CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
Honda Port of Entry at the Point Potrero Marine Terminal
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH #2008022063
VOLUME II – TECHNICAL APPENDICES
JULY 2008
Table of Contents
HONDA PORT OF ENTRY Draft Environmental Impact Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. Introduction ...... 1–1 1.1 The Intent of CEQA...... 1–1 1.2 Background and Scope of this EIR...... 1–2 1.3 The CEQA Process...... 1–3
2. Summary...... 2–1 2.1 Project Proposal...... 2–1 2.2 Project Impacts ...... 2–2 2.3 Areas of Controversy...... 2–3 2.4 Alternatives to the Proposed Project ...... 2–4
3. Project Description...... 3–1 3.1 Introduction ...... 3–1 3.2 Overview ...... 3–1 3.3 History of the Project ...... 3–3 3.4 Project Location and Site Characteristics...... 3–4 3.5 Existing Terminal Facilities and Operations...... 3–7 3.6 Proposed Construction...... 3–13 3.7 Proposed Project Operations...... 3–20 3.8 Project Objectives...... 3–25 3.9 Required Approvals...... 3–26 3.10 Responsible Agencies ...... 3–27
4. Land Use and Planning ...... 4–1 4.1 Introduction ...... 4–1 4.2 Setting...... 4–2 4.3 Standards of Significance...... 4–57 4.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...... 4–58
5. Traffic and Transportation...... 5–1 5.1 Introduction ...... 5–1 5.2 Vehicle Traffic Setting...... 5–1 5.3 Train Traffic Setting ...... 5–10 5.4 Marine Traffic Setting ...... 5–22 5.5 Standards of Significance ...... 5–31 5.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...... 5–32
Honda Port of Entry Draft EIR i Table of Contents
6. Air Quality ...... 6–1 6.1 Introduction...... 6–1 6.2 Setting ...... 6–1 6.3 Standards of Significance ...... 6–17 6.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... 6–19
7. Noise...... 7–1 7.1 Introduction...... 7–1 7.2 Setting ...... 7–1 7.3 Standards of Significance ...... 7–12 7.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... 7–14
8. Biological Resources...... 8–1 8.1 Introduction...... 8–1 8.2 Terrestrial Biology Setting ...... 8–1 8.3 Marine Biology Setting...... 8–7 8.4 Regulatory Framework ...... 8–10 8.5 Special–Status Biological Resources...... 8–27 8.6 Standards of Significance ...... 8–35 8.7 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... 8–36
9. Cultural Resources ...... 9–1 9.1 Introduction...... 9–1 9.2 Setting ...... 9–1 9.3 Standards of Significance ...... 9–13 9.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... 9–15
10. Geology and Soils ...... 10–1 10.1 Introduction...... 10–1 10.2 Setting ...... 10–1 10.3 Standards of Significance ...... 10–16 10.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... 10–16
11. Hydrology and Water Quality...... 11–1 11.1 Introduction...... 11–1 11.2 Terrestrial Hydrology/Water Quality Setting ...... 11–1 11.3 Marine Hydrology/Water Quality Setting...... 11–5 11.4 Regulatory Framework ...... 11–12 11.5 Standards of Significance...... 11–20 11.6 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... 11–21
12. Hazards and Hazardous Materials...... 12–1 12.1 Introduction...... 12–1 12.2 Setting ...... 12–1 12.3 Standards of Significance ...... 12–17 12.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... 12–17
13. Visual Quality...... 13–1 13.1 Introduction...... 13–1 13.2 Setting ...... 13–2 13.3 Standards of Significance ...... 13–28 13.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... 13–28
ii Honda Port of Entry Draft EIR Table of Contents
14. Utilities ...... 14–1 14.1 Introduction ...... 14–1 14.2 Wastewater Service ...... 14–2 14.3 Water Service ...... 14–5 14.4 Storm Drainage ...... 14–11 14.5 Solid Waste Disposal...... 14–13
15. Alternatives to the Proposed Project ...... 15–1 15.1 Introduction ...... 15–1 15.2 Alternatives Evaluated in this EIR...... 15–6
16. Other CEQA Considerations...... 16–1 16.1 Growth–Inducing Impacts...... 16–1 16.2 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts...... 16–2 16.3 Effects Not Found to be Significant ...... 16–4 16.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes...... 16–4 16.5 Cumulative Impacts...... 16–5
17. Report Preparation and Bibliography ...... 17–1 17.1 Report Authors and Project Consultants...... 17–1 17.2 Individuals and Organizations Consulted...... 17–3 17.3 Bibliography ...... 17–4
18. List of Acronyms Used in This EIR...... 18–1
Honda Port of Entry Draft EIR iii Table of Contents
Appendices (Volume II)
A. Initial Study/Notice of Preparation ...... A–1 B. NOP Comment Letters...... B–1 C. Intersection Level of Service Calculations ...... C–1 D. Air Quality Analysis Methodology and Assumptions ...... D–1 E. Noise Measurements ...... E–1 F. Special–Status Plant Species...... F–1 G. Special–Status Animal Species ...... G–1 H. Special–Status Species Designation Codes ...... H–1
iv Honda Port of Entry Draft EIR Table of Contents
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 3–1 Project Site Location ...... 3–2 Figure 3–2 Aerial View of Project Area ...... 3–5 Figure 3–3 Overview of Existing PPMT Facilities ...... 3–29 Figure 3–4 Existing PPMT Buildings...... 3–31 Figure 3–5 Existing Port Property at the PPMT...... 3–32 Figure 3–6 Existing Ship and Train Facilities ...... 3–33 Figure 3–7 Proposed Improvement Areas ...... 3–35 Figure 3–8 Proposed PPMT Rail Yard Layout ...... 3–37 Figure 3–9 Proposed BNSF Automotive Facility Improvements...... 3–39 Figure 3–10 Existing and Proposed PPMT Lighting Plan...... 3–41 Figure 3–11 Planned Bay Trail Segment at the PPMT ...... 3–43 Figure 3–12 Process Flow Diagrams of Existing and Proposed Operations...... 3–45
Figure 4–1 Overview of Neighboring Land Uses...... 4–5 Figure 4–2 Neighboring Residential Uses West of PPMT ...... 4–7 Figure 4–3 Private Marina Uses West of PPMT...... 4–8 Figure 4–4 Neighboring Land Uses North of PPMT ...... 4–9 Figure 4–5 Neighboring Land Uses East of PPMT...... 4–10 Figure 4–6 Current General Plan Land Use Designations...... 4–14 Figure 4–7 San Francisco Bay Plan Map of North Central Bay ...... 4–36 Figure 4–8 Existing and Planned Bay Trail Segments in the Project Vicinity ...... 4–49 Figure 4–9 Zoning Districts in Project Vicinity ...... 4–54 Figure 5–1 Traffic Study Intersections ...... 5–3 Figure 5–2 Existing (2007) Peak–Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 5–7 Figure 5–3 Locations of Background Projects ...... 5–13 Figure 5–4 Existing Plus Background Peak–Hour Traffic Volumes...... 5–14 Figure 5–5 Railroad Network in the City of Richmond ...... 5–17 Figure 5–6 Regional Regulated Navigation Areas ...... 5–23 Figure 5–7 2006 Ship Arrivals to San Francisco Bay ...... 5–30 Figure 5–8 Project Traffic Distribution...... 5–37
Honda Port of Entry Draft EIR v Table of Contents
Figure 5–9 Existing Plus Background Plus Project Peak–Hour Traffic Volumes...... 5–38 Figure 5–10 Future Cumulative Year 2030 Peak–Hour Traffic Volumes...... 5–48 Figure 5–11 Future Cumulative Year 2030 Plus Project Peak–Hour Traffic Volumes ...... 5–49 Figure 6–1 Wind Rose for Richmond Field Station...... 6–3 Figure 6–2 Incremental Cancer Risks...... 6–31 Figure 7–1 Noise Monitoring Locations ...... 7–4 Figure 7–2 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment ...... 7–11 Figure 8–1 Delineation of Wetlands On/Adjacent to BNSF Site ...... 8–5 Figure 10–1 Active and Potentially Active Regional Earthquake Faults...... 10–11 Figure 11–1 Project Site Bathymetry and Regulated Navigation Areas ...... 11–8 Figure 11–2 Proposed New Pavement at the PPMT...... 11–24 Figure 13–1 Views of the PPMT from the Seacliff Neighborhood...... 13–7 Figure 13–2 Views of the PPMT Site from Neighboring Parks ...... 13–9 Figure 13–3 Existing and Proposed Operational Lighting Levels ...... 13–17 Figure 13–4 Existing and Proposed Security Lighting Levels ...... 13–19 Figure 13–5 Views of Nighttime Lighting of the PPMT from the West ...... 13–22 Figure 13–6 Conceptual Site Lighting Elevation, Operational Mode ...... 13–23 Figure 13–7 Views of Nighttime Lighting of the PPMT from the East...... 13–27 Figure 13–8 Existing and Simulated Future View of Nighttime Lighting of the PPMT...13–35
vi Honda Port of Entry Draft EIR Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2–1 Summary of Environmental Effects ...... 2–7 Table 3–1 Existing and Projected Annual Vehicle and Carrier Volumes ...... 3–11 Table 5–1 Intersection Level of Service Thresholds ...... 5–6 Table 5–2 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ...... 5–8 Table 5–3 Background Projects Trip Generation ...... 5–11 Table 5–4 Existing Plus Background Intersection Levels of Service...... 5–15 Table 5–5 Monitored Canal Boulevard Train Crossings ...... 5–19 Table 5–6 Observed Peak Commute Period Train Traffic ...... 5–20 Table 5–7 Daily BNSF Train Switching Operations ...... 5–21 Table 5–8 Major Oil Spills in San Francisco Bay Since 1971 ...... 5–25 Table 5–9 Annual Ship Arrivals to San Francisco Bay...... 5–29 Table 5–10 Annual Ship Arrivals to the Port of Richmond ...... 5–31 Table 5–11 Project Trip Generation...... 5–36 Table 5–12 Existing Plus Background Plus Project Peak–Hour Levels of Service...... 5–39 Table 5–13 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Under All Traffic Scenarios...... 5–41 Table 5–14 Canal Boulevard Traffic Index Calculations ...... 5–44 Table 5–15 Estimated Parking Demand at the PPMT...... 5–46 Table 5–16 Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Intersection Levels of Service ...... 5–50 Table 5–17 Estimated Project Train Traffic...... 5–52 Table 5–18 Existing Hourly Traffic Volumes on Wharf Street...... 5–54 Table 6–1 State and National Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects and Sources...... 6–5 Table 6–2 Air Quality Data Summary (2003–2007) For the Project Area...... 6–16 Table 6–3 Daily Operational Emissions ...... 6–22 Table 6–4 Annual Operational Emissions ...... 6–23 Table 7–1 Typical Noise Levels...... 7–2 Table 7–2 Existing Noise Measurements...... 7–5 Table 7–3 Typical Construction Noise Levels ...... 7–15 Table 7–4 Typical Noise Levels From Construction Equipment...... 7–15 Table 7–5 Existing and 2010 Traffic–Related Noise Levels...... 7–17
Honda Port of Entry Draft EIR vii Table of Contents
Table 7–6 Year 2030 Traffic–Related Noise Levels...... 7–19 Table 9–1 Previous Archaeological Surveys within the Project Area ...... 9–11 Table 10–1 Summary of Historic Earthquakes Greater Than Magnitude 5 within 20 Miles of the Site ...... 10–4 Table 10–2 Active Faults within 62 Miles (100 km) of the Project Site...... 10–7 Table 10–3 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale...... 10–9 Table 11–1 Proposed 2006 Section 303(d) List of Pollutants for Central Bay and San Pablo Bay ...... 11–6 Table 11–2 Channel Depths Adjacent to the PPMT ...... 11–9 Table 11–3 NOAA Tidal Datums for Richmond, Chevron Oil Pier ...... 11–10 Table 13–1 Illumination Readings For Reference ...... 13–12 Table 13–2 Scene Luminance at Seacliff Park ...... 13–16 Table 13–3 Light Trespass at Seacliff Park ...... 13–26 Table 15–1 Project Alternatives Comparison...... 15–24
viii Honda Port of Entry Draft EIR
Appendix A
Initial Study/ Notice Of Preparation
CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
Honda Port of Entry at the Point Potrero Marine Terminal
INITIAL STUDY
FEBRUARY 2008
COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
February 11, 2008
NOTICE OF PREPARATION of a DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The City of Richmond, as Lead Agency, will prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Honda Port of Entry project described below, proposed by Auto Warehousing Company (AWC). The City is requesting input from your agency regarding the scope and content of the environmental information to be presented in the EIR that is germane to your agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by the City of Richmond when considering your permit or other discretionary approval of the proposed project.
Please mail or email your written response to this Notice of Preparation no later than 30 days after the date on this notice to:
Kieron Slaughter, Assistant Planner City of Richmond Planning Department 1401 Marina Way South Richmond, CA 94804
Phone: (510) 620-6887 [email protected]
Please include in your written response the name and phone number of a contact person in your agency.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Auto Warehousing Company (AWC) is proposing to expand its existing operations at the Port of Richmond to develop a Northern California Port of Entry for Honda automobiles. AWC currently receives and processes Hyundai and Kia cars imported from Korea by ship. AWC, in cooperation with the TransDevelopment Group, is proposing to construct improvements to the Point Potrero Marine Terminal (PPMT) that would include repairs to one of the ship berths and creation of a new rail yard adjacent to the ship berths at the PPMT so that imported autos could be loaded directly onto rail cars without the current intermediary step of shuttling them to the BNSF rail yard approximately 1 mile to the north. The PPMT site is located on the southern Richmond shoreline, at the edge of the Richmond Inner Harbor. The PPMT is located at the southern terminus of Canal Boulevard, on Point Potrero, and immediately adjacent to the Harbor Channel, the primary water access to the Port of Richmond. The site consists of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 560–320–002, 560–320–016, and 560–320–017.
Following completion of the rail yard and ship berth improvements, Honda would begin delivering autos manufactured in Japan to the PPMT facility in car–carrying ships. Approximately one ship per week would be unloaded, in addition to the existing traffic of approximately one ship per week arriving from Korea. After a short period of storage on the PPMT site, some of the new autos would be loaded onto car carrier trucks for distribution around the Bay Area and northern California, and the remainder would loaded onto trains for distribution to other western and midwestern states. Honda expects to import 150,000 vehicles per year by ship, and would distribute approximately 35,000 of those vehicles via truck to dealerships throughout northern California.
Additional details about the proposed project, including a location map and site plan, are presented in the attached Initial Study
SCOPING MEETING The City of Richmond will conduct a public scoping meeting on March 5, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council chambers located at 1401 Marina Way South, Richmond, CA. All members of the public and representatives from public agencies are invited to attend this meeting to provide your views on the issues that should be addressed in the Honda Port of Entry EIR.
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: February 12, 2008 to March 13, 2008
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study / Environmental Checklist Form for the proposed Honda Port of Entry Project
1. Project Title: Honda Port of Entry
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Richmond 1401 Marina Way South Richmond, CA 94804
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Kieron Slaughter, Assistant Planner (510) 620–6887 [email protected]
4. Project Location:
The project site is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Richmond, in western Contra Costa County (Figure 1). The site is adjacent to the shoreline of the Richmond Inner Harbor, located in central San Francisco Bay. Specifically, the project site is at the southern terminus of Canal Boulevard, on Point Potrero, and immediately adjacent to the Harbor Channel, the primary water access to the Port of Richmond (Figure 2).
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
AutoWarehousing Company Bill Robbins, Project Manager (503) 241–2522 [email protected]
6. General Plan Designation:
Heavy Industry; Port/Marine Terminal/Ship Repair.
7. Zoning:
M–3 (Heavy Industrial); M–4 (Marine Industrial).
