DOCSLIB.ORG

Pinole‐Hercules Water Pollution Control Plant Improvement Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pinole‐Hercules Water Pollution Control Plant Improvement Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Pinole‐Hercules Water Pollution Control Plant Improvement Project Prepared for: City of Pinole 2131 Pear Street Pinole, CA 94564 March 15, 2010 Draft Environmental Impact Report Pinole‐Hercules Water Pollution Control Plant Improvement Project Prepared for: City of Pinole 2131 Pear Street Pinole, CA 94564 Contact: Dean E. Allison, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer (510) 724‐9010 Prepared by: AECOM 2022 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Wendy Copeland Project Manager (916) 414‐5800 March 15, 2010 09110101.01 03.15.10 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PUBLIC MEETING ON THE PINOLE-HERCULES WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT The City of Pinole has prepared a draft environmental impact report (EIR) for the Pinole-Hercules Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) Improvement Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). The WPCP treats water from the Cities of Pinole and Hercules. The overall project purpose is to bring the WPCP into compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Description of the Project: The Pinole-Hercules WPCP Improvement Project involves two options: (1) construction of upgrades at the existing plant, relocation of the City of Pinole corporation yard, and construction of a new parallel force main to the Rodeo Sanitary District (RSD); or (2) treatment of City of Pinole flows only at the existing plant and upgrades to the WPCP facility. The project would include an increase in the Pinole-Hercules WPCP’s permitted wet-weather treatment capacity, but there would be no increase in the permitted dry-weather treatment capacity. Project Location: The WPCP is located along the shoreline of San Pablo Bay, at 11 Tennent Avenue, Pinole, California, within Contra Costa County. The proposed force main under Option 1 would exit the WPCP from Tennent Avenue and cross Pinole Creek; it would then parallel the creek for approximately 1,100 feet to the intersection with San Pablo Avenue. The force main would remain within San Pablo Avenue until entering the unincorporated community of Rodeo, where it would turn north onto Parker Avenue, east onto 2nd Avenue, north onto Railroad Avenue, and then east to return to San Pablo Avenue before entering the RSD. Project elements associated with Option 2 would occur entirely within the existing WPCP facility. Significant Environmental Impacts of the Project: Analysis of environmental impacts associated with the WPCP identified potentially significant impacts in the following issue areas: air quality and odors, climate change, cultural resources, fisheries and aquatic resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, noise, and terrestrial biology. All impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level except for cumulative construction- and operation-related air emissions, which is considered a significant and unavoidable impact of the project. Public Review Period: The draft EIR is available for review during a 45-day comment period that begins on March 15, 2010 and ends on April 28, 2010. A public hearing on the draft EIR will be held on April 7, 2010 at 6 pm at the Pinole City Hall. Copies of the draft EIR can be reviewed at the following locations: Pinole City Hall Hercules Library Pinole Library 2131 Pear Street 109 Civic Drive 2935 Pinole Valley Road Pinole, CA 94564 Hercules, CA 94547 Pinole, CA 94564 Written comments must be postmarked no later than April 28, 2010 and should be sent to the following address: Dean Allison City of Pinole Public Works Director 2131 Pear Street Pinole, CA 94564 (Email: [email protected]) TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ ES-1 ES.2 Project Characteristics ................................................................................................................ ES-1 ES.3 Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures ....................................................... ES-2 ES.4 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................ ES-2 ES.5 Known Areas of Controversy ..................................................................................................... ES-4 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the EIR ....................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Project Requiring Environmental Analysis .................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Joint Powers Authority ................................................................................................................. 1-2 1.4 Scope of the EIR ........................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.6 Lead, Responsible, and Trustee Agencies .................................................................................... 1-4 1.7 EIR Public Review Process .......................................................................................................... 1-5 1.8 Terminology Used in the EIR ...................................................................................................... 1-7 1.9 EIR Organization .......................................................................................................................... 1-8 1.10 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................... 1-9 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Project Location ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Project Background and History .................................................................................................. 2-1 2.4 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 2-5 2.5 Existing Treatment Program, Processes, and Facilities ................................................................ 2-5 2.6 WPCP Facility Improvements ...................................................................................................... 2-7 2.7 Construction Equipment, Schedule, and Workforce .................................................................. 2-17 2.8 Proposed WPCP Operations after Upgrades .............................................................................. 