in, etc.

Best,

Emily Humphreys

Sales Analyst

SunPower Corporation, Systems

1414 Harbour Way South, Richmond, CA 94804

W 510-260-8348 | M 434-249-1908 [email protected]

2

Appendix D Noise Analysis Assumptions

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AND NOISE CONTOURS

Project Number: 100003254 Project Name: Richmond Ferry Terminal Project

Background Information

Model Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels. Source of Traffic Volumes: Atkins Community Noise Descriptor: Ldn: x CNEL:

Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60% Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06%

Analysis Condition Existing No Project Design Vehicle Mix Distance from Centerline of Roadway Segment Median ADT Speed Alpha Medium Heavy Ldn at Distance to Contour Roadway From To Lanes Width Volume (mph) Factor Trucks Trucks 100 Feet 70 Ldn 65 Ldn 60 Ldn 55 Ldn

1 Harbour Way Cutting Blvd Wright Ave 2 14 6,400 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 57.2 - - 53 168 2 Harbour Way Wright Ave Hall Ave 2 14 5,375 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 56.5 - - 45 141 3 Harbour Way Hall Ave End of Street 2 14 2,500 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 53.2 - - - 65 4 Marina Way Virgina Ave Cutting Blvd 4 10 5,250 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 56.5 - - - 140 5 Marina Way Cutting Blvd Wright Ave 4 10 2,150 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 52.6 - - - 57 6 Marina Way Wright Ave Regatta Blvd 4 10 2,825 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 53.8 - - - 75 7 Marina Way Regatta Blvd Hall Ave 4 10 2,500 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 53.2 - - - 67 8 Marina Way Hall Ave End of Street 4 10 1,625 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 51.4 ---- 9 Marina Bay Pkwy Portrero Ave I-580 Ramps 4 18 15,700 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 60.1 - - 103 326 10 Marina Bay Pkwy I-580 Ramps Regatta Blvd 4 18 17,775 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 60.7 - - 117 369 11 Marina Bay Pkwy Regatta Blvd End of Street 4 18 7,200 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 56.7 - - - 150 12 Cutting Blvd Harbour Way Marina Way 4 10 9,125 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 58.9 - - 77 243 13 Cutting Blvd Marina Way Marina Bay Pkwy 4 10 9,900 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 59.2 - - 84 264 14 Wright Ave 4th St Harbour Way 2 0 600 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 45.8 ---- 15 Wright Ave Harbour Way Marina Way 2 0 1,375 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 49.4 ---- 16 Regatta Blvd Marina Way Marina Bay Pkwy 4 18 4,075 25 0 1.5% 0.5% 52.7 - - - 58 17 Hall Ave Harbour Way Marina Way 2 0 900 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 47.6 ---- 18 Hall Ave Marina Way End of Street 2 0 300 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 42.8 ----

1 Distance is from the centerline of the roadway segment to the receptor location. "-" = contour is located within the roadway right-of-way.

Appendix D Noise.xls Atkins 4/17/2014 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AND NOISE CONTOURS

Project Number: 100003254 Project Name: Richmond Ferry Terminal Project

Background Information

Model Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels. Source of Traffic Volumes: Atkins Community Noise Descriptor: Ldn: x CNEL:

Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60% Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06%

Analysis Condition Existing Plus Project Design Vehicle Mix Distance from Centerline of Roadway Segment Median ADT Speed Alpha Medium Heavy Ldn at Distance to Contour Roadway From To Lanes Width Volume (mph) Factor Trucks Trucks 100 Feet 70 Ldn 65 Ldn 60 Ldn 55 Ldn

1 Harbour Way Cutting Blvd Wright Ave 2 14 6,725 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 57.5 - - 56 176 2 Harbour Way Wright Ave Hall Ave 2 14 6,500 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 57.3 - - 54 170 3 Harbour Way Hall Ave End of Street 2 14 5,425 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 56.4 - - 45 142 4 Marina Way Virgina Ave Cutting Blvd 4 10 5,500 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 56.5 - - - 146 5 Marina Way Cutting Blvd Wright Ave 4 10 5,550 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 56.5 - - - 148 6 Marina Way Wright Ave Regatta Blvd 4 10 3,550 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 54.5 - - - 94 7 Marina Way Regatta Blvd Hall Ave 4 10 4,250 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 55.3 - - - 113 8 Marina Way Hall Ave End of Street 4 10 3,375 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 54.2 - - - 90 9 Marina Bay Pkwy Portrero Ave I-580 Ramps 4 18 15,750 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 59.8 - - 103 325 10 Marina Bay Pkwy I-580 Ramps Regatta Blvd 4 18 18,850 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 60.5 - - 123 389 11 Marina Bay Pkwy Regatta Blvd End of Street 4 18 8,250 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 56.9 - - 54 170 12 Cutting Blvd Harbour Way Marina Way 4 10 9,375 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 58.5 - - 79 249 13 Cutting Blvd Marina Way Marina Bay Pkwy 4 10 10,625 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 59.0 - - 89 282 14 Wright Ave 4th St Harbour Way 2 0 600 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 45.3 ---- 15 Wright Ave Harbour Way Marina Way 2 0 1,600 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 49.5 - - - 32 16 Regatta Blvd Marina Way Marina Bay Pkwy 4 18 5,400 25 0 1.5% 0.5% 53.2 - - - 77 17 Hall Ave Harbour Way Marina Way 2 0 2,725 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 51.7 - - - 55 18 Hall Ave Marina Way End of Street 2 0 300 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 42.1 ----

1 Distance is from the centerline of the roadway segment to the receptor location. "-" = contour is located within the roadway right-of-way.