Initial Study Honda Port of Entry 1 T 2 G A 6 R V IN A V S
T 9 B U R B E C K A V
2
7
W
T
T I
T
T T T G R A N T L T S T A V T T T
S T S S S S
S S S T S T S S
T T
H S O
H S S T
D
D
H H S T S H D T H H N
T S H 1 T T R
N T T H H R S T
6
D 1 H
1 T T 4 8 3 2 0 A 4 T T 3 8 3 T * 5 S 1 N H 2 3 2 6 8 3 V *
T 0 3 2 T * 2 2 O 4
S 10A 2 7 R BA 3 A RR T ET T T A T V T S S D S A MAC DONALD AV V N E S C V H L IN D A T B V T R
T 80 9 S
D BISSELL AV T 3 1 R S 3 4 R A S 4 R 5 R H
H R T
F T A 6
6TH ST 8TH ST
1ST ST
S 8 G 1 N W OHIO AV 1 B OHIO AV CENTER AV FLORIDA AV * * * * * MAINE AV WALL AVE * * * C
S 7TH ST A VIRGINIA AV R L W. CUTTING BLVD S 2ND ST S CUTTING BLVD O N B POTRERO AVE L V D S a n t a S P F S 4TH ST WRIGHT AV T e * 2 P O T C C T R E R O S h O F a R n A n R H e R W l
PIERSON AV
HARBOR WAY S.
R 580 D C F H IF A MARINA WY S. L N a C V A A r E L b A S HALL AV B o N L A r N V R D O C R i c h m o n d D h 3 4 a M a r i n a n
n B a y
e
l
1 F o r d C h a n n e l
r r H a r b o Point Potrero R i c h m o n d I n n e
L R Y Legend S N E N A D R PROJECT BOUNDARY R San Pablo A
BaR y H D R 1 POINT POTRERO MARINE TERMINAL PINOLE 2 BNSF AUTOMOTIVE FACILITY
3 TERMINAL 3 P a c SITE i 4 FORD ASSEMBLY BUILDING f i S a c n F 5 O r BNSF RICHMOND YARD a n c c i e s c a o n B a y
0 300 600 1200
FEET
Figure 1
Project Site Location Source: Douglas Herring & Associates 580
BNSF SA AUTOMOTIVE N FE FACILITY C H A N N E L
RESIDENTIAL
INDUSTRIALINDUSTRIAL Historic Entrance Gate IFF D SEACL R Building 23
C
A INDUSTRIALINDUSTRIAL
N
A
L
B
L
V
D Terminal 3 Pier 2 Truck Loading Area Employee Parking POINT POTRERO AUTOMOTIVE Current Entrance Gate FACILITY and Guard House Fueling Station Car Wash Building 9 HARBORHARBOR CHANNEL
Pier 1 Leased Port Storage and Berthing Area Building 5 (Body Shop)
Berth 7
Basin 1
Basin 2 Berth 6C Building 4 Basin 3 (Auto Processing)
Basin 4 Basin 5 Building 24 Ford Assembly Building Graving Docks Berth 6A Historic Whirly Crane Building 6 Figure 2
Overview of Existing PPMT Facilities Source: TransDevelopment Group
8. Description of Project:
Auto Warehousing Company (AWC), in cooperation with the TransDevelopment Group, is proposing to construct improvements to the existing Point Potrero Marine Terminal (PPMT) that would include creating a new rail yard adjacent to the ship berths at the PPMT so that imported autos could be loaded directly onto rail cars without the current intermediary step of shuttling them to the Burlington–Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail yard. Minor improvements to one of the existing ship berths would also be made, consisting of repairs to the concrete deck pavement, installation of new bull rail at the edge of the berth, and installation of new rubber dock fenders on the side of the berth. Each of these project components is described in more detail below. An overview of the improvements is shown on Figure 3.
Following completion of the rail yard and ship berth improvements, Honda would establish the Port of Richmond as its Northern California port of entry, and would begin delivering autos manufactured in Japan directly to the PPMT facility in car–carrying ships. After processing by AWC, they would be loaded onto trains for distribution around the rest of the U.S., and loaded onto car carrier trucks for distribution around the Bay Area and northern California. Honda expects to import 150,000 vehicles per year by ship, and would distribute approximately 35,000 of those vehicles via truck to dealerships throughout northern California. Honda also imports autos into the Port of San Diego, which currently serves as the port of entry for the entire State of California, and which would remain the distribution point for autos to the southern California region following implementation of the proposed project. Approximately 35,000 imported Hondas per year are currently brought into Northern California by auto carrier from the Port of San Diego; these highway trips would be eliminated by the proposed project.
Point Potrero Rail Yard The northern end of the proposed PPMT rail yard would begin where the historic Kaiser shipyard entrance gate and guard house are located, just east of Building 23. At this point a series of track switches would split the lead track into two lines, each of which would split two more times. As shown on Figure 3, the easternmost portion of these new tracks would veer east onto the adjacent BP/Arco property and the remaining tracks would extend south to the northern end of Ship Berth 7, forming seven loading tracks approximately 1,300 feet in length. The tracks would be spaced 19 to 22 feet apart and would accommodate loading and unloading operations from either end or from the middle of six–railcar train segments that would be coupled into longer train lengths prior to departure from the PPMT.
The rail yard would be constructed in an area currently occupied by an auto storage area, part of the employee parking lot constructed in 2004, and the private PPMT driveway extending south from the terminus of Canal Boulevard. A new, relocated entrance road would be built, as discussed below.
Prior to constructing the new tracks, the existing asphalt pavement in the rail yard area would be removed and the subgrade would be excavated to a depth of 24 to 30 inches. The asphalt would be ground up on site and used as road bed for the new track. Although the majority of the proposed rail yard area is currently paved with asphalt, an unpaved strip east of the PPMT driveway—about 25 feet wide and 600 feet long—would be paved over to accommodate the rail yard. The ballast sections of the proposed tracks would be paved with asphalt and the rails would be constructed flush with the pavement, permitting the movement of autos across the tracks. Paved “shag roads” would extend between each pair of tracks to allow vehicular access alongside the railcars.
An 8–foot–high cyclone security fence topped with barbed wire would extend along the east side of Track 7, the easternmost track in the rail yard. This fencing would enclose a proposed
Initial Study Honda Port of Entry 5
access road along the Port’s eastern property line, which would provide vehicle access to the BP/Arco facility located adjacent to the PPMT. The two–lane paved access road would have a 30–foot right–of–way and a 24–foot–wide roadway.
Lead Track An existing light–gauge (90–pound) lead track currently extends from the BNSF auto terminal to the BP/Arco blending facility, as shown on Figure 3. This track would be realigned and replaced with heavier 136–pound rail. The realignment would start about 150 feet north of the historic entrance gate, and would be moved about 30 feet west of its current alignment. Similar to the proposed rail yard, construction of the new lead track would require excavation to a depth of 24 to 30 inches. The new track would also be constructed flush with the roadway at driveway crossings to BP/Arco and other existing industrial facilities located along the east side of Canal Boulevard.
BNSF Auto Terminal Improvements New loading/unloading tracks would also be constructed at the BNSF auto terminal north of the PPMT as part of the proposed project. Although these improvements would be implemented by BNSF, they would occur in conjunction with and as a result of the proposed project. The facility currently has two loading/flex tracks that diagonally bisect the property. Six new loading/unloading tracks would be constructed west of and parallel to these tracks, providing new storage capacity for 73 railcars. This area is currently used as a staging and auto storage area. Similar to the construction of the PPMT rail yard, the existing asphalt pavement would be excavated to a depth of 24 to 30 inches, with the asphalt ground up on site and reused as fill for the track support bed. The track rails would also be constructed flush with the new pavement.
Construction of the new tracks would require filling of a portion of a wetland ditch that runs alongside Canal Boulevard and the edge of the BNSF terminal. At the southern end near Wharf Street, approximately 200 linear feet of the ditch would be filled. At the northern end, the rail improvements have been designed to eliminate any requirements for ditch in–fill.
Security fencing similar to that at the PPMT would be erected along both sides of the new support tracks. The area to the east of the tracks would continue to be used as storage and staging areas for loading and unloading of automobiles from trains and car carrier trucks. The area west of the new tracks would also remain in its existing condition, and would be used for vehicle staging or related operations by BNSF.
Ship Berth Improvements The project proposes to rehabilitate portions of Berth 6C similar to the improvements that were made to the adjacent Berth 7 in 2004. On the deck surface, broken concrete with exposed rebar would be epoxied and then paved over with new concrete. Concrete around the steel bollards used for tying up ships would also be repaired. Sections of the bull rail, which is a raised concrete curb at the edge of the berth, would be replaced. Existing tire bumpers would be replaced with rubber dock fenders along the sides of the wharf to protect moored ships. Although none of the proposed work would intrude into the channel water, construction best management practices (BMPs) would be required to ensure concrete, debris, sediment, or chemical pollutants do not drop or wash into the water.
Initial Study 6 Honda Port of Entry D
R
A
V
E
L W U H O B A
A G R N F I
S T S T E R T E A E U C T C L IF F D R IV E RD EVA OUL AL B CAN L E N N A H C E F N A S
HARBOR CHANNEL 0 250 500 1000
FEET
Figure 3
Proposed Improvement Areas Source: TransDevelopment Group
Miscellaneous Improvements Access Road The existing entrance road would be displaced by the proposed PPMT rail yard. To maintain controlled access into the PPMT while providing access to Port tenants, a new access road would be constructed along the western perimeter of the facility, outside the existing security fence enclosing the auto storage areas. An access road that was constructed around the majority of the perimeter in 2004 would be widened and improved to City of Richmond public roadway standards for small local roads.
A new road alignment would commence at the northern end of the proposed rail yard, approximately 250 feet north of the historic entrance gate, as shown on Figure 3. Past Building 23, the road would curve to the west and then follow the western edge of the existing auto storage area, running along the base of the adjacent hillside. As shown on Figure 3, west of the new rail yard the new access road would connect with the existing perimeter road providing Port tenants access to the finger piers and graving docks located at the south side of the PPMT. It would be extended from the west side of the graving docks to the east side of the docks. Following implementation of the project, this road would also be used by employees and Port staff to enter the PPMT.
Entrance Gates and Employee Parking About 300 feet west of the rail yard, a new truck entrance would branch off from the Port access road. A gate and guard house would control access into the facility, and the entrance would be used primarily by the car carrier trucks shipping new autos to northern California dealerships. The truck loading area would be moved about 900 feet northwest of its current location, which would be converted to a staging area for outbound rail shipments.
A new parking lot for employees and longshoremen would be established east of the docks and west of Buildings 24 and 6. Additional parking would be located on the south and east sides of Building 6. Combined, these new parking areas would provide parking for approximately 80 vehicles. A new pedestrian entrance for facility employees and longshoremen would be established near the southwest corner of Building 4. A small guard house would be manned by security personnel restricting access into the facility. Although an additional pedestrian entrance would be installed next to the northwest corner of Building 6, this gate would generally be locked and unmanned.
New Lighting In 2003, the Port installed 16 high–mast light towers in the western portion of the PPMT. The proposed redevelopment activities would include the installation of an additional 16, 100–foot– tall light towers throughout the remainder of the PPMT facilities. The primary objectives of the proposed site lighting are to provide an average illumination level of approximately 3.5 foot candles under night operating conditions, and an average of 1 foot candle for security. The design would incorporate settings to allow transition from operational to security lighting levels, along with the use of downward directed lamps, with cut–off type fixtures to reduce glare and control light along the property lines.
Bay Trail Segment A planned future segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail, an approximately 500–mile network of recreational trails encircling San Francisco and San Pablo Bays, is designated for Point Potrero. The planned segment extending to the tip of Point Potrero is designated on the maps developed by the San Francisco Bay Trail Project to implement the Bay Trail Plan.
Initial Study Honda Port of Entry 9
To facilitate the development of this Bay Trail segment, the Port of Richmond has allocated the required 14–foot right–of–way width for the multi–use trail into the improvement plans for the PPMT, with the exception of a few limited areas where existing physical constraints preclude the provision of the full 14–foot width. A 2–mile trail segment would be constructed as part of the proposed project, extending from Canal Boulevard at Seacliff Drive to Berth 6 at the PPMT, where the historic USS Red Oak Victory ship is moored and comprises part of the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park. This portion of the project is being funded by a variety of sources, including the Bay Trail Project, California Coastal Conservancy, the Port, and AWC; additional grants are currently being sought by the Trails for Richmond Action Committee (TRAC), a local advocacy group.
The paved trail would be constructed immediately adjacent to the PPMT perimeter access road. Although detailed construction plans are currently being developed, it is anticipated that in some segments, a physical barrier would separate the trail from the roadway, while on some segments separation would be created by pavement striping similar to that used on Class II bikeways. Although signage and interpretive exhibits are part of the plans for the trail, they would not be implemented as part of the proposed project.
Current project development plans allocate the 14–foot width for the trail from Seacliff Drive to the southwestern corner of the PPMT graving docks. Due to the presence of an electrical transformer west of Basin 1 and other physical constraints around the docks, a narrower foot path would be developed around the graving docks to provide pedestrian access only to the USS Red Oak Victory and the historic whirly crane located on Craneway 6.
The project would also develop a trailhead parking lot that could also provide parking for an interpretive center for the Rosie the Riveter/World War II Home Front National Historical Park that might be developed by the National Park Service in the historic cafeteria (which is not part of the project evaluated in this document). The parking lot would be located immediately north of the historic cafeteria building, and would be enhanced with aesthetic landscaping.
Trail plans being championed by TRAC also include a short spur trail climbing the hillside northwest of the existing main entrance to the PPMT. The trail would ascend via switchbacks to an outlook providing scenic vistas of Brooks Island and the Bay beyond. The Port of Richmond is willing to permit construction of the spur trail, which is located on Port property, but it is not part of the project evaluated in this Initial Study.
9. Site Description and Surrounding Land Uses:
The Point Potrero Marine Terminal is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Richmond, in western Contra Costa County. The site is located at the shoreline of the Richmond Inner Harbor, located in central San Francisco Bay. As shown on Figure 1, the PPMT is located at the southern terminus of Canal Boulevard, on Point Potrero, and immediately adjacent to the Harbor Channel, the primary water access to the Port of Richmond.
Including submerged land, the PPMT occupies an approximately 212.8–acre irregularly–shaped site that encompasses the end of Point Potrero and a panhandle extending north, adjacent to Canal Boulevard. Excluding the submerged areas, the site occupies approximately 110 acres. The site is comprised of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 560–320–002, 560–320–016, and 560– 320–017. The Port of Richmond via the City of Richmond Surplus Property Authority owns these parcels and leases them to AWC, and would continue to do so under the proposed project.
Initial Study 10 Honda Port of Entry
The site is essentially level, and covered entirely with impervious pavement and buildings, most of which were constructed during World War II. Although elevations across most of the site historically ranged between 10 feet and 16 feet above mean sea level, the western side of the site was capped in 2004, and the western and central portions of the site were resurfaced. The resulting elevations now range between 16 feet and 24 feet, with elevations on the eastern side of the site generally 13–14 feet.
Immediately northwest of the PPMT, a large hillside rises to an elevation of 327 feet. Adjacent to the PPMT, the hillside is owned by BP/Arco and is partially developed with a petroleum product tank farm with a dozen storage tanks of varying sizes. Much of the remainder of the hillside comprises the Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline park owned by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD).
The PPMT is bounded on the east, south, and west by Bay waters. Although this portion of the Bay is generally quite shallow, with depths ranging from around 2 to 10 feet, the Harbor Channel is regularly dredged to depths of approximately 38 feet to provide Port access to ocean–going ships. The western spit of Brooks Island is about 1,500 feet south of Point Potrero and defines the western approach of the Harbor Channel, also known as Potrero Reach. The 75–acre Brooks Island (373 acres including surrounding water property) is a bird sanctuary owned and managed by the EBRPD.
As part of the project, improvements would also be constructed at the BNSF Automotive Facility located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Cutting Boulevard and Canal Boulevard. This facility occupies APNs 560–310–019, –020, –021, and –022 and encompasses approximately 26.15 acres. With the exception of a drainage ditch running along Canal Boulevard, the property is entirely developed with pavement, rail tracks, and two buildings. The northern end of Santa Fe Channel defines the northeast boundary of the site, which is level with elevations between 12 and 15 feet.