2-18 2.9 Commitments to Reduce Environmental Impacts ...................................................................... 2-18 3 ENVIROMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 3.1 Air Quality and Odors ............................................................................................................... 3.1-1 3.2 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 3.2-1 3.3 Climate Change ......................................................................................................................... 3.3-1 3.4 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................... 3.4-1 3.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources ........................................................................ 3.5-1 3.6 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................... 3.6-1 3.7 Land Use Planning .................................................................................................................... 3.7-1 3.8 Noise .......................................................................................................................................... 3.8-1 3.9 Terrestrial Biology .................................................................................................................... 3.9-1 4 OTHER STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts ........................................................................................................... 4-18 4.3 Significant and Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .......................................................................... 4-19 Pinole-Hercules WPCP Improvement Project DEIR AECOM City of Pinole i Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 5 ALTERNATIVES
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pinolecreeksedimentfinal
    Pinole Creek Watershed Sediment Source Assessment January 2005 Prepared by the San Francisco Estuary Institute for USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and Contra Costa Resource Conservation District San Francisco Estuary Institute The Regional Watershed Program was founded in 1998 to assist local and regional environmental management and the public to understand, characterize and manage environmental resources in the watersheds of the Bay Area. Our intent is to help develop a regional picture of watershed condition and downstream effects through a solid foundation of literature review and peer- review, and the application of a range of science methodologies, empirical data collection and interpretation in watersheds around the Bay Area. Over this time period, the Regional Watershed Program has worked with Bay Area local government bodies, universities, government research organizations, Resource Conservation Districts (RCDs) and local community and environmental groups in the Counties of Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Francisco. We have also fulfilled technical advisory roles for groups doing similar work outside the Bay Area. This report should be referenced as: Pearce, S., McKee, L., and Shonkoff, S., 2005. Pinole Creek Watershed Sediment Source Assessment. A technical report of the Regional Watershed Program, San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI), Oakland, California. SFEI Contribution no. 316, 102 pp. ii San Francisco Estuary Institute ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors gratefully
    [Show full text]
  • Contra Costa County
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Marsh Creek Watershed Marsh Creek flows approximately 30 miles from the eastern slopes of Mt. Diablo to Suisun Bay in the northern San Francisco Estuary. Its watershed consists of about 100 square miles. The headwaters of Marsh Creek consist of numerous small, intermittent and perennial tributaries within the Black Hills. The creek drains to the northwest before abruptly turning east near Marsh Creek Springs. From Marsh Creek Springs, Marsh Creek flows in an easterly direction entering Marsh Creek Reservoir, constructed in the 1960s. The creek is largely channelized in the lower watershed, and includes a drop structure near the city of Brentwood that appears to be a complete passage barrier. Marsh Creek enters the Big Break area of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta northeast of the city of Oakley. Marsh Creek No salmonids were observed by DFG during an April 1942 visual survey of Marsh Creek at two locations: 0.25 miles upstream from the mouth in a tidal reach, and in close proximity to a bridge four miles east of Byron (Curtis 1942).
    [Show full text]
  • History of Black Powder the Following Is Adapted from "A Chronology of Black Powder" by Richard D Frantz
    History of Black Powder The following is adapted from "A chronology of Black Powder" by Richard D Frantz (Reference: http://footguards.tripod.com/06ARTICLES/ART28_blackpowder.htm) About Black Powder Black Powder is a mixture of three components: Potassium Nitrate ( KNO3 or saltpeter/saltpetre, or nitre/niter). Sulphur/sulphur . Charcoal. Ignition brings about a rapid reaction in which a group of gases is generated, and energy, in the form of heat, is liberated. The heating causes the gases to expand rapidly, producing an explosive force, especially if confined. The faster the reaction, the more powerful is the effectiveness. If this process is fully enclosed, we have a bomb. When the internal pressure exceeds the container's ability to contain it, we have an explosion. If the container has a vent, such as the open end of a gun barrel, the expanding gases may be used to propel a missile up its length. The length of barrel allows the process to sustain a major portion of the initial pressure, while the inertia of the missile is continually overcome. The missile continues to accelerate until it leaves the barrel, at which time, the effects of air resistance, and to a smaller effect, gravity, cause it to decelerate at predictable rates. Black Powder is classified as an explosive. This is because its actions after ignition meet some arbitrary criteria that takes it beyond the sense of "burning" - a slower reaction such as the burning of wood. Black Powder will indeed explode with considerable force if ignited when uncontained. In mining, it was often poured down cracks or into drilled holes to blast apart rock.