Appendix D Noise.xls Atkins 4/17/2014 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AND NOISE CONTOURS

Project Number: 100003254 Project Name: Richmond Ferry Terminal Project

Background Information

Model Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels. Source of Traffic Volumes: Atkins Community Noise Descriptor: Ldn: x CNEL:

Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60% Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06%

Analysis Condition Future No Project Design Vehicle Mix Distance from Centerline of Roadway Segment Median ADT Speed Alpha Medium Heavy Ldn at Distance to Contour Roadway From To Lanes Width Volume (mph) Factor Trucks Trucks 100 Feet 70 Ldn 65 Ldn 60 Ldn 55 Ldn

1 Harbour Way Cutting Blvd Wright Ave 2 14 7,275 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 57.8 - - 60 190 2 Harbour Way Wright Ave Hall Ave 2 14 6,725 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 57.5 - - 56 176 3 Harbour Way Hall Ave End of Street 2 14 3,150 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 54.1 - - - 82 4 Marina Way Virgina Ave Cutting Blvd 4 10 6,575 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 57.3 - - 55 175 5 Marina Way Cutting Blvd Wright Ave 4 10 6,000 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 56.9 - - 51 160 6 Marina Way Wright Ave Regatta Blvd 4 10 3,550 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 54.5 - - - 94 7 Marina Way Regatta Blvd Hall Ave 4 10 3,125 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 53.9 - - - 83 8 Marina Way Hall Ave End of Street 4 10 2,025 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 52.0 - - - 54 9 Marina Bay Pkwy Portrero Ave I-580 Ramps 4 18 19,625 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 60.7 - - 128 405 10 Marina Bay Pkwy I-580 Ramps Regatta Blvd 4 18 22,225 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 61.2 - - 145 459 11 Marina Bay Pkwy Regatta Blvd End of Street 4 18 9,000 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 57.3 - - 59 186 12 Cutting Blvd Harbour Way Marina Way 4 10 11,425 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 59.4 - - 96 303 13 Cutting Blvd Marina Way Marina Bay Pkwy 4 10 12,400 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 59.7 - - 104 329 14 Wright Ave 4th St Harbour Way 2 0 775 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 46.4 ---- 15 Wright Ave Harbour Way Marina Way 2 0 1,700 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 49.8 - - - 34 16 Regatta Blvd Marina Way Marina Bay Pkwy 4 18 5,125 25 0 1.5% 0.5% 53.0 - - - 73 17 Hall Ave Harbour Way Marina Way 2 0 1,150 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 48.0 ---- 18 Hall Ave Marina Way End of Street 2 0 400 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 43.4 ----

1 Distance is from the centerline of the roadway segment to the receptor location. "-" = contour is located within the roadway right-of-way.

Appendix D Noise.xls Atkins 4/17/2014 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS AND NOISE CONTOURS

Project Number: 100003254 Project Name: Richmond Ferry Terminal Project

Background Information

Model Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels. Source of Traffic Volumes: Atkins Community Noise Descriptor: Ldn: x CNEL:

Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60% Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52% Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06%

Analysis Condition Future Plus Project Design Vehicle Mix Distance from Centerline of Roadway Segment Median ADT Speed Alpha Medium Heavy Ldn at Distance to Contour Roadway From To Lanes Width Volume (mph) Factor Trucks Trucks 100 Feet 70 Ldn 65 Ldn 60 Ldn 55 Ldn

1 Harbour Way Cutting Blvd Wright Ave 2 14 8,200 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 58.3 - - 68 215 2 Harbour Way Wright Ave Hall Ave 2 14 7,875 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 58.1 - - 65 206 3 Harbour Way Hall Ave End of Street 2 14 6,050 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 56.9 - - 50 158 4 Marina Way Virgina Ave Cutting Blvd 4 10 6,825 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 57.5 - - 57 182 5 Marina Way Cutting Blvd Wright Ave 4 10 6,750 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 57.4 - - 57 180 6 Marina Way Wright Ave Regatta Blvd 4 10 4,250 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 55.3 - - - 113 7 Marina Way Regatta Blvd Hall Ave 4 10 4,900 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 55.9 - - - 130 8 Marina Way Hall Ave End of Street 4 10 3,800 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 54.7 - - - 101 9 Marina Bay Pkwy Portrero Ave I-580 Ramps 4 18 19,675 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 60.8 - - 129 406 10 Marina Bay Pkwy I-580 Ramps Regatta Blvd 4 18 23,300 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 61.4 - - 152 481 11 Marina Bay Pkwy Regatta Blvd End of Street 4 18 10,075 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 57.8 - - 66 208 12 Cutting Blvd Harbour Way Marina Way 4 10 11,675 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 59.5 - - 98 310 13 Cutting Blvd Marina Way Marina Bay Pkwy 4 10 13,125 35 0 1.5% 0.5% 59.9 - - 110 348 14 Wright Ave 4th St Harbour Way 2 0 775 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 46.4 ---- 15 Wright Ave Harbour Way Marina Way 2 0 1,950 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 50.3 - - - 39 16 Regatta Blvd Marina Way Marina Bay Pkwy 4 18 6,425 25 0 1.5% 0.5% 54.0 - - - 91 17 Hall Ave Harbour Way Marina Way 2 0 2,975 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 52.1 - - - 60 18 Hall Ave Marina Way End of Street 2 0 400 30 0 1.5% 0.5% 43.4 ----

1 Distance is from the centerline of the roadway segment to the receptor location. "-" = contour is located within the roadway right-of-way.

Appendix D Noise.xls Atkins 4/17/2014