Existing Zoning And Land Use Designations The majority of the PPMT site is zoned M–4 (Marine Industrial), as is all of the BNSF Automotive Facility. The northernmost parking lot, a 6–acre parcel located on the west side of Canal Boulevard, is zoned M–3 (Heavy Industrial). The General Plan land use designation for the entire project site, including the PPMT and BNSF terminal, is Industrial. More specifically, everything is Industrial—Port/Marine Terminal/Ship Repair with the exception of the two northerly parking lots west of Canal Boulevard, which are designated Industrial—Heavy Industry. The site is also located in the Richmond Redevelopment Project 11–A and the Richmond Enterprise Zone.
10. Required Approvals
In addition to various approvals from the City of Richmond, development of this project would require the following approvals and/or permits from other agencies:
• Construction Storm Water Permit (including Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan), granted by San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
• Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB, pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act (1972), as a prerequisite to a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (see below) for partial filling of a wetland ditch adjacent to Canal Boulevard.
Initial Study Honda Port of Entry 11
• Section 404 Fill Permit from the Corps of Engineers, in compliance with the Clean Water Act. The applicant is applying to the Corps for coverage under Nationwide Permit 14 (Linear Transportation Projects).
• BCDC Development Permit from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) for new construction along the San Francisco Bay shoreline.
Initial Study 12 Honda Port of Entry
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.
X Aesthetics Agricultural Resources X Air Quality
X Biological Resources X Cultural Resources X Geology/Soils
X Hazards & Haz. Materials X Hydrology/Water Quality X Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources X Noise Population/Housing
Public Services Recreation X Transportation/Traffic
X Utilities/Service Systems X Mandatory Findings of Significance
Initial Study Honda Port of Entry 13
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 X ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the 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.
February 7, 2008 Signature Date
Kieron Slaughter City of Richmond Printed name For
Initial Study 14 Honda Port of Entry Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X
Explanation: Scenic vistas of the San Francisco Bay are visible from public vantage points immediately adjacent to the project site including the Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline park. While the type and intensity of land use on the project site would remain consistent with existing uses, modifications to the project site to support the proposed project may result in short term or long term adverse impacts on views of the San Francisco Bay. This will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Explanation: As described above, the proposed project would be located on an existing marine industrial site already devoted to auto import and processing operations similar to those of the proposed project. As a result, damage to scenic resources such as trees and rock outcroppings is not anticipated. In addition, the proposed project is not located in and around a state scenic highway.
However, the proposed project would be located in an area identified as the historic Kaiser Shipyard No. 3, which includes one of four Richmond shipyards dedicated to the production of military sea vessels during World War Two. The four shipyards are officially designated a National Register District by the U.S. Department of the Interior. Several buildings on the project site are designated as Contributory Structures to the District, and considered historic resources. Although the proposed project is not expected to result in adverse impacts to these resources, the EIR will evaluate whether adverse effects could occur during project construction. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X
Explanation: The visual character of the project site is dominated by existing industrial uses. The addition of the proposed project to the project site would be considered a consistent and compatible industrial use. It is not anticipated that the proposed project would substantially change the existing land use character of the project site such that it would result in a wholesale change in the visual environment. Nonetheless, impacts related to the degradation of the existing visual character will be discussed in detail in the EIR.
Initial Study Honda Port of Entry 15 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Explanation: The proposed project would result in the introduction of additional sources of nighttime security lighting around the proposed new rail facilities, ship docks, and car parking areas. While the site is located in an existing industrial area, new proposed lighting from the project site may be visible by from some of the adjacent residences and other off–site receptors. The proposed project may result adverse impacts associated with light and glare and will be discussed in detail in the EIR.
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California 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. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown X on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non–agricultural use?
Explanation: The proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency.1 The proposed project would be constructed on property that is currently zoned and designated for marine and related industrial use by the City of Richmond. No farming or agricultural activity takes place on the site nor has it historically taken place. As a result, the proposed project would not affect agricultural practices and/or convert any farmland to non–agricultural usage. This issue will not be addressed further in the EIR.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X
Explanation: The proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. As stated above, the proposed project would be constructed on property that is currently zoned and designated for marine industrial uses by the City of Richmond. No farming currently takes place on the project site nor is it constrained by a
1 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, “Contra Costa County Important Farmland 2006” (map), July 2007.
Initial Study 16 Honda Port of Entry Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Williamson Act Contract. As a result, the proposed project would not conflict with agricultural practices and/or a Williamson Act Contract. This issue will not be addressed further in the EIR.
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion X of Farmland to non–agricultural use?
Explanation: As mentioned above, the proposed project would be constructed on property that is currently and historically been utilized for marine industrial uses. No farming or agriculture takes place on the project site. The proposed project would not affect agricultural practices and/or convert any farmland to non–agricultural usage. Therefore, the proposed project would not involve changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, would result in the conversion of Farmland or agricultural practices to non–agricultural use. This issue will not be addressed further in the EIR.
III. AIR QUALITY — 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 X air quality plan?
Explanation: Construction and operation of the proposed project could conflict with the Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan, by conflicting with assumptions of the plan. This potential impact will be addressed in detail in the EIR. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality X violation?
Explanation: Construction and/or operation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant short–term or long–term emissions of criteria pollutants from construction activities, equipment exhaust, or as a result of increased vehicular activity such as ship, truck, and rail traffic. This will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of X any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non–attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Explanation: As stated above, construction of the proposed project could result in potentially significant short–term and long–term emissions of criteria pollutants from construction
Initial Study Honda Port of Entry 17 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
activities, equipment exhaust, and increased mobile emissions. This will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations?
Explanation: Construction and operation of the proposed project may expose off–site sensitive receptors, west of the project site, to adverse concentrations of pollutants as a result of short– term construction emissions or long–term increases in on–site vehicular activity. This will be discussed in detail in the EIR.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number X of people?
Explanation: The project does not include any sources that typically result in the generation of odors that are objectionable to a substantial number of people (i.e., solid waste landfills, or wastewater treatment plants). This issue will not be addressed in the EIR.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as X 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?
Explanation: The proposed project site is already utilized by industrial uses, and habitat on the site is minimal. However, there is a potential for construction and operation of the proposed project, which would include potential non–point and point–sources of contaminants and increased ship activity, to adversely affect adjacent aquatic habitat. Issues of concern could include marine invasives in ballast water, shoreline erosion of nearby Brooks Island, water quality issues associated with stormwater runoff, and potential point source spills. Aquatic birds and other marine animals such as seals and fish may also be affected by the increased boat activity and use of the project site. Construction of the proposed project would also require filling of a portion of an undeveloped wetland area that runs alongside Canal Boulevard. As a result, impacts associated with 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 (CDFG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local X or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the
Initial Study 18 Honda Port of Entry Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Explanation: As described above, the proposed project site is already utilized by marine industrial uses, and sensitive habitat on the site is minimal. However, construction and operational activities could have a significant impact on adjacent sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFG and USFWS. This will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water X Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Explanation: As described above, construction of the project would require the placement of fill on a wetland ditch that may be subject to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This potential impact will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with any established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Explanation: As described above, impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project, which would include increased ship activity and increased potential for non– point and point–sources of contaminants, could interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident migratory fish or wildlife species. This will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or X ordinance?
Explanation: Section 15.04.840.050 of the Richmond Zoning Ordinance requires review of all projects, both new development and additions or renovations to existing properties, by the Director of Public Works to ensure their compliance with the provisions of the Urban Forest Management Plan or any other specific City ordinances and guidelines related to the protection of sensitive biological resources. This review by the lead agency will ensure project compliance with local policies and ordinances related to the protection of biological resources.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation X
Initial Study Honda Port of Entry 19 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Explanation: The project site is not within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? X
Explanation: The proposed project site is part of the former Kaiser Shipyard No. 3 and listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The project site is also part of the Rosie the Riveter World War II Home Front National Historic Park and is a California Historical Landmark. Potential impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed project on existing significant historical resources will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Explanation: The project site is within an area of San Francisco Bay that has a high probability of containing buried archaeological sites or significant artifacts dating to prehistoric Native American occupation. It is quite possible that the site was occupied or visited at one time by prehistoric peoples. While the project site has been heavily disturbed as a result of past and present industrial use, there is some potential for encountering Native American sites within the confines of the project site. Disturbance of a previously buried and unknown archaeological site or buried human remains would be considered a significant, adverse impact. Construction and operational impacts to significant archaeological resources will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature? X
Explanation: While the project site has been heavily disturbed as a result of past and present industrial use, construction activities such as excavation and grading, have the potential to result in the disturbance of previously undiscovered paleontological resources. Impacts to potentially unique palentological resources or geologic features will be addressed in the EIR.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X
Explanation: As described above, the project site is within an area of San Francisco Bay that has a high probability of containing buried archaeological sites dating to prehistoric Native
Initial Study 20 Honda Port of Entry Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
American occupation, which could include human remains. Construction and operational impacts to significant archaeological resources will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — 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 X 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.
Explanation: The nearest active major fault to the project site is the northern segment of the Hayward fault, located approximately 4 miles east of the site. The San Andreas Fault is located approximately 15 miles to the west. The project site is outside the nearest Alquist–Priolo Special Studies Zone, which is associated with the Hayward fault.2 Due to the distance to the Hayward fault, there is a less–than–significant potential for surface rupture at the project site.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
Explanation: As is characteristic of the Bay Area, the project site has the potential for strong seismic ground shaking during an earthquake on one of the major active earthquake faults within the region. Impacts associated with potentially significant seismic ground shaking will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
iii) Seismic–related ground failure, including X liquefaction?
Explanation: Given that the project area has the potential for strong seismic ground shaking, the potential for liquefaction on the project site may also be significant. Impacts associated with seismic–related ground failure, including liquefaction, will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
iv) Landslides?
X
Explanation: Given that the project site is relatively flat, the potential for landslide is not considered to be high. However, due to the proximity of the project site to the waterfront,
2 United State Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazards Programs – Northern California. Accessed from the USGS Website at: http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/.
Initial Study Honda Port of Entry 21 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
construction and operation of the proposed project could result in landslide movement towards the San Francisco Bay without proper design and mitigation. Impacts associated with landslides will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
Explanation: Construction of the proposed project would require filling of a portion of an undeveloped wetland area that runs alongside Canal Boulevard. As a result of these activities, soil erosion rates could be accelerated because of surface disturbance and vegetation removal. Construction activities conducted when the ground is wet also create the potential for increased runoff, which in turn, could lead to increased erosion. Impacts associated with soil erosion and/or the loss of topsoil will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and X potentially result in on– or off–site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Explanation: As described above, the project site is located in an area with a high potential for seismic ground shaking, a high liquefaction potential, and the potential for landsliding given the proximity of the site to the San Francisco Bay. Impacts associated with landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, and liquefaction or collapse will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18–1–B of the most current Uniform Building Code (UBC), X creating substantial risks to life or property?
Explanation: Expansive soils, soil with a potential to adversely shrink or swell, have the potential to damage structural foundations, paved roads and streets, and above– and below– ground utilities. Expansion and contraction soils, depending on the season and amount of surface water infiltration, could exert enough pressure on structures to result in cracking, settlement, and uplift. Differential settlement is a concern in areas of new development, where structures could place loads heavier than soils can tolerate. Development of the proposed project has to potential to be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18–1–B of the UBC. This will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems X where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Explanation: The proposed project would connect to the municipal sewer system and would not include construction of a septic or alternative wastewater disposal system.
Initial Study 22 Honda Port of Entry Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
VII HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS —
Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the X environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Explanation: Due to the long–term historic use of the project site and nearby properties for industrial and maritime purposes, there is a potential for soil and/or groundwater contamination under areas that would be excavated to construct the proposed PPMT rail yard and other rail improvements. Exposure of contaminants currently sealed by asphalt or concrete pavements could result in adverse effects on construction workers, facility workers, and members of the public. Also, Canal Boulevard is currently used by tanker trucks carrying petroleum products, and any project activities that would affect existing trucks could have the potential for a significant hazard to the public. These issues and other potential hazards will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and X accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Explanation: The construction and operation of the proposed project could create an additional significant hazard to the public and/or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. This will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one– X quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Explanation: Construction and operation of the proposed project could increase the transport of materials generally regarded as hazardous that are used in construction activities. Transportation to and from the project site could pass within a quarter–mile of an existing or proposed school. The proposed project also has the potential to increase the emissions of criteria pollutants in the vicinity of the project site both short term and long term. This will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to X Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Initial Study Honda Port of Entry 23 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Explanation: Given the past and present use of the site for marine industrial purposes, and the historic contamination identified on a portion of the project site which has now been sealed and remediated, the potential for past and present on–site hazardous materials contamination is potentially significant. This will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
e) For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a X public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Explanation: The project site is not within two miles of a public airport.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people X residing or working in the project area?
Explanation: The project site is not within two miles of a private airport.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Explanation: The proposed project would not permanently impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan adopted by any local service providers.
h) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where X wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Explanation: The project site is not located within an area considered to have a substantial wildland or forest fire risk.3
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements?
3 California Department of Forestry, Contra Costa County Natural Hazard Disclosure (Fire), 2006. Accessed from the CDF Website at: http://www.fire.ca.gov/ab6/nhd07.pdf
Initial Study 24 Honda Port of Entry Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Explanation: Construction and operation of the proposed project could result in increased levels of water pollution emanating from project facilities. Specifically, construction activities such as excavation and grading may result in disturbance of soils and sediments that could be carried into the City’s drainage system during storm events. Additionally, accidental discharges of construction and operational fuels, oils, hydraulic fluid, grease, (e.g., from construction equipment) and other hazardous substances could contaminate stormwater flows, resulting in a reduction in stormwater quality onsite or downstream of the project area. This will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there X 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)?
Explanation: Conversion of natural and other non–paved surfaces to pavement, buildings, roadways, and other impervious surfaces can result in a decrease in the amount of rainwater that can replenish groundwater in those areas. Accordingly, increasing the cover of impervious surfaces can, in some cases, cause a significant reduction in groundwater recharge, resulting in significant impacts to groundwater quantity or quality. The proposed project would include construction of a minimal amount of new impervious surfaces and the reconfiguration of existing impervious surfaces. Water for the project would be provided by the East Bay Municipal Utility District and groundwater supplies would not be used for development. Therefore, the proposed project is not likely to result in significant impacts to groundwater supply or recharge given the existing development of the project site.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the alteration of the course X of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on– or off–site?
Explanation: Construction of the proposed project would result in the creation of a small amount of new impervious surfaces. Impervious surfaces do not permit natural infiltration of stormwater runoff and result in increased discharge of stormwater runoff to drainage facilities. Increased runoff from the new impervious surfaces could cause additional erosion or siltation both on–site and off–site. This will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course X of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on– or off–site?
Initial Study Honda Port of Entry 25 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Explanation: As described above, construction of the proposed project would result in the creation of a small amount of new impervious surfaces which cause a negligible increase in the discharge of stormwater runoff to on– and off–site drainage facilities. Any limited increase in runoff from the new impervious surfaces would not be expected to cause flooding on or off the site. This will nonetheless be addressed in the EIR.
e) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage X systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Explanation: As described above, the majority of the project site is covered with structures and impervious surfaces. Although a small amount of new impervious surfaces would be created as a result of the proposed project, the proposed project is not anticipated to substantially increase stormwater flows beyond existing conditions.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
X
Explanation: New impervious surfaces created as a result of the proposed project, and the increased use of the project site may result in an increased accumulation of oils, sediments, brake dust, and other potential water pollutants. During storm events, these pollutants would be carried by runoff and potentially discharged into downstream receiving waters, resulting in increased water pollution. This will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
g) Place housing within a 100–year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood X Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
Explanation: The construction of new housing is not a component of the proposed project.
h) Place within a 100–year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X
Explanation: The project site does not lie within a 100–year flood plain as indicated on a FEMA Flood Zone Hazards Map.4
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as X a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
4 Contra Costa County, “Contra Costa County Flood Data,” 2008. Obtained from the Contra Costa County GIS Resource (Updated December 2007) at: http://www.ccmap.us/gis/.
Initial Study 26 Honda Port of Entry Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Explanation: The project site does not lie within a dam failure inundation area.5
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
Explanation: The San Francisco Bay, specifically the project site, has historically not been subject to seiche or tsunami events.6 Given the geographic location of the project site which is sheltered by substantial land mass to the southwest, namely Angel Island and the North Bay, the potential for large wave activity at the project site as a result of a tsunami is not anticipated. Potential hazards from mudslides would not be significant due to the flat topography of the site and because the site is not located downslope of a substantial mudflow source.
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X
Explanation: The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing site configuration and would have no potential to physically divide an established community.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project X (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposed of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Explanation: A policy consistency analysis will be preformed for the proposed project and include a thorough review of all relevant planning documents and zoning regulations. Discussion of the consistency of the proposed project with all applicable planning and zoning polices will be provided in the EIR.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan? X
Explanation: There is no adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan applicable to the project site.
5 Ibid. 6 West Coast and Alaska Tsunami Warning Center Tsunami, West Coast Tsunami Catalogue, Accessed January 2008 from the WCATWC Website at: http://wcatwc.arh.noaa.gov/web_tsus/pastaor_tsunamis.htm.
Initial Study Honda Port of Entry 27 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
X. MINERAL RESOURCES — 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 X residents of the state?
Explanation: There are no active mines or sources of mineral extraction on the project site as identified by the City of Richmond General Plan.7 Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource and would not result in the loss of availability of a regional and statewide mineral of importance. This issue will not be addressed further in the EIR.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally–important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local X general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Explanation: As described above, there are no active mines or sources of mineral extraction on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. This issue will not be addressed further in the EIR.
XI. NOISE — Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or X noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Explanation: Construction and operation of the proposed project have the potential to result in a significant short–term and long–term increase in ship, rail, truck, and automobile traffic which could result in an increase in ambient noise levels that could potentially exceed noise standards adopted by the City of Richmond. This will be addressed in The EIR.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X
Explanation: As described above, construction and operation of the proposed project has the potential to result in a significant short–term and long–term increase in ship, rail, truck, and automobile traffic which could result in an increase of groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels in excess of existing conditions. This will be addressed in The EIR.
7 City of Richmond, City of Richmond General Plan, 1994, adopted August 2004.
Initial Study 28 Honda Port of Entry Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the X project?
Explanation: As described above, construction and operation of the proposed project has the potential to result in a significant short–term and long–term increase in ship, rail, truck and automobile traffic which could result in an increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity in excess of existing conditions. This will be discussed further in The EIR.
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without the project?
Explanation: Construction of the proposed project has the potential to result in temporary and/or periodic increases in ambient noise levels above existing conditions. This will be discussed further in The EIR.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles X of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Explanation: The project site is not within two miles of a public airport. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in X the project area to excessive noise levels?
Explanation: As described above, the project site is not within two miles of a private airport.
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and X businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Explanation: The proposed project is not anticipated to induce substantial growth locally and regionally and necessitate the need for new residential housing. The proposed project would create approximately 120 permanent new jobs to process imported Hondas. Although work by longshoremen and truck drivers is expected to be done by the existing labor pool, a limited number of new jobs (most likely under 50) could be created through the implementation of the project. It is expected that the majority of the new facility employees would be existing
Initial Study Honda Port of Entry 29 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
residents of the City of Richmond or elsewhere in Contra Costa County or neighboring counties. (Truck drivers and longshoremen would likely come from a greater geographical area.) As of November 2007, Contra Costa County had a 4.9 percent unemployment rate, or 26,100 unemployed individuals. In Contra Costa County there are approximately 11,503 vacant residential units and 1,506 vacant residential units available in the City of Richmond.8 It is assumed that the existing labor force and the available vacant housing stock would adequate to accommodate the nominal increase in new jobs the project would bring into the region. Implementation of the proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth within the region. This issue will not be addressed further in the EIR.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere?
Explanation: The proposed project is located on property that is exclusively used for industrial related activities; no residential uses are located on the project site. The project would therefore not displace any existing housing or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. This issue will not be addressed further in the EIR.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X
Explanation: The proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The proposed project is located on property that is exclusively used for industrial related activities. Construction of the project would not displace employees or require the demolition of housing and therefore would not require people to relocate, potentially necessitating the need for the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. This issue will not be addressed further in the EIR.
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: a) Fire protection? X
8 California Economic Development Department, “California Labor Market Information,” 2007. Accessed from the EDD Website at: http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/.
Initial Study 30 Honda Port of Entry Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Explanation: Fire response for the project site would be provided by the Richmond Fire Department. Richmond Fire Personnel are assigned to seven stations throughout the city. All personnel are trained to the level of Emergency Medical Technician – Defibrillation (EMT–D). The Operations Division is divided into three platoons which staff the eight companies. There are seven engine companies and one Truck Company. There are also two adaptive response trucks which are located at Stations 68 and 71. Special resources include a full Hazardous Materials Response Team, two Rescue Units and an Air Unit. The first–response station to the project site would be Station No. 67, located at 1131 Cutting Boulevard, located approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the project site .9
The City of Richmond has adopted Public Facility Impact Fees. These fees pay for major public infrastructure improvements and are levied on new development. The fees pay for off–site road improvements, traffic signals, fire and police facilities, and park and recreation facilities. The Public Facility Impact Fee for fire facilities is $135 per 1,000 square feet of new industrial and warehouse development.10
Because the development of the proposed project constitutes a reconfiguration and redevelopment of existing industrial uses, rather than new development, it is not anticipated that the demand for fire service as a result of the proposed project would substantially increase over levels not already planned for. Furthermore, the Public Facility Impact Fee required by the City of Richmond would further reduce the impact of the proposed project on the City Fire Department. This issue will not be addressed further in the EIR.
b) Police protection? X
Explanation: Police protection is provided to the site by the Richmond Police Department. The project site is located in the Southern Police District, Beat 1. Beat 1 is assigned 1 captain, two lieutenants, and 7 beat officers.
The proposed project has the potential to incrementally increase emergency calls to the Police Department in response to property crime, potential robberies, and other crimes typically associated with industrial development. However, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would generate and attract additional crime to the area.11
As with fire protection and other public services, the City of Richmond has adopted a Public Facility Impact Fee to address the impact of new development on public services. The Public Facility Impact Fee for police facilities is $80 per 1,000 square feet for industrial and warehouse development.12 Payment of the Public Facility Impact Fee by the applicant would reduce impact of the proposed project on police protection. Furthermore, because the development of the proposed project constitutes a reconfiguration and redevelopment of existing industrial uses, rather than new development, it is not anticipated that the demand for police service as a result
9 City of Richmond, City of Richmond Fire Department Data, Accessed January 2008 from the City of Richmond Website at: http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.asp?NID=79. 10 City of Richmond, “City of Richmond Proposed Master Fee Schedule,” January 2008. 11 City of Richmond, City of Richmond Police Department Data, Accessed January 2008 from the City of Richmond Website at: http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.asp?NID=82. 12 City of Richmond, “City of Richmond Proposed Master Fee Schedule,” January 2008.
Initial Study Honda Port of Entry 31 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
of the proposed project would substantially increase over levels not already planned for. This issue will not be addressed further in the EIR.
c) Schools?
X
Explanation: As described in the Population and Housing discussion above, the proposed project is not anticipated to induce substantial growth locally and regionally. Given the existing available labor force, it is assumed that the majority of new employees would come from surrounding communities and a significant increase in school enrollment resulting from new families moving into the area is not anticipated. However, some families may relocate from outside of the area. This could nominally increase the number of students in local schools. This would be a significant impact if the local schools lack the capacity and staff to serve additional students.
Data obtained from the 2001–02 through 2006–07 school years has shown that enrollment in the West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD), the district that serves the project area, has declined steadily over that period by nearly 5,000 students.13 As a result of declining enrollment, the average daily attendance (ADA) has also dropped. A drop in the ADA causes the income the district receives from the State to fall. In the case of the WCCUSD, this has resulted in a loss of more than $2.9 million dollars in the 2006–07 school year alone. Because of the nominal increase in new students expected to result with the development of the proposed project and the declining enrollment trend within the WCCUSD, adverse effects on local school enrollment are not anticipated.
Development impact fees and property tax revenues typically address impacts to school districts. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65995, school districts are authorized to levy fees on new commercial–industrial development to fund the “construction or reconstruction of school facilities” necessary to accommodate the students from new development. For the construction of any new commercial or industrial facility, thirty–one cents ($0.31) per square foot of chargeable covered and enclosed space may be levied. "Chargeable covered and enclosed space," for this purpose, means the covered and enclosed space determined to be within the perimeter of a commercial or industrial structure, not including any storage areas incidental to the principal use of the site (Govt. Code §65995(b)(2)). Because the proposed project would not result in the creation of new enclosed space, it is not expected to be subject to the school impact fees. However, as noted above, the project is not expected to adversely affect the WCCUSD, and no mitigation would be required. This issue will not be addressed further in the EIR.
d) Parks? X
13 West Contra Costa County Unified School District 2006–2007 Budget Update. Accessed January 2008 from the WCCUSD Website at: http://www.wccusd.k12.ca.us/Fiscal/PDF/budget_updates/2006/Current_financial_picture_040407.pdf.
Initial Study 32 Honda Port of Entry Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Explanation: As described in the Population and Housing discussion above, the proposed project is not anticipated to induce substantial growth locally and regionally. As a result, a significant increase in the demand for new parks and expanded park maintenance in the region is not anticipated. This issue will not be addressed further in the EIR.
e) Other public facilities? X
Explanation: No impacts to public facilities other than those already addressed in the previous discussion are anticipated. In addition, developer impact fees required by the City of Richmond are in place to mitigate the cost of public service needs of new development and would further reduce the impacts on public services to a less than significant level. The project’s effects on utilities such as water, sewer, and transportation are addressed below.
XIV. RECREATION —
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational X facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Explanation: As described above under Population and Housing and Public Services, the proposed project would not substantially increase the population and increase the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. The project could result in the increased use of existing parks and other recreational facilities, given the improvements proposed for a portion of the San Francisco Bay Trail adjacent to the project site. However, this increased access and potential use is envisioned in the overall planning for the San Francisco Bay Trail, as well as locally by the Trails for Richmond Action Committee (TRAC). The proposed improvements and increased access would be considered a beneficial impact.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities X which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Explanation: The proposed project would include improvements to a portion of the San Francisco Bay Trail along Canal Boulevard. The grading, erosion, and sedimentation controls that would apply to the project as a whole, described in the Soils, Seismicity, and Geology discussion will be discussed further in the EIR.
Initial Study Honda Port of Entry 33 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the X street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume–to– capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
Explanation: Construction and operation of the proposed project may result in a significant short–term and long–term increase in truck and automobile traffic on area roadways. This will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion X management agency for designated roads or highways?
Explanation: As described above, construction and operation of the proposed project could result in a significant short term and long term increase in truck and automobile traffic on area roadways which may result in an individual or cumulative increase in the level–of–service standard designated by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority for affected roadways. This will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that X results in substantial safety risks?
Explanation: The proposed project would not involve aircraft, nor would the project structures intrude into aircraft flight paths or air traffic spaces. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on air traffic patterns that results in substantial safety risks. No mitigation is required.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or X incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Explanation: The use of large trucks during construction and operation of the proposed project could affect road conditions on the designated haul routes by increasing the rate of road wear. The increased road wear could result in a significant increase in hazards without the incorporation of appropriate mitigation. This potential impact will be evaluated in the EIR.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
Initial Study 34 Honda Port of Entry Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Explanation: Construction activities could affect access for emergency vehicles traveling to or in the vicinity of the project site. Construction within or across streets, and temporary modification to travel lanes, could result in delays for emergency vehicle access in the vicinity of the project site. In addition, access to driveways and to cross streets in the construction area could be temporarily blocked due to construction activities. This could be an inconvenience to some and a significant problem for others, particularly emergency service providers (e.g., police and fire). This will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X
Explanation: Construction activities would intermittently and temporarily generate demand for parking spaces for construction worker vehicles potentially on and off the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would create an additional demand for parking to accommodate the longshoreman, truck drivers, and other employees hired to staff the project. While the proposed project does incorporate additional parking into the design, the increase in short–term and long–term parking demand is potentially significant and will be discussed in the EIR.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, X bicycle racks)?
Explanation: Construction and operation of the proposed project could result in both temporary and permanent disruptions to transit service in the project area as a result in the increase in area roadway traffic. However, the project would have no impact on adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Impacts to transit service in the project area will be discussed in detail in the focused EIR.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X
Explanation: The wastewater treatment plant that would serve the project site is permitted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and effluent from the plant is regularly monitored to ensure that water quality standards are not violated.
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Initial Study Honda Port of Entry 35 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to increase the demand on the Richmond Sanitary District beyond their planned service capacity for the area, or result in the need for expanded wastewater facilities or the construction of new wastewater facilities to accommodate the proposed project. However, this issue will be evaluated in the EIR.
c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Explanation: Implementation of the proposed project would slightly increase the demand on area stormwater infrastructure as a result of the creation of new impervious surfaces. The impact of the proposed project on stormwater drainage facilities will be addressed in the EIR.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are X new or expanded entitlements needed?
Explanation: Similar to the wastewater discussion above, the proposed project is not expected to increase the demand on the East Bay Municipal Utilities District beyond their planned service capacity for the area, nor is it expected to result in the need for expanded facilities, or the construction of new water distribution facilities to accommodate the proposed project. However, potential impacts on water supply will be addressed in detail in the EIR.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment X provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Explanation: As described above, implementation of the proposed project has the potential to increase the demand on existing wastewater treatment infrastructure which serves the project site, which may or may not exceed the planned capacity of the facilities provided by Richmond Sanitary District. The impact of the proposed project on area wastewater treatment capacity will be addressed in the EIR.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? X
Explanation: Although construction and operation of the proposed project is unlikely to increase the demand on the franchise solid waste hauler that serves the project site beyond their planned capacity, the potential for the proposed project to adversely affect solid waste disposal will be addressed in the EIR.
Initial Study 36 Honda Port of Entry Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X
Explanation: The proposed project would be required to comply with all laws and regulations pertaining to solid waste.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE — a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a X 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?
Explanation: As discussed the Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Transportation and Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems sections of this Initial Study, construction and operation of the proposed project may result in potentially significant impacts that may degrade the quality of the environment. These issues will be discussed in the EIR.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively X 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.)
Explanation: Cumulative environmental effects are multiple individual effects that, when considered together are considerable or compound or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may result from a single project or a number of separate projects and may occur at the same place and point in time or at different locations and over extended periods of time. This Initial Study has identified potentially significant impacts associated with Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Transportation and Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems, which when cumulatively considered with other proposed projects, may result in a significant environmental impact. This issue will be addressed in the EIR.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either X directly or indirectly?
Initial Study Honda Port of Entry 37 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Explanation: The proposed project may have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The EIR will assess the potential impacts related to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Transportation and Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. These impacts are identified in this Initial Study as potentially significant.
REPORT PREPARATION—
This Initial Study was prepared by Douglas Herring & Associates, with support from the City of Richmond Planning Department, the Port of Richmond, and Environmental Science Associates (ESA). The complete project team included:
Project Manager: Doug Herring, AICP, Principal Douglas Herring & Associates 1331 Linda Vista Drive El Cerrito, CA 94530
Initial Study: Paul Miller, Senior Project Manager Paul Garcia, Senior Associate Environmental Science Associates 8950 Cal Center Drive Building 3, Suite 300 Sacramento, California 95826
Initial Study 38 Honda Port of Entry
Appendix B
NOP Comment Letters
Appendix C
Intersection Level of Service Calculations
Appendix D
Air Quality Analysis Methodology and Assumptions
D. AIR QUALITY METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
D.1 METHODOLOGY In general, emissions were estimated using the activity and operational information described within the following appendix and emission factors, which are measures of emissions that express the mass of emissions in terms of a unit of activity. For example, emission factors for marine vessels may be expressed in terms of grams of emissions (of a particular pollutant) per horsepower-hour. Horsepower-hours are the product of in-use horsepower times hours of operation times a load factor. Emissions can be calculated, then, by multiplying hours of operation per year (activity data) by in-use horsepower (operational information) by a load factor by an emission factor (such as pounds per horsepower-hour) to provide an estimate of emissions in pounds of emissions per day or tons of emissions per year.
The actual calculations are often more complex than this example, because such parameters as in use horsepower must be estimated as part of the calculations. In addition, the emission factors often vary depending on equipment-specific factors such as the model year and the accumulated hours of use. The methods of calculating emissions are more completely described in the sections covering each source category.
Auto Carrier Marine Vessels
For auto carrier marine vessels, emission factors were developed by review of the literature and information specific to the proposed project. Emissions were calculated by multiplying the emission factors by vessel-specific activity parameters such as in-use horsepower and hours of operation. Calculations were made to adequately characterize the complicated activities of marine vessels (e.g., separate calculations were made for vessel transit, maneuvering, and hotelling activities for propulsion engines, auxiliary engines, and auxiliary boilers). The results of all the calculations were summed to produce the overall emission estimates.
Appendix D – Air Quality D–1 Tugboats
Emission factors were developed for tugboat engines by review of the literature and information specific to the proposed project. Emissions were calculated by multiplying the emission factors by the appropriate measure of activity (such as annual hours of operation).
Locomotives
Railroad operations are typically described in terms of two different types of operation, line haul and switching. Line haul operations involve long-distance transportation between the Port and points across the country whereas switching is the local movement of railcars to prepare them for line haul transportation or to distribute them to destination terminals upon their arrival in port.
The types of information available for these two types of activity differs – for the on-port switching locomotives, information on each locomotive and its activity (e.g., fuel use and throttle notch setting frequency) can be used to estimate emissions, whereas for the line haul locomotives the information is more general (e.g., in terms of fuel use per ton of cargo and total tons of cargo carried). Published emissions information for switch and line haul locomotive operations in both throttle notch and fuel consumption modes along with facility operational data was used to estimate emissions.
Auto Carrier Trucks and Motor Vehicles
For estimating auto carrier truck and motor vehicle emissions, activity information related to the number of truck, employee and auto shuttling trips and the estimated miles traveled within the air district were used to determine the emissions. This combination of the vehicles trips and miles traveled is known as vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Emissions were determined based on the speed-specific emission factor (typically in grams per mile) derived from CARB’s emission factor model EMFAC 2007 for the VMT.
D–2 Appendix D – Air Quality TABLE D-1 OPERATIONAL ACTIVITY ASSUMPTIONS
Proposed Activity Existing Glovis Hondas Auto Carrier Marine Vessels Marine Vessels per year 75 150 Marine Vessel per day (worst-case) 1 2 Vehicles Distributed per year 96,000 246,000
Locomotives Vehicles Distributed via inbound per year -- 80,000 Days of Operation 300 300 Vehicles Distributed via outbound per year 78,000 193,000 Rail cars per year 6,500 22,750 Rail cars per day (worst-case) 21 87 Vehicles per rail car 12 12
Auto Carrier Trucks Vehicles Distributed per year 18,000 133,000 Days of Operation 350 350 Vehicles Distributed per day (worst-case) 56 416 Vehicles per truck 9 9 Trucks per year 2,000 14,778 Trucks per day (worst-case) 6 46 Truck round trip within BAAQMD (miles) 100 100
Shuttling of Automobiles Vehicles Distributed per year 96,000 Days of Operation 350 Vehicles Distributed per day (worst-case) 300 Truck round trip within BAAQMD (miles) 4
Operations from San Diego Vehicles Distributed via truck per year 35,000 Days of Operation 350 Vehicles Distributed via truck per day 110 Vehicles per truck 9 Trucks per year 3,890 Trucks per day 12 Truck round trip within BAAQMD (miles) 100
Employee Vehicles Employees per day 150 350 Employee round trip within BAAQMD (miles) 30 30 Source: Project Description and Response to Data Request dated November 28, 2007.
Appendix D – Air Quality D–3
D.2 OPERATIONAL ACTIVITY ASSUMPTIONS From an air quality perspective, the following project elements (Table D-1) and assumptions are notable and were used in the development of the air emissions inventory. The table presents the activity data for the existing Glovis operations and the proposed Honda operations. Of note, the proposed Honda project would eliminate the shuttling of automobiles and truck operations from San Diego. D.3 EMISSION FACTORS AND CALCULATION ASSUMPTIONS MARINE VESSELS
Auto Carrier Marine Vessels
In developing an activity-based emissions inventory for auto carrier marine vessels, emissions are estimated as a function of vessel power demand (expressed in kW-hrs) multiplied by an emission factor, where the emission factor is expressed in terms of grams per kilowatt-hour (g/kW-hr). PM10 is assumed to be 100 percent of PM. PM2.5 was estimated to be 80 percent1 of PM10. The emission factor is dependent on the fuel used; an average sulfur content of 2.7 percent2 (residual oil) was assumed.
Main engine emission factors (Table D-2) were then applied to the various activity data (Table D-3). A main engine of 17,500 horsepower (12,790 kilowatts)3 was assumed.
1 Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC, Port of Long Beach Air Emissions Inventory – 2005, September 2007. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid.
D–4 Appendix D – Air Quality
TABLE D-2 EMISSION FACTORS FOR MAIN ENGINE
Cruise Slow Cruise Maneuvering Emission Emission Factor Emission Factor Factor (g/kW-hr) (g/kW-hr) Pollutant (g/kW-hr) CO 1.05 2.79 5.59 HC 0.093 0.406 1.148 NOx 10.6 11.2 12.6 PM10/PM2.5 0.263 0.291 0.357 SO2 14.31 16.20 19.22 CO2 704 796 943 SOURCE: U.S. EPA Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data, February 2000.
TABLE D-3 OPERATIONAL ASSUMPTIONS FOR MAIN ENGINE
Parameters Cruise Slow Cruise Maneuvering Load Factor 0.8 0.3 0.15 Hours per Operation 3 1 1 SOURCE: U.S. EPA Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data, February 2000.
Vessels typically never use the total auxiliary engine installed power when at sea, during hotelling, and during maneuvering. This is due to the design of the auxiliary system and the need for some level of redundancy in case of equipment failures. For each mode and vessel type, a different number of engines may be used and at varying loads depending on several factors, such as temperature. Hotelling load is primarily what is needed to meet the power needs of the lights, heating/ventilation/air conditioning (HVAC) systems, communications, computers, ship cranes, pumps, reefer load, and various other power demands while the vessel is at dock. Maneuvering is generally the highest auxiliary load mode as the bow thrusters need to be available and used in spurts. The fairway or open sea is generally where the lowest auxiliary loads are found as additional auxiliary power is not required for maneuvering and
Appendix D – Air Quality D–5 many vessels have shaft generators and exhaust turbine generators that help provide power to the ship in an effort to reduce operating costs through lower fuel consumption4.
Auxiliary engine emission factors (Table D-4) were then applied to the various activity data (Table D-5). Auxiliary engines (total of three) of 1,500 horsepower (1,096 kilowatts)5 each were assumed. Three engines are operational within the sea load and maneuvering load, while one engine is operational during the hotelling period6. The emission factor is dependent on the fuel used; an average sulfur content of 2.5 percent was assumed.
TABLE D-4 EMISSION FACTORS FOR AUXILARY ENGINES
Sea Load Maneuvering Hotelling Emission Emission Factor Emission Factor Factor (g/kW-hr) (g/kW-hr) Pollutant (g/kW-hr) CO 3.35 1.86 3.35 HC 0.534 0.221 0.534 NOx 11.5 10.9 11.5 PM10/PM2.5 0.302 0.275 0.302 SO2 15.56 14.07 15.56 CO2 825 747 825 SOURCE: U.S. EPA Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data, February 2000.
TABLE D-5 OPERATIONAL ASSUMPTIONS FOR AUXILARY ENGINES
Parameters Sea Load Maneuvering Hotelling Load Factor 0.25 0.45 0.25 Hours per Operation 3 1 8 SOURCE: U.S. EPA Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data, February 2000.
In addition to the auxiliary engines that are used to generate electricity for on-board uses, most marine vessels have one or more boilers used for fuel heating and for producing hot water. Boilers are typically not used during transit at sea since vessels are equipped with an exhaust gas recovery system or “economizer” that uses exhaust for heating purposes and therefore the boilers are not needed when the main engines are used. Boilers are used at reduced speeds,
4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid.
D–6 Appendix D – Air Quality such as during maneuvering and when the vessel is at Port and the main engines are shut down7.
Auxiliary boiler emission factors (Table D-6) were then applied to the various activity data (Table D-7). Auxiliary boiler of 0.113 tons of fuel per hour8 was assumed.
TABLE D-6 EMISSION FACTORS FOR AUXILARY BOILER
Emission Factor Pollutant (lb/ton fuel) CO 9.20 HC 0.760 NOx 24.6 PM10/PM2.5 3.020 SO2 108.00 SOURCE: U.S. EPA Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data, February 2000.
TABLE D-7 OPERATIONAL ASSUMPTIONS FOR AUXILARY BOILERS
Parameters Slow Cruise Maneuvering Hours per Operation 1 1 SOURCE: U.S. EPA Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data, February 2000.
Tugboats
Tugboats are used to propel auto carrier marine vessels to and from the berth. Emissions are based on an average tugboat engine size of 2,000 horsepower (1,493 kilowatts) and a load factor of 35 percent9. Tugboats are assumed to be in cruise mode prior to arrival and after departure, in slow cruise, and maneuvering mode for 80, 10, and 10 percent, respectively, of their operating time within the BAAQMD. Two tugs are assumed to operate for each auto carrier at one hour each. PM10 is assumed to be 100 percent of PM. PM2.5 was estimated to be 80 percent10 of PM10. The emission factor is dependent on the fuel used; an average sulfur content
7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Detroit Diesel specification 4000 Series 10 Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC, op. cit.
Appendix D – Air Quality D–7 of 1.5 percent11 (marine diesel oil) was assumed. Tugboat emission factors (Table D-8) were then applied to the various activity data.
TABLE D-8 EMISSION FACTORS FOR TUGBOATS
Emission Factor Pollutant (g/kW-hr) CO 2.39 HC 0.322 NOx 11.1 PM10/PM2.5 0.284 SO2 8.76 CO2 775 SOURCE: U.S. EPA Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data, February 2000.
LOCOMOTIVES
Locomotives operate differently from other types of mobile sources with respect to how they transmit power from engine to wheels. While most mobile sources use a physical coupling such as a transmission to transfer power from the engine to the wheels, a locomotive’s engine turns a generator or alternator powering an electric motor that, in turn, powers the locomotive’s wheels. The physical connection of a typical mobile source means that the engine’s speed is dictated by the vehicle’s speed through a fixed set of gear ratios, resulting in the highly transient operating conditions (particularly engine speed and load) that characterize mobile source operations. In contrast, the locomotive’s engine and drive system operate more independently, such that the engine can be operated at a particular speed without respect to the speed of the locomotive itself12.
This allows operation under more steady-state load and speed conditions, and as a result locomotives have been designed to operate in a series of discrete throttle settings called notches, ranging from notch positions one through eight, plus an idle position.
Many locomotives also have a feature known as dynamic braking, in which the electric drive engine operates as a generator to help slow the locomotive, with the resistance-generated power being dissipated as heat. While the engine is not generating motive power under dynamic
11 Ibid. 12 Ibid.
D–8 Appendix D – Air Quality braking, it is generating power to run cooling fans, so this operating condition is somewhat different from idling. Switch engines typically do not feature dynamic braking13.
Locomotive switching activities consist of: • Breaking up inbound trains and sorting railcars into contiguous fragments, and delivering the fragments to terminals. • Delivering empty container flat cars to terminals. • Delivering rail cars to non-container facilities, and removing previously delivered rail cars. • Rearranging full and empty railcars to facilitate loading by a terminal. • Picking up outbound containers in less than full train configuration and transporting them to a yard for assembly into full trains – to be transported out of the Port by one of the line haul railroads. Line haul locomotives are typically operated in groups of two to five units, with three or four units being most common, depending on the power requirements of the specific train being pulled and the horsepower capacities of available locomotives. Thus, two higher-horsepower locomotives may be able to pull a train that would take three units with lower power outputs. Locomotives operated in sets are connected such that every engine in the set is operated in unison by an engineer in one of the locomotives. Two line haul engines were assumed to operate simultaneously.
The specific activities included in the emission estimates include movement within Port boundaries or directly to or from port-owned properties (such as terminals and on-port rail yards). Rail movements that occur solely outside the port, such as switching at off-port rail yards, and movements that do not either initiate or end at a Port property are not included in the activities for which emissions are presented.
For locomotives, emissions are estimated as a function of power demand (expressed in hp-hrs) multiplied by an emission factor, where the emission factor is expressed in terms of grams per horsepower-hour (g/hp-hr). The emission factors and other basis of emission estimates, including operational assumptions are detailed in Attachment A.
MOTOR VEHICLES
Emission factors (Table D-9) for auto carrier and automobiles were obtained from the CARB EMFAC2007 emissions model.
13 Ibid.
Appendix D – Air Quality D–9
TABLE D-9 AUTO CARRIERS TRUCKS AND AUTOMOBILE EMISSION FACTORS (grams/mi)
Source VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Auto 0.021 2183.160 Carrier 1.687 8.055 18.266 0.981 0.865 Auto 0.131 3.461 0.315 0.003 0.031 0.007 345.052 SOURCE: California Air Resources Board EMFAC2007.
D–10 Appendix D – Air Quality ATTACHMENT A LOCOMOTIVE EMISSION ASSUMPTIONS AND CALCULATIONS
Appendix D – Air Quality D–11
D–12 Appendix D – Air Quality
MEMORANDUM
To: Dave Seep, BNSF
From: Chris Lindhjem, ENVIRON
Date: February 29, 2008
Subject: Richmond Car Terminal Train Movements – Draft 2
The analysis of the Richmond Car Terminal rail movements for the Proposed Honda / Glovis operation is presented here. Based on the project’s forecasted throughput, the number and time of train movements per day for six days a week were provided along with an expectation of idle time between each movement. BNSF expects to perform these movements with one (three generator set engines) 2,100 horsepower NREC, locomotive. The current operations are served using Tier 0 GP-35 or GP-9 switching engines.
The forecasted locomotive movements include loaded and unloaded with and without cars, so could demand any sort of power levels or notch settings from the locomotive. BNSF already conducted an analysis of the notch settings for similar power locomotives at the Richmond yard using event recorder data. The locomotives already analyzed were performing similar tasks in cutting, assembling, and moving car carrier trains from the Richmond yard. Therefore, the duty cycle for the proposed facility was derived from the data presented by BNSF for the Richmond yard (http://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/hra/env_rich_ei_122006.pdf)
A new type of locomotive has been purchased for the Richmond yard and will be used for the proposed facility. This locomotive uses three diesel engines each meeting a more stringent (lower) emission standard than current locomotives are required. This locomotive uses three Cummins engines certified to off-road emission standards and is built by the National Railway Equipment Co. (NREC).
BNSF provided the emission rates for the NREC locomotive engine to be used at this site. Table 1 outlines the emission data for this locomotive as provided by the manufacturer.
Appendix D – Air Quality D–13
Table 1. NREC generator set locomotive engine emission rates. HC CO NOx PM Fuel Mode / Notch (g/hr) (g/hr) (g/hr) (g/hr) (lb/hr) Idle 10.9 51.7 157.9 6.3 14.5 DB1 10.9 51.7 157.9 6.3 14.5 1 31.7 448.2 642.9 27.7 87.4 2 41.1 656.5 960.9 25.2 148.5 3 44.6 285.4 2107.7 32.8 243.3 4 96.6 1474.4 2423.7 52.9 350.2 5 80.1 774.5 3222.8 48.5 414.8 6 154.9 1788.6 4001.9 74.8 568.2 7 148.9 1370.6 5266.2 78.3 668.8 8 141.4 738.8 6124.7 94.3 756.6 1 – NREC indicated that dynamic braking does not occur, so this mode is estimated at the idle emission rate.
BNSF currently uses engines similar to the GP-3x engine as outlined in the Richmond yard report. The emissions for this type of locomotive are provided in Table 2.
Table 2. GP-3x Locomotive emission rates. NOx PM HC CO NOx adjusted PM adjusted Fuel Mode / Notch (g/hr) (g/hr) (g/hr) (g/hr) (g/hr) (g/hr) (lb/hr) Idle 124.1 283.0 1247.0 1184.7 38.0 38.0 32 DB 269.0 699.0 2803.0 2662.9 72.0 72.0 103 1 121.5 240.0 1824.8 1733.5 31.0 31.0 55 2 149.9 429.0 4335.7 4118.9 110.0 110.0 137 3 188.5 430.0 8137.0 7730.2 186.0 173.2 226 4 261.3 479.0 12410.0 11789.5 212.0 185.7 331 5 371.5 604.0 16974.0 16125.3 267.0 227.4 442 6 468.8 926.0 23232.0 22070.4 417.0 365.6 567 7 651.6 1773.0 29605.0 28124.8 463.0 420.6 710 8 807.1 3973.0 34755.0 33017.3 608.0 551.2 854
By statewide agreement (http://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/ryagreement/083005mouexecuted.pdf), BNSF will use ultra-low sulfur (nominally 15 ppm sulfur or 0.0015%) in these engines, which is most likely California diesel fuel. The emissions with the use of California diesel results in lower particulate and NOx emissions.
The engine emissions for most locomotives, including the GP-3x emission shown in Table 2, were generated using an off-road diesel with a fuel sulfur level of 0.3%. The NREC engine emissions were generated using California diesel because the sales of these engines are current restricted to California and Texas that use the low sulfur fuel.
Therefore the emissions for the current engines in use in Richmond must be adjusted for the lower sulfur levels. The fuel sulfur correction methodology described by ARB (2005,
D–14 Appendix D – Air Quality D. Air Quality Methodology and Assumptions
"Changes to the Locomotive Inventory," prepared by Walter Wong, preliminary draft. March 16, 2005.) was used to adjust PM emission rates from an average fuel sulfur level of 0.3% to 0.105% using the fuel sulfur – PM relationship equation, A + B * (fuel sulfur, ppm). The emission reductions calculated for GE and EMD engines shown in Table 3 were applied to the base emission rates to calculate the emission rates at the in-use fuel sulfur levels. The GP-3x engine was manufactured by EMD and so those corrections were used. The adjustment for NOx emissions was recommended as a straight-forward 5% reduction due to the use of California diesel.
Table 3. Fuel sulfur emission reductions by notch for EMD 2-stroke engines Fuel Sulfur 0.3% Fuel Sulfur 0.0015% Notch B A EF (g/hp-hr) EF (g/hp-hr) Reduction EMD 2-stroke engine 8 0.0000123 0.3563 0.3932 0.3564845 9.34% 7 0.0000096 0.284 0.3128 0.284144 9.16% 6 0.0000134 0.2843 0.3245 0.284501 12.33% 5 0.000015 0.2572 0.3022 0.257425 14.82% 4 0.0000125 0.2629 0.3004 0.2630875 12.42% 3 0.0000065 0.2635 0.283 0.2635975 6.86%
The train movements for the existing and proposed operations were provided in terms of time in motion and at idle. Table 4 shows the activity for the existing operations, and Table 5 shows the proposed operations activity.
Table 4. Existing operations activity summary for inbound and outbound between Richmond yard and the BNSF Auto loading facility. Train Travel Time per Time in Movement Length Distance Speed Move Motion Idle Time ID (Ft.) (Ft.) (mph) (sec.) (sec.) (sec.) 1 1700 4500 6 1002 511 491 2 900 1100 6 487 125 362 3 900 1100 6 487 125 362 4 100 4500 6 1002 511 491 5 3100 4500 6 1005 511 494 6 1600 1700 6 578 193 385 7 1600 1700 6 578 193 385 8 100 4500 6 1002 511 491 OUTBOUND 1 1700 4500 6 1002 511 491 2 900 1100 6 487 125 362 3 900 1100 6 487 125 362 4 100 4500 6 1002 511 491 5 3100 4500 6 1005 511 494 6 1600 1700 6 578 193 385 7 1600 1700 6 578 193 385 8 100 4500 6 1002 511 491
Appendix D – Air Quality D–15 D. Air Quality Methodology and Assumptions
Table 5. Proposed operations activity summary for inbound, on dock switch, and outbound between Richmond yard and the BNSF Auto loading facility. Train Time per Movement Length Travel Speed Move Time in Idle Time ID (Ft.) Distance (mph) (sec.) Motion (sec.) (sec.) 1 3300 4500 6 751 511 240 2 1650 1650 6 428 188 241 3 75 4500 8 624 384 240 4 1600 4500 6 751 511 240 5 75 4500 8 624 384 240 6 2400 4500 6 751 511 240 7 1200 2300 6 501 261 240 8 75 4500 8 624 384 240 9 2400 4500 6 751 511 240 10 1200 1200 6 376 136 240 11 75 4500 8 624 384 240 12 1200 4500 6 751 511 240 FACILITY SWITCHING OPERATIONS 1 1300 1400 6 519 159 360 2 75 2750 8 594 234 360 3 1300 1400 6 519 159 360 4 2500 2625 6 658 298 360 5 75 5375 8 818 458 360 6 1300 1400 6 519 159 360 7 75 2750 8 594 234 360 8 1300 1400 6 519 159 360 9 2500 2625 6 658 298 360 10 75 5375 8 818 458 360 11 1300 1400 6 519 159 360 12 75 6300 8 897 537 360 OUTBOUND OPERATIONS 1 2000 6300 6 956 716 240 2 75 6300 8 777 537 240 3 2000 6300 6 956 716 240 4 75 6300 8 777 537 240 5 2000 6300 6 956 716 240 6 75 6300 8 777 537 240
From the movement estimates, Table 6 shows the time in motion (notch settings) and idle were calculated for the daily operations from the movement data in Tables 2 and 3.
D–16 Appendix D – Air Quality D. Air Quality Methodology and Assumptions
Table 6. Summary locomotive operating time for existing and proposed operations. Total Time per Day Fraction of Time in Operation (hours) Motion Fraction of Time at Idle Existing 3.41 43.7% 56.3% Proposed 5.66 57.6% 42.4%
The duty cycle for the switching locomotives at Richmond was determined using event recorder data and presented in a report under a Statewide agreement between California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the railroads including BNSF. The locomotive during movements would primarily be in a notch, and idle between movements. So the Richmond duty cycle in notches other than idle was prorated to represent the duty demanded during movements. The Richmond duty cycle (http://www.arb.ca.gov/railyard/hra/env_rich_ei_122006.pdf) is shown in Tables 7 and 8 and the estimated locomotive duty cycle for the existing and proposed duty cycles.
Table 7. Existing operations locomotive duty cycle estimate. MODE / Prorated NOTCH Richmond Movement Existing Operations Duty Cycle Duty Cycle Average Duty Cycle1 Idle 59.80% 0.00% 56.33% DB 0.12% 0.30% 0.13% 1 13.45% 33.44% 14.60% 2 13.93% 34.63% 15.13%
3 6.44% 16.01% 6.99% 4 3.12% 7.76% 3.39% 5 1.29% 3.21% 1.40% 6 0.63% 1.57% 0.68% 7 0.24% 0.60% 0.26% 8 1.00% 2.49% 1.09% 1 - Idle time determined from expected idle periods between each movement.
Table 8. Proposed operations locomotive duty cycle estimated. Prorated Richmond Movement Proposed Operations Mode / Notch Duty Cycle Duty Cycle Average Duty Cycle1 Idle 59.80% 0.00% 42.37% DB 0.12% 0.30% 0.17% 1 13.45% 33.44% 19.27% 2 13.93% 34.63% 19.96% 3 6.44% 16.01% 9.23% 4 3.12% 7.76% 4.47% 5 1.29% 3.21% 1.85% 6 0.63% 1.57% 0.90% 7 0.24% 0.60% 0.34% 8 1.00% 2.49% 1.43% 1 - Idle time determined from expected idle periods between each movement.
Using the duty cycles and time in mode for the existing and proposed facility along with the per mode emission estimates in Tables 1 and Table 2, the emissions per day were calculated. The annual emission estimates are shown in Table 9 and used the per day activity multiplied by 6 days a week for the 52 week year.
Appendix D – Air Quality D–17 D. Air Quality Methodology and Assumptions
Table 9. Locomotive emission estimates for proposed and existing operations. Grams Short Tons Emissions per year per year EXISTING OPERATIONS USING GP-3X LOCOMOTIVE HC 161,308 0.18 CO 392,892 0.43 NOx 3,507,834 3.87 PM 78,594 0.09 CO2 322,831 0.36 Fuel Consumption (gallons) N/A 14,261 PROPOSED FACILITY USING NREC GENSET SWITCHER HC 57,954 0.06 CO 666,829 0.74 NOx 1,567,658 1.73 PM 38,220 0.04 CO2 657,392 0.72 Fuel Consumption (gallons) N/A 29,040
The existing operation dray or drive cars from the facility to a holding yard and then later driven onto rail cars. The additional driving in the existing operations has not been accounted in this analysis.
D–18 Appendix D – Air Quality D. Air Quality Methodology and Assumptions
ATTACHMENT B HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
Appendix D – Air Quality D–19 D. Air Quality Methodology and Assumptions
D–20 Appendix D – Air Quality D. Air Quality Methodology and Assumptions
A human health risk assessment (HRA) involves four steps; hazards identification, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment, and risk characterization. This attachment describes methodologies and assumptions associated with each of the four steps. This attachment also provides a listing of key terms and definitions, and a description of limitations and uncertainties associated with the performance of an HRA. Significance Threshold The operation of any project with the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels of TACs14 (such as DPM) would be deemed to have a potentially significant impact. More specifically, proposed projects that have the potential to expose the public to TACs in excess of the following thresholds would be considered to have a significant air quality impact: • Probability of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual exceeds 10 in one million people for 70 year exposure. • Ground-level concentrations of non-carcinogenic TACs exceed the acceptable health based concentrations.
Terms and Definitions As the practice of conducting an HRA is particularly complex and involves concepts that are not altogether familiar to most people, several terms and definitions are provided below that are considered essential to the understanding of the approach, methodology and results: Acute effect – a health effect (non-cancer) produced within a short period of time (few minutes to several days) following an exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs). Cancer risk – the probability of an individual contracting cancer from a lifetime (i.e., 70 years) exposure to TACs in the ambient air. Chronic effect – a health effect (non-cancer) produced from a continuous exposure occurring over an extended period of time (weeks, months, years). Criteria air pollutants – a series of common air pollutants regulated by the Federal or California Clean Air Acts (i.e., CO, NO2, O3, particulate matter, etc.). Hazard Index (HI) – the unitless ratio of an exposure level over the acceptable reference dose (RfC). The HI should be less than 1.0 and can be applied to multiple compounds in an additive manner. Hazard Quotient (HQ) – the unitless ratio of an exposure level over the acceptable reference dose (RfC). The HQ should be less than 1.0 as applied to individual compounds. Toxic air contaminants (TACs) – any air pollutants that can cause health effects in humans that are not regulated as “criteria” pollutants. Human Health Effects - comprise disorders such as eye watering, respiratory or heart ailments, and other (i.e., non-cancer) related diseases. Health Risk Assessment (HRA) – an analysis designed to predict the generation and dispersion of TACs in the outdoor environment, evaluate the potential for exposure
14 TACs are airborne substances that are capable of causing short-term (acute) and/or long-term (chronic or carcinogenic, i.e., cancer causing) adverse human health effects (i.e., injury or illness). The current California list of TACs includes approximately 200 compounds, including particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines.
Appendix D – Air Quality D–21 D. Air Quality Methodology and Assumptions
of human populations, and to assess and quantify both the individual and population-wide health risks associated with those levels of exposure. Incremental – under CEQA, the net difference (or change) in conditions or impacts when comparing the existing to future year conditions. Maximum exposed individual (MEI) – an individual assumed to be located at the point where the highest concentrations of TACs, and therefore, health risks are predicted to occur. Non-cancer risks – health risks such as eye watering, respiratory or heart ailments, and other non-cancer related diseases. Receptors – the locations where potential health impacts or risks are predicted (schools, residences and work-sites).
Limitations and Uncertainties There are also a number of important limitations and uncertainties commonly associated with a HRA due to the wide variability of human exposures to TACs, the extended timeframes over which the exposures are evaluated and the inability to verify the results. Among these challenges are the following: • The current guidance and methodologies for modeling TACs and conducting an HRA are principally intended and designed to assess “stationary point” (i.e., smokestack) sources of air emissions. By comparison, this analysis is an assemblage of moving (or “mobile”) “line” sources (i.e., railyard, roadways, and marine vessels) and “area” sources (i.e., unloading/loading truck lots). • The HRA exposure estimates do not take into account that people do not usually reside at the same location for 70 years and that other exposures (i.e., school children and workers) are also of much shorter durations than was assumed in this analysis. Therefore, the results of the HRA are highly overstated for those cases. • Other limitations and uncertainties associated with HRAs as identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) include: (a.) lack of reliable monitoring data; (b.) extrapolation of toxicity data in animals to humans; (c.) estimation errors in calculating TACs emissions; (d.) concentration prediction errors with dispersion models; and (e.) the variability in lifestyles, fitness and other confounding factors of the human population.15 Therefore, according to CalEPA guidelines, the results of the HRA should not be interpreted as the expected rates of cancer or other potential human health effects, but rather as estimates of potential risk based on current knowledge, a number of highly conservative assumptions and the best assessment tools presently available.16
Hazards Identification TAC emissions associated with the proposed project would occur from the following project activities: • Auto carrier trucks within the loading/unloading area and on local streets, arterials, and freeways in transit to and from the facility, • Rail locomotives during switching and line haul activities,
15 CalEPA OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots HRA Guidelines, Ibid. 16 Ibid.
D–22 Appendix D – Air Quality D. Air Quality Methodology and Assumptions
• Marine vessels (auto carriers) during hotelling and within ship channel, • Tugs assistance of auto carrier during maneuvering to and from the berth area. The primary TAC of interest within this HRA is diesel particulate matter (DPM), which is described within the following section. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of numerous individual gaseous and particulate compounds emitted from diesel-fueled combustion engines. DPM is formed primarily through the incomplete combustion of diesel fuel. DPM is removed from the atmosphere through physical processes including atmospheric fall-out and washout by rain. Humans can be exposed to airborne DPM or by deposition on water, soil, and vegetation. In August 1998, the California Air Resource Board (CARB) identified diesel PM as a TAC. The CARB developed Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel- Fueled Engines and Vehicles and Risk Management Guidance for the Permitting of New Stationary Diesel-Fueled Engines and approved these documents on September 28, 2000. The documents represent proposals to reduce DPM emissions, with the goal of reducing emissions and the associated health risk by 75 percent in 2010 and by 85 percent in 2020. The program aims to require the use of state-of-the-art catalyzed DPM filters and ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel. In 2001, CARB assessed the state-wide health risks from exposure to diesel exhaust and to other toxic air contaminants. It is difficult to distinguish the health risks of diesel emissions from those of other air toxics, since diesel exhaust contains approximately 40 different TACs. The CARB study detected diesel exhaust by using ambient air carbon soot measurements as a surrogate for diesel emissions. The study reported that in 2000, the state-wide average cancer risk from exposure to diesel exhaust was about 540 per million population as compared to an average total risk for exposure to all ambient air toxics of 760 per million. This estimate, which accounts for about 70 percent of the total risk from TACs, included both urban and rural areas in the state. The estimate can also be considered an average worst-case for the state, since it assumes constant exposure to outdoor concentrations of diesel exhaust and does not account for expected lower concentrations indoors, where most of time is spent.
Exposure Assessment Dispersion is the process by which atmospheric pollutants disseminate due to wind and vertical stability. The results of a dispersion analysis are used to assess pollutant concentrations at or near an emission source. The results of an analysis allow predicted concentrations of pollutants to be compared directly to air quality standards and other criteria such as health risks based on modeled concentrations. Dispersion modeling allows one to assess future impacts when new state and federal regulations for diesel trucks are implemented. A rising pollutant plume reacts with the environment in several ways before it levels off. First, the plume’s own turbulence interacts with atmospheric turbulence to entrain ambient air. This mixing process reduces and eventually eliminates the density and momentum differences that cause the plume to rise. Second, the wind transports the plume during its rise and entrainment process. Higher winds mix the plume more rapidly, resulting in a lower final rise. Third, the plume interacts with the vertical temperature stratification of the atmosphere, rising as a result of buoyancy in the unstable-to-neutrally stratified mixed layer. However, after the plume encounters the mixing lid and the stable stratified air above, its vertical motion is dampened. Dispersion Modeling Approach Project sources producing DPM emissions include trucks, locomotives, marine vessels, and tugs. This section presents the methodology used for the dispersion modeling analysis. This
Appendix D – Air Quality D–23 D. Air Quality Methodology and Assumptions
section addresses all of the fundamental components of an air dispersion modeling analysis including: • Model selection and options • Receptor spacing and location • Meteorological data • Source release characteristics Air dispersion modeling was performed to estimate the downwind dispersion of DPM exhaust emissions resulting from transit and maneuvering of Ocean-going Vessels (OGV) and Harbor Craft (tugboats) associated with the PPMT. A description of the air quality modeling parameters, including air dispersion model selection, modeling domain, source exhaust parameters, meteorological data selection, and receptor network, is provided. The methodology for this analysis followed guidance and procedures within CARB’s Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure Assessment Study for the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, dated April 2006 while accounting for site-specific data.
Model Selection and Options The Industrial Source Complex-3 model (Version 02035) was used for the modeling analysis. This model is an appropriate choice for this analysis because it covers simple, intermediate, and complex terrain and can predict both short-term and long-term (annual) average concentrations. The model was run using the regulatory default options (stack-tip downwash, buoyancy -induced dispersion, final plume rise), default wind speed profile categories, default potential temperature gradients, no deposition or depletion of particulate matter, and no pollutant decay. The ISC3 is a micro-scale, steady-state Gaussian plume dispersion model applicable for estimating impacts from a wide variety of emission release patterns (point, area, line, and volume) such as those found at ports for distances up to approximately 50 kilometers. The appropriate dispersion coefficients used in modeling depend on the land use within three kilometers (km) of what is being modeled. The type of land use is based on a classification method that is defined by Auer (1978). Pertinent United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1:24,000 scale (7.5 minute) topographic maps of the area were used. If the Auer land use types of heavy industrial, light-to-moderate industrial, commercial, and compact residential account for 50 percent or more of the total area, the Guideline on Air Quality Models recommends using urban dispersion coefficients; otherwise, the appropriate rural coefficients are used. Based on the area that surrounds the facility, from a dispersion modeling standpoint, rural dispersion coefficients are used.
Receptor Locations A Cartesian grid receptor network with a 250 m x 250 m resolution is used, for a total of 1020 receptors. Additional receptors were placed to representative sensitive receptors such as schools, recreational areas, and residences. The elevation of each receptor within the modeling domain was determined from USGS Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data. Receptors are placed at a height of 1.8 meters (typical breathing height) above ground level.
Meteorological Data The rate at which emissions are dispersed in the atmosphere depends upon the intensity of the ambient turbulence, the wind velocity, the position relative to obstacles in the flow field, and any dilutions attributable to the source itself.
D–24 Appendix D – Air Quality D. Air Quality Methodology and Assumptions
Surface meteorological data and upper air meteorological data from UC Richmond17 was used for the modeling analysis. The windrose (Figure 1) indicates winds are predominantly from the south-southeast with an average wind speed of 3.23 meters per second for the five- year period of 2001 through 2005.
FIGURE 1
UC RICHMOND WINDROSE
Source Release Characteristics The emission sources associated with the facility are characterized as area, line (a series of area sources), and point sources. Model parameters for area sources include emission rate, release height, lengths of x and y sides of a polygonal area, and initial vertical dimensions of the plume. Auto carrier loading/unloading areas, locomotive switch/line haul areas are simulated as areas sources with a release height of 4 and 5 meters, respectively, and an initial vertical dimension of 1.86 and 2.33 meters, respectively. Marine auto carriers and harbor craft (tugs) in open
17 BAAQMD Meteorological Data, http://www.baaqmd.gov/tec/data/#
Appendix D – Air Quality D–25 D. Air Quality Methodology and Assumptions
waters are simulated as line sources with a release height of 50 and 6 meters, respectively, an initial vertical dimension of 23.3 and 2.79 meters, respectively. The line sources were simulated with a width of 160 meters within the maneuvering and slow cruise conditions. Model parameters for marine auto carriers in hotelling conditions include emission rates, stack height, stack diameter, stack exhaust temperature, and stack exhaust exit velocity are included in Table 1. TABLE 1
MARINE AUTO CARRIER HOTELLING RELEASE CHARACTERISTICS
Stack Stack Exhaust Exit Height Diameter Temperature Velocity (m) (m) (K) (m/s) 43 0.5 618 16 Source: CARB, 2006.
Temporal factors are used to describe the relationship of activity levels in one period of time to another period of time (i.e., the relationship of the activity during one-hour to the activity during a 24-hour period). The use of temporal factors gives the model the ability to more accurately reflect real world conditions.
TABLE 2 EMISSION SOURCE TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION
Source Period Activity Distribution Hours per Day Marine Auto Carrier 4 am – 8 pm 80% 16 8 pm – 4 am 20% 8 Hotelling midnight-midnight 100% 24 Harbor Craft 6 am – 6 pm 80% 12 6 pm – 6 am 20% 12 Auto Carrier Trucks 6 am – 6 pm 80% 12 6 pm – 6 am 20% 12 Rail midnight-midnight 100% 24 Source: CARB, 2006.
Exposure Assumptions The exposure assumptions used to calculate health impacts include exposure frequency, exposure time, exposure duration and averaging time. Each land use classification considered in the HRA has its own unique exposure assumptions. For example, the HRA assumes a 70-year, 24-hour/day, 350 days/year exposure duration to calculate carcinogenic effects for residents. This exposure duration is equivalent to residents being present in their home seven days a week for 50 weeks/year (or about 96 percent of the time) with approximately 15 days spent away from home. Potential health impacts to an offsite worker will vary depending on the worker’s schedule and the operating hours of the facility. Offsite workers are assumed to work a regular eight hours/day, five days/week, 49 weeks/year, over a 40-year schedule. School children exposure assumptions were based on eight hours/day, five days/week, 180 days/year over 14 years. Teacher exposure assumptions were based on eight hours/day, five days/week, 180 days/year over 40 years. Individual body weights and breathing rates were based on OEHHA guidance. Of note, given land uses within the receptor grid, no off-workers were included in the analysis, due to
D–26 Appendix D – Air Quality D. Air Quality Methodology and Assumptions
exposure durations the use of residence receptors instead of off-site worker is more conservative. For the cancer risk assessment, emission rates were determined based on the average emission rate over the 70-year lifetime (i.e., the project emission rate divided by 70 years). However, for the chronic and acute health impacts, the maximum emission rate was used. In the case of DPM, these maximum emission rates occur in the beginning of the time period.
Toxicity Assessment The toxicity values used in this analysis were based on OEHHA guidance. These toxicity values are for carcinogenic effects and chronic health impacts. The primary pathway for exposures was assumed to be inhalation and carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects were evaluated separately. The principal issues related to health risks from the project pertain to emissions of toxic substances from the exhaust of diesel trucks and equipment. The incremental risks were determined for these sources of TAC as described above and summed to obtain an estimated total incremental carcinogenic health risk. The health risk assessment was conducted according to methodologies present in BAAQMD’s Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines. In accordance with OEHHA guidelines, the HRA was accomplished by applying the highest estimated concentrations of TAC at the receptors analyzed to the established cancer potency factors and acceptable reference concentrations (RfC) for non-cancer health effects. The HRA for this project utilized CARB Hotspot Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP)18 to determine the cancer risks and non-cancer health effects. HARP is a computer software package that combines the tools of emission inventory database, facility prioritization, air dispersion modeling, and risk assessment analysis.
Risk Characterization The cancer risk is the probability of an individual developing cancer as a result of exposure to DPM. The cancer risks are assumed to occur exclusively through the inhalation pathway. The cancer risk based on a one-year exposure can be estimated by utilizing the cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day), the annual average concentration (µg/m3), and the lifetime exposure adjustment. HARP was conducted using the 95th percentile breathing rate (derived OEHHA) method. The cancer risks occur exclusively through the inhalation pathway; therefore, the cancer risks can be estimated from the following equation: Dose = ∑ C • DBR • EF • ED • (10-6)/(AT) Where:
Dose Dose through Inhalation (mg/kg-day) C Annual average concentration (µg/m3) (from previous equation) during the 70 year exposure period DBR Daily Breathing Rate (L/kg-day) EF Exposure Frequency (days/year) ED Exposure Duration (years)
18 HARP (Version 1.3).
Appendix D – Air Quality D–27 D. Air Quality Methodology and Assumptions
AT Averaging Period over which exposure is averaged (25,550 days or 70 years) Cancer Risk = Dose (mg/kg-day) • Cancer Potency (kg-day/mg) • (106) The Hazard Index is an expression used for the potential for non-cancer health effects. The relationship for the non-cancer health effects is given by the annual concentration (µg/m3) and the Reference Exposure Level (µg/m3). The acute hazard index was determined using the “simple” concurrent maximum approach, which tends to be conservative (i.e., overpredicts). The relationship for the non-cancer health effects is given by the following equation:
HI = C/REL
where,
HIDPM Hazard index; an expression of the potential for non-cancer health effects. 3 CDPM Annual average DPM concentration (µg/m ) during the 70 year exposure period
RELDPM Reference exposure level (REL); the concentration at which no adverse health effects are anticipated.
The cancer risk and health index are determined by pollutant and then totaled for comparison with the significance thresholds.
D–28 Appendix D – Air Quality D. Air Quality Methodology and Assumptions
References Auer, 1978. Correlation of Land Use and Cover with Meteorological Anomalies, August H. Auer, Jr., American Meteorological Society, Journal of Applied Meteorology, Vol. 17, pp. 636- 643 (http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0450/17/5/pdf/i1520-0450-17-5- 636.pdf), May 1978. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, BAAQMD Health Risk Screening Analysis Guidelines (http://www.baaqmd.gov/pmt/air_toxics/risk_procedures_policies/hrsa_guidelines.pdf), June 2005. California Air Resource Board. 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles (http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf). October 2000. California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2003, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines, Parts I-IV and Appendices (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/index.html), August 2003. California Air Resource Board, Air Quality Impacts from NOx Emissions of Two Potential Marine Vessel Control Strategies in the South Coast Air Basin, November 2000. California Air Resource Board, Railroad Statewide Agreement Particulate Emissions Reduction Program at California Rail Yards, June 2005. California Air Resource Board, 2005 Oceangoing Ship Survey Summary of Results, September 2005. ENVIRON, Richmond Facility TAC Emissions Inventory, October 3, 2006. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust (EPA/600/8-90/057F) (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/dieselfinal.pdf), May 2002. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005. Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised, including Supplements), EPA-450/2-78-027R (http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/appw_05.pdf), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, November 9, 2005. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006c. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, Fifth Edition, Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Section 13.2.5 Industrial Wind Erosion (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/final/c13s0205.pdf), November 2006. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Analysis of Commercial Marine Vessels Emissions and Fuel Consumption Data, February 2000. ICF Consulting, Current Methodologies and Best Practices in Preparing Port Emissions Inventories, January 5, 2006. Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC, Port of Long Beach Air Emissions Inventory – 2005, September 2007. Starcrest Consulting Group, LLC, Puget Sound Maritime Air Emissions Inventory, April 2007.
Appendix D – Air Quality D–29 D. Air Quality Methodology and Assumptions
(This page intentionally left blank.)
D–30 Appendix D – Air Quality
Appendix E
Noise Measurements
Figure Noise-E1 Site 2 - Project Site Fence near Current Car Carrier Truck Loading Area Tuesday February 5, 2008
100
90
80
70
Decibels (dBA) 60
50
40 000 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 Hour
Leq - Equivalent Steady State Sound Level (Leq) Lmx - Max imum Sound Lev el Dur ing Hour L 50 - Sound Level Exceeded 30 minutes each hour L90 - Sound Level Exceeded 54 minutes each hour
Figure Noise E2 Site 3 - Project Site Fence at nearest point to Seacliff Homes Tuesday February 5, 2008
100
90
80
70
Decibels (dBA) 60
50
40 000 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 Hour
Leq - Equivalent Steady State Sound Level (Leq) Lmx - Max imum Sound Lev el Dur ing Hour L 50 - Sound Level Exceeded 30 minutes each hour L90 - Sound Level Exceeded 54 minutes each hour
Figure Noise-E3 Site 3 - Project Site Fence at nearest point to Seacliff Homes Wednesday February 6, 2008
100
90
80
70
Decibels (dBA) 60
50
40 000 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 Hour
Leq - Equivalent Steady State Sound Level (Leq) Lmx - Max imum Sound Lev el Dur ing Hour L 50 - Sound Level Exceeded 30 minutes each hour L90 - Sound Level Exceeded 54 minutes each hour
Figure Noise-E4 Site 3 - Project Site Fence at nearest point to Seacliff Homes Thursday February 7, 2008
100
90
80
70
Decibels (dBA) 60
50
40 000 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 Hour
Leq - Equivalent Steady State Sound Level (Leq) Lmx - Max imum Sound Lev el Dur ing Hour L 50 - Sound Level Exceeded 30 minutes each hour L90 - Sound Level Exceeded 54 minutes each hour
Figure Noise-E5 Site 5 - 50 feet from Center of Canal Blvd. Near Building 23 Tuesday February 5, 2008
100
90
80
70
Decibels (dBA) 60
50
40 000 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 Hour
Leq - Equivalent Steady State Sound Level (Leq) Lmx - Max imum Sound Lev el Dur ing Hour L 50 - Sound Level Exceeded 30 minutes each hour L90 - Sound Level Exceeded 54 minutes each hour
Figure Noise-E6 Site 5 - 50 feet from Center of Canal Blvd. Near Building 23 Wednesday February 6, 2008
100
90
80
70
Decibels (dBA) 60
50
40 000 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 Hour
Leq - Equivalent Steady State Sound Level (Leq) Lmx - Max imum Sound Lev el Dur ing Hour L 50 - Sound Level Exceeded 30 minutes each hour L90 - Sound Level Exceeded 54 minutes each hour
Figure Noise-E7 Site 5 - 50 feet from Center of Canal Blvd. Near Building 23 Thursday February 7, 2008
100
90
80
70
Decibels (dBA) 60
50
40 000 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 Hour
Leq - Equivalent Steady State Sound Level (Leq) Lmx - Max imum Sound Lev el Dur ing Hour L 50 - Sound Level Exceeded 30 minutes each hour L90 - Sound Level Exceeded 54 minutes each hour
Figure Noise-E8 Site 6 - Near Canal Blvd. Rail Crossing and West Cutting Blvd. Tuesday February 5, 2008
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
Decibels (dBA) 60.0
50.0
40.0 000 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 Hour
Leq - Equivalent Steady State Sound Level (Leq) Lmx - Maximum Sound Level During Hour L 50 - Sound Level Exceeded 30 minutes each hour L 90 - Sound Level Exceeded 6 minutes each hour
Figure Noise-E9 Site 6 - Near Canal Blvd. Rail Crossing and West Cutting Blvd. Wednesday February 6, 2008
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
Decibels (dBA) 60.0
50.0
40.0 000 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 Hour
Leq - Equivalent Steady State Sound Level (Leq) Lmx - Maximum Sound Level During Hour L 50 - Sound Level Exceeded 30 minutes each hour L 90 - Sound Level Exceeded 6 minutes each hour
Figure Noise-E10 Site 6 - Near Canal Blvd. Rail Crossing and West Cutting Blvd. Thursday February 7, 2008
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
Decibels (dBA) 60.0
50.0
40.0 000 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 Hour
Leq - Equivalent Steady State Sound Level (Leq) Lmx - Maximum Sound Level During Hour L 50 - Sound Level Exceeded 30 minutes each hour L 90 - Sound Level Exceeded 6 minutes each hour
Appendix F
Special–Status Plant Species
Potentially Occurring Special-status Plant Jan 14, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project FAMILY Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Blooming Time Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Life Form Occurrence On Site Apiaceae - Carrot Family Lilaeopsis masonii Federal: none Occurs in freshwater marsh, marshes and swamps, riparian Apr-Nov None: scrub. Mason's lilaeopsis State: Perennial Herb no suitable habitat SR Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, Sacramento, (rhizomatous) present. CNPS: 1B.1 San Joaquin, Solano. Project site is outside of known range of species. Other: DFG: Special Plant Sanicula maritima Federal: none Occurs in chaparral, coastal prairie, meadows, valley and foothill Feb-May None: grassland no suitable habitat adobe sanicle State: SR Perennial Herb Substrate: serpentine, Habitats Note: clay. present. CNPS: 1B.1 Recorded from Alameda, Monterey, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo. Other: DFG: Special Plant Asteraceae - Sunflower Family Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Federal: none Occurs in valley and foothill grassland. May-Nov None: Substrate: alkaline. no suitable habitat Congdon's tarplant State: none Annual Herb Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, San Luis present. CNPS: 1B.2 Obispo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano. Other: DFG: Special Plant Helianthella castanea Federal: none Occurs in broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane Apr-Jun None: woodland, coastal scrub, foothill woodland, northern coastal no suitable habitat Diablo helianthella State: none Perennial Herb scrub, riparian woodland, valley and foothill grassland. present. CNPS: 1B.2 Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo. Other: DFG: Special Plant
TM CalBiota Page 1 Potentially Occurring Special-status Plant Jan 14, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project FAMILY Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Blooming Time Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Life Form Occurrence On Site Holocarpha macradenia Federal: FT Occurs in coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill Jun-Oct None: grassland no suitable habitat State: SE Annual Herb Santa Cruz tarplant Habitats Note: clay. present. CNPS: 1B.1 Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Monterey, Santa Cruz. Other: DFG: Special Plant
Lasthenia conjugens Federal: FE Occurs in cismontane woodland, playas, valley and foothill Mar-Jun None: grassland, vernal pools. no suitable habitat Contra Costa goldfields State: none Annual Herb Moisture: moist. present. CNPS: 1B.1 Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Mendocino, Monterey, Napa, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Solano. Other: DFG: Special Plant Lessingia hololeuca Federal: none Occurs in broadleafed upland forest, coastal scrub, lower Jun-Oct None: montane coniferous forest, northern coastal scrub, valley and no suitable habitat woolly-headed lessingia State: none Annual Herb foothill grassland, yellow pine forest. present. CNPS: 3 Substrate: serpentinite, clay. Recorded from Alameda, Marin, Monterey, Napa, San Mateo, Other: DFG: Special Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, Yolo. Plant Micropus amphibolus Federal: none Occurs in broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane Mar-May None: woodland, foothill woodland, mixed evergreen forest, valley and no suitable habitat Mt. Diablo cottonweed State: none Annual Herb foothill grassland. present. CNPS: 3.2 Substrate: rocky. Recorded from Alameda, Colusa, Contra Costa, Lake, Marin, Other: DFG: Special Monterey, Napa, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Plant Solano, Sonoma. Senecio aphanactis Federal: none Occurs in cismontane woodland, coastal sage scrub, coastal Jan-Apr None: scrub, foothill woodland, northern coastal scrub no suitable habitat rayless ragwort State: none Annual Herb Substrate: alkaline, Habitats Note: alkaline. present. CNPS: 2.2 Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Los Angeles, Merced, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Other: DFG: Special Barbara, Santa Clara, Solano, Ventura.Santa Catalina Island, Plant Santa Cruz Island, Santa Rosa Island.Also recorded from Baja California.
TM CalBiota Page 2 Potentially Occurring Special-status Plant Jan 14, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project FAMILY Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Blooming Time Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Life Form Occurrence On Site Symphyotrichum lentum Federal: none Occurs in freshwater marsh, marshes and swamps. May-Nov None: Recorded from Contra Costa, Napa, Sacramento, San Joaquin, State: Perennial Herb no suitable habitat none Solano. Suisun Marsh aster (rhizomatous) present. CNPS: 1B.2 Project site is outside of Other: DFG: Special known range of species. Plant
Boraginaceae - Borage Family Amsinckia lunaris Federal: none Occurs in cismontane woodland, coastal bluff scrub, foothill Mar-Jun None: woodland, valley and foothill grassland. no suitable habitat bent-flowered fiddleneck State: none Annual Herb Recorded from Alameda, Colusa, Contra Costa, Lake, Marin, present. CNPS: 1B.2 Napa, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Siskiyou, Sonoma. Other: DFG: Special Plant
Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. Federal: none Occurs in chaparral, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, northern Mar-Jun None: chorisianus coastal scrub no suitable habitat State: none Annual Herb Choris's popcorn-flower Moisture: moist. present. CNPS: 1B.2 Recorded from Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Cruz. Other: DFG: Special Plant Plagiobothrys glaber Federal: none Occurs in coastal salt marsh, meadows. Mar-May None: Substrate: alkaline. no suitable habitat hairless popcorn-flower State: none Annual Herb Recorded from Alameda, Marin, Merced, San Benito, Santa present. CNPS: 1A * Clara. Other: DFG: Special Plant
TM CalBiota Page 3 Potentially Occurring Special-status Plant Jan 14, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project FAMILY Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Blooming Time Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Life Form Occurrence On Site Brassicaceae - Mustard Family Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus Federal: none Occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, foothill woodland, Apr-Jun None: valley and foothill grassland no suitable habitat most beautiful jewel-flower State: none Annual Herb Substrate: serpentinite. present. CNPS: 1B.2 Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Monterey, Santa Clara. Other: DFG: Special Plant Chenopodiaceae - Goosefoot Family Atriplex joaquiniana Federal: none Occurs in chenopod scrub, meadows, playas, shadscale scrub, Apr-Oct None: valley and foothill grassland no suitable habitat San Joaquin spearscale State: none Annual Herb Substrate: alkaline. present. CNPS: 1B.2 Recorded from Alameda, Colusa, Contra Costa, Glenn, Merced, Monterey, Napa, Sacramento, San Benito, San Joaquin, Santa Other: DFG: Special Clara, Solano, Tulare, Yolo. Plant Suaeda californica Federal: FE Occurs in coastal salt marsh, marshes and swamps. Jul-Oct None: Recorded from Alameda, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, no suitable habitat California seablite State: none Shrub (evergreen) Santa Clara. present. CNPS: 1B.1 Other: DFG: Special Plant Convolvulaceae - Morning-glory Family Calystegia purpurata ssp. saxicola Federal: none Occurs in coastal dunes, coastal scrub. May-Aug None: Recorded from Contra Costa, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, no suitable habitat coastal bluff morning-glory State: none Perennial Herb Sonoma. present. CNPS: 1B.2 Other: DFG: Special Plant
TM CalBiota Page 4 Potentially Occurring Special-status Plant Jan 14, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project FAMILY Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Blooming Time Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Life Form Occurrence On Site Ericaceae - Heath Family Arctostaphylos pallida Federal: FT Occurs in broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane Dec-Mar None: woodland, closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal scrub, foothill no suitable habitat pallid manzanita State: SE Shrub (evergreen) woodland, mixed evergreen forest present. CNPS: 1B.1 Substrate: sedimentary shale. Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa. Other: DFG: Special Plant
Fabaceae - Legume Family Astragalus tener var. tener Federal: none Occurs in alkali sink, playas, valley and foothill grassland, vernal Mar-Jun None: pools. no suitable habitat alkali milk-vetch State: none Annual Herb Substrate: adobe clay, alkaline. present. CNPS: 1B.2 Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Merced, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San Francisco, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Other: DFG: Special Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Yolo. Plant Hoita strobilina Federal: none Occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, mixed evergreen May-Oct None: forest, riparian woodland. no suitable habitat Loma Prieta hoita State: none Perennial Herb Moisture: mesic,Substrate: serpentinitic soils, present. CNPS: 1B.1 Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz. Other: DFG: Special Plant Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii Federal: none Occurs in freshwater marsh, marshes and swamps. May-Sep None: Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, Sacramento, marginally suitable Delta tule pea State: none Perennial Herb San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Solano. habitat present. CNPS: 1B.2 Project site is outside of known range of species. Other: DFG: Special Plant
TM CalBiota Page 5 Potentially Occurring Special-status Plant Jan 14, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project FAMILY Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Blooming Time Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Life Form Occurrence On Site Trifolium depauperatum var. Federal: none Occurs in marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grassland, Apr-Jun None: hydrophilum vernal pools. no suitable habitat State: none Annual Herb Moisture: mesic,Substrate: alkaline, present. saline clover CNPS: 1B.2 Recorded from Alameda, Colusa, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma. Other: DFG: Special Plant
Geraniaceae - Geranium Family California macrophylla Federal: none Occurs in cismontane woodland, foothill woodland, valley and Mar-May None: foothill grassland. no suitable habitat round-leaved filaree State: none Annual Herb Substrate: clay. present. CNPS: 2.1 Recorded from Alameda, Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Lake, Lassen, Los Angeles, Merced, Other: DFG: Special Monterey, Napa, Riverside, San Benito, San Diego, San Plant Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tehama, Ventura, Yolo.Santa Cruz Island.Also recorded from Baja California, Oregon, Utah. Lamiaceae - Mint Family Monardella villosa ssp. globosa Federal: none Occurs in broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane Jun-Jul None: woodland, coastal scrub, foothill woodland, valley and foothill robust monardella State: Perennial Herb no suitable habitat none grassland. (rhizomatous) present. CNPS: 1B.2 Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Humboldt, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Sonoma. Other: DFG: Special Plant Liliaceae - Lily Family Fritillaria liliacea Federal: none Occurs in cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, Feb-Apr None: northern coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. fragrant fritillary State: Perennial Herb no suitable habitat none Substrate: often serpentinite. (bulbiferous) present. CNPS: 1B.2 Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Monterey, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Other: DFG: Special Sonoma. Plant
TM CalBiota Page 6 Potentially Occurring Special-status Plant Jan 14, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project FAMILY Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Blooming Time Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Life Form Occurrence On Site Papaveraceae - Poppy Family Meconella oregana Federal: none Occurs in coastal prairie, coastal scrub. Mar-Apr None: Moisture: mesic, Habitats Note: open areas. no suitable habitat Oregon meconella State: none Annual Herb Recorded from Contra Costa, Santa Clara.Also recorded from present. CNPS: 1B.1 Oregon, Washington. Other: DFG: Special Plant Polemoniaceae - Phlox Family Gilia capitata ssp. chamissonis Federal: none Occurs in coastal dunes, coastal scrub. Apr-Jul None: Recorded from Marin, San Francisco, Sonoma. no suitable habitat dune gilia State: none Annual Herb present. CNPS: 1B.1 Other: DFG: Special Plant Polygonaceae - Buckwheat Family Chorizanthe cuspidata var. cuspidata Federal: none Occurs in coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal prairie, Apr-Aug None: coastal scrub, coastal strand, northern coastal scrub. no suitable habitat San Francisco Bay spineflower State: none Annual Herb Substrate: sandy. present. CNPS: 1B.2 Recorded from Alameda, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Sonoma. Other: DFG: Special Plant Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta Federal: FE Occurs in cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, Apr-Sep None: coastal strand, foothill woodland, northern coastal scrub. no suitable habitat robust spineflower State: none Annual Herb Substrate: sandy, gravelly. present. CNPS: 1B.1 Recorded from Alameda, Monterey, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz. Other: DFG: Special Plant
TM CalBiota Page 7 Potentially Occurring Special-status Plant Jan 14, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project FAMILY Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Blooming Time Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Life Form Occurrence On Site Eriogonum luteolum var. caninum Federal: none Occurs in chaparral, coastal prairie, valley and foothill Jun-Sep None: grassland. no suitable habitat State: none Annual Herb Tiburon buckwheat Substrate: serpentinite. present. CNPS: 3.2 Recorded from Alameda, Colusa, Lake, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Sonoma. Other: DFG: Special Plant
Rosaceae - Rose Family Horkelia cuneata ssp. sericea Federal: none Occurs in closed-cone coniferous forest, closed-cone pine Apr-Sep None: forest, coastal sage scrub, coastal scrub, northern coastal no suitable habitat Kellogg's horkelia State: none Perennial Herb scrub. present. CNPS: 1B.1 Recorded from Alameda, Marin, Monterey, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz. Other: DFG: Special Plant Scrophulariaceae - Figwort Family Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. palustris Federal: none Occurs in coastal salt marsh, marshes and swamps. Jun-Oct None: Habitats Note: coastal salt marsh. Point Reyes bird's-beak State: Annual Herb, no suitable habitat none Recorded from Alameda, Humboldt, Marin, San Mateo, Santa Hemiparasitic present. CNPS: 1B.2 Clara, Sonoma. Also recorded from Oregon. Other: DFG: Special Plant Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis Federal: FE Occurs in coastal salt marsh, marshes and swamps. Jul-Nov None: Recorded from Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Sacramento, soft bird's-beak State: Annual Herb, no suitable habitat SR Solano, Sonoma. Hemiparasitic present. CNPS: 1B.2 Other: DFG: Special Plant
TM CalBiota Page 8 Potentially Occurring Special-status Plant Jan 14, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project FAMILY Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Blooming Time Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Life Form Occurrence On Site Thymelaeaceae - Mezereum Family Dirca occidentalis Federal: none Occurs in broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane Jan-Apr None: woodland, closed-cone coniferous forest, closed-cone pine no suitable habitat western leatherwood State: none Shrub (deciduous) forest, foothill woodland, mixed evergreen forest, north coast present. CNPS: 1B.2 coniferous forest, riparian forest, riparian woodland. Moisture: moist. Other: DFG: Special Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Mateo, Plant Santa Clara, Sonoma.
TM CalBiota Page 9
Appendix G
Special–Status Animal Species
Potentially Occurring Special-status Animal Feb 5, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project SORTED BY CLASS Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Occurrence On Site Branchiopoda - Branchiopods Branchinecta lynchi Federal FT Inhabits small, clear-water sandstone-depression astatic rain-filled pools and None: grassed swales, earth slumps, or basalt-flow depression pools. State none no suitable habitat present. vernal pool fairy shrimp Recorded from Alameda, Butte, Calaveras, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Other DFG: Special Fresno, Glenn, Kings, Madera, Merced, Monterey, Napa, Placer, Riverside, Animal Sacramento, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Shasta, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Ventura, Yuba counties. Additional distribution: endemic to the grasslands of the Central Valley, Central Coast and South Coast mountains. Gastropoda - Snails And Slugs Helminthoglypta nickliniana bridgesi Federal none Prefers to hide under downed branches or logs, or in crevices in boulders None: and rock outcrops, on open hillsides with tall grasses and weeds. State none no suitable habitat present. Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa counties. Bridges' Coast Range shoulderband snail Other DFG: Special Animal
Tryonia imitator Federal none Inhabits coastal lagoons, estuaries and salt marshes. Found only in None: permanently submerged areas in a variety of sediment types. Tolerant of a mimic tryonia State none no suitable habitat present wide range of salinities. on site. Other DFG: Special Recorded from Alameda, Los Angeles, Monterey, Orange, San Diego, San Animal Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Sonoma, Marginally suitable habitat Ventura counties. Additional distribution: occurs from Sonoma County south present in adjacent tidal to San Diego County. saltmarsh. Arachnida - Arachnids Microcina leei Federal none Found beneath sandstone rocks in open oak grassland where it is sympatric None: with Calicina polina. State none no suitable habitat present. Lee's micro-blind harvestman Recorded from Alameda County. Additional distribution: found only at one Other DFG: Special site in the hills above UC Berkeley and another just beyond the Oakland Animal border.
TM Page 1 CalBiota Potentially Occurring Special-status Animal Feb 5, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project SORTED BY CLASS Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Occurrence On Site
Microcina tiburona Federal none Inhabits open hilly grassland habitat in areas of serpentine bedrock. Found None: on the undersides of serpentine rocks near permanent springs. State none no suitable habitat present. Tiburon micro-blind harvestman Recorded from Marin County. Other DFG: Special Animal Malacostraca Syncaris pacifica Federal FE Inhabits shallow pools away from main streamflow. In winter, found at None: undercut banks with exposed roots. In summer, found around leafy branches State SE no suitable habitat present. California freshwater shrimp touching water. Found at low elevations in low gradient streams where Other DFG: Special riparian cover is moderate to heavy. Animal Recorded from Marin, Napa, Sonoma counties. Insecta - Insects Danaus plexippus Federal none Listing refers to wintering sites only. Roosts located in wind-