    [Show full text]
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
    [Show full text]
  • Quarterly Project Status Report (QPSR)
    CONTRA COSTA transportation 0 authority Measure J Half‐Percent Countywide Sales Tax Revenue Expenditure Program 12, Transportation for Livable Communities, and Program 13, Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trail Facilities Quarterly Project Status Report (QPSR) January 2021 Quarterly Project Status Report (QPSR) for Measure J CC‐TLC and PBTF Funds January 2021 Status of Measure J TLC and PBTF Projects This report is provided quarterly to the Planning Committee (PC) and Authority Board regarding the updated status of ongoing and completed projects funded by at least one of two Measure J programs: Program 12, TLC, and Program 13, PBTF; in some cases, projects are funded by both countywide programs. The reporting period for this Quarterly Project Status Report (QPSR) is October through December 2020, Quarter 2 (Q2) Fiscal Year (FY) 2020‐21. Projects in this report are organized into three status categories: Projects with funds appropriated by the Authority; Projects with funds programmed by the Authority (not yet appropriated); and Projects completed by each sponsor agency. For projects with funds appropriated by the Authority, the QPSR provides detailed information on the status of each phase including Preliminary Studies/Planning, Environmental Review, Design, Right‐of‐Way/Utilities, and Construction; estimated completion year, amount billed to date, and amount completed. The QPSR also provides financial information on the status of all funding resolutions approved by the Authority Board including the appropriated amount per phase, the total amount billed‐to‐date (for invoices received by the Authority through October 31, 2020 requesting reimbursement), and funding from non‐Measure J sources. The following major milestones were reached during Quarter 2: Rodeo Downtown Infrastructure Project (#120045, Contra Costa County) construction was completed and closeout initiated.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bulletin Summer 2 0 1 4 Page 1
    SUMMER 2014 The Centennial of the First State Highway had to occur starting with California voters’ approval in Contra Costa County John Mercurio in 1910 of an eighteen million dollar bond issue for the construction of a network of paved highways up Most of us give little thought, as we negotiate the and down the state. It was then necessary to create an highway and freeway network of Contra Costa organization to plan design and construct the County, about what it was like to travel overland a promised network of highways that would get century ago. But exactly one hundred years ago in the travelers (which still included horse drawn western part of our county an important event took conveyances at that time) out of the mud. place. The California Highway Commission awarded a contract to grade an improved road between San Three commissioners appointed by Governor Hiram Pablo and Pinole on August 11, 1914. While it was Johnson had the responsibility to initiate all that, only 3.6 miles in length, it would become not only an beginning with a motoring adventure all around important route for the county and the state, but a California to figure out the routes of the various link in a transcontinental highway. But for those highways. One of the routes laid out was designated present at the time it was recognized as the first state as route 14 in the statutes and was to run between highway contract in Contra Costa County. Albany and Martinez, and serve as part of the route to Sacramento via Benicia and Davis.
    [Show full text]
  • The California Powder Works
    Reprinted from the American Society of Arms Collectors Bulletin 46:2-5 Additional articles available at http://americansocietyofarmscollectors.org/resources/articles/ THE CALIFORNIA POWDER WORKS by A1 Cali 1,ocated about 75 miles south of San Francisco on the Moriterey Bay lies the town of Sarita Cruz. For liuridreds of years this area was kriown orlly to the Iritiians who fished in the clear running streams and hunted deer througli the greeri forests. In the year 1769,a band of Spariish explorers carric into the Sarlta Cruz area arld camped at the mouth of the Sari Tmrerizo River. One of these rnen, a Catholic priest named Father Crespi, wrote iri his diary under I he date of October 10, 1769, these words: "After going three inilcs over plains arld extensive hills well covered with high trees I ofa red-c:olored wood, trees not krlowrl to us, we gave it the name of its color, "redwood" (Palo Colorado)." Since Father Crespi. speaks- of walking- three miles frorn the campsite at the rrlouth of the river and corriing into the groves of rcdwood trees, we feel safe to assume that he was water of the river was diverted tl~rouglithe tunnel. one of the first rnen ever to see what was to become the This r~aturalrriotor deterrr~ined~hc site of the works and location of the C:alifornia Powder Works. the Sar~Lorerizo basin a1:)ounded with (thoice woods for F'ollowirlg the discovery of gold in California, powder was charcoal, and with the timber for r:onstruction, fuel, and iri great demand.
    [Show full text]
  • Salmonscape: Priorities for Conserving California’S Salmon and Steelhead Diversity
    SalmonScape: Priorities for Conserving California’s Salmon and Steelhead Diversity The Nature Conservancy of California August 2011 Version 1.1 SalmonScape – August 2011 SalmonScape: Priorities for Conserving California’s Salmon and Steelhead Diversity August 2011 Version 1.1 Jeanette Howard Kirk Klausmeyer Sally Liu The Nature Conservancy of California 201 Mission Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Cover photographs: Ian Shive (salmon), Bridget Besaw (Shasta Big Springs and juvenile coho salmon), CJ Hudlow (scientists at river mouth) Recommended Citation: Howard, J., K. Klausmeyer, and S. Liu. 2011. SalmonScape: Priorities for Conserving California’s Salmon and Steelhead Diversity. Version 1.1. Unpublished report. The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco, CA. 34 pages + Tables and Appendix. The Nature Conservancy 2 SalmonScape – August 2011 Table of Contents List of Tables 4 List of Figures 5 Acknowledgements 6 1.0 Introduction 7 Box 1. California’s Anadromous Salmon and Trout Diversity 8 2.0 Developing a SalmonScape: a Portfolio of Priority Landscapes 9 2.1 Framework 9 2.2 Study Area 12 2.3 Methods 12 2.4 Results 15 2.5 How the SalmonScape Compares to Agency Priorities 20 3.0 Uses of Data and Analyses 20 3.1 Priority Places and the Salmon Lifecycle 20 3.2 Stresses 20 3.3 Identifying Bottlenecks 25 4.0 Platform Sites 28 5.0 Conclusions and Future Directions 32 6.0 Literature Cited 33 The Nature Conservancy 3 SalmonScape – August 2011 List of Tables Tables and Appendix Page Table 1: Watersheds that make up top 2, 5, 10 and 20 percent of the study area identified as the 35 priority places to protect the strongest populations and best remaining habitat, restore habitat and populations to create and maintain viable populations.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
    3.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.6.1 INTRODUCTION This section analyzes the proposed project’s impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials— impacts resulting both from the presence of hazardous materials on the proposed project site and from the proposed project’s potential to release hazardous materials into the environment during and after construction. Development of the Added Area might create significant hazards to the public and the environment, particularly from hazardous materials handling, inadvertent release, and, notably, creating residential and commercial uses on two former heavy‐industrial sites. Several hazards assessments have been conducted on both sites that would be added under the Updated 2009 Redevelopment Plan. Phase I and Phase II assessments were performed for the Sycamore Crossing site in 1997, 2004, and January and August 2007, by Treadwell & Rollo (T&R), and for the Hill Town property in 1994, 1995, 2000, 2003, and 2004 by several consultants. The August 2007 Treadwell & Rollo Phase I and II, a 2000 Geomatrix report, and the 2003–2004 Terrasearch reports are included as Appendix 3.6. The sites were visually inspected and soil samples were tested for various contaminants (detailed below); records searches were performed to investigate the historic uses of both sites and prior remediation (cleanup) efforts. Records and references included both primary and secondary sources of information: • Aerial Photographs for the years 1939, 1958, 1965, 1970, 1982, 1993, and 1998 for the Sycamore Crossing site. • Aerial Photographs for the years 1949, 1953, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1974, and 1978 for the Hill Town site. • California Environmental Protection Agency News Release, DTSC Certifies Gelsar Site, January 2004 (adjacent to Sycamore Crossing).
    [Show full text]
  • Examples of Projects Anticipated to Be Eligible for Restoration Authority Grants
    Examples of projects anticipated to be eligible for Restoration Authority grants. PROJECT COUNTY PROJECT DESCRIPTION LEAD ORGANIZATIONS Peninsula and South Bay Completion of restoration and park improvements (entry, parking, Candlestick Point - San California State Parks signs, and trails), monitoring of restored wetlands, and operation and Yosemite Slough Francisco Foundation maintenance of wetlands and visitor amenities San Design and construction of a new soft shoreline to create habitat, China Basin Port of San Francisco Francisco improve public access, and protect the park from sea level rise. Environmental education programs for students of all ages at the Golden Gate National Crissy Field Center. The Center offers place-based exploration that focuses Crissy Field Educational San Parks Conservancy, on the interaction between humans and nature and makes use of the Programs Francisco National Park Service, natural and cultural resources of the restored Crissy Field wetland and the Presidio Trust Tennessee Hollow watershed. Design and construction of a living, natural shoreline to protect Heron’s Head park from erosion and sea level rise, create habitat San enhancements and protect public access; expansion of the Port’s existing Heron’s Head Park Port of San Francisco Francisco habitat education and outreach program for K-12 graders on Bay habitat and natural history; and removal of a creosote-pile pier in the waters to the north side of Heron’s Head Park, to improve wildlife habitat. San Design and construction of shoreline improvements to support habitat Islais Creek Port of San Francisco Francisco creation, protect against erosion and remove creosote piles. Design and construction of a new 4-acre shoreline and park area, San Pier 70 - Slipways Park including natural habitat areas, living shoreline, wetlands, and public access Port of San Francisco Francisco areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources Inventory Report For
    CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY REPORT FOR PORTIONS OF THE RICHMOND PROPERTIES RICHMOND, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA March 2013 PREPARED FOR: Tetra Tech, Inc. 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 PREPARED BY: Barb Siskin, M.A., RPA Erica Schultz, M.H.P Kruger Frank, B.A. Garcia and Associates 1 Saunders Avenue San Anselmo, CA 94960 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY This report presents the results of the cultural resources investigation, which included the identification of archaeological resources and cultural landscape features, for portions of the University of California’s Richmond properties in Richmond, Contra Costa County, California. Within the 133-acre area comprised of these properties, the University of California proposes to consolidate the biosciences programs of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and to develop additional facilities for use by both the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and University of California, Berkeley, and other institutional or industry counterparts for research and development focused on energy, environment, and health. The Phase 1 development plan would construct the first three buildings within a smaller 16-acre area on these properties. Due to the involvement of the United States Department of Energy, the proposed Phase 1 development is a federal undertaking as defined by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations, 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800. Therefore, only the smaller 16-acre area is subject to Section 106 regulations in order to take into account the effect of the undertaking on any historic property (i.e., district, site, building, structure, or object) that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
    PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL: LONE TREE POINT‐RODEO RODEO, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA January 2018 This page intentionally left blank PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL: LONE TREE POINT‐RODEO RODEO, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, California 94605 Attention: Jim Townsend, ACME Consulting Prepared by: LSA 157 Park Place Point Richmond, California 94801 510.236.6810 Project No. BKF 1702 January 2018 This page intentionally left blank P UBLIC R EVIEW D RAFT S AN F RANCISCO B AY T RAIL: L ONE T REE P OINT‐R ODEO I NITIAL S TUDY/MITIGATED N EGATIVE D ECLARATION R ODEO, C ONTRA C OSTA C OUNTY, C ALIFORNIA J ANUARY 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... i FIGURES AND TABLES ............................................................................................................................ iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................................................. v 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1‐1 1.1 Contact Person(s) .............................................................................................................. 1‐1 1.2 Project Location ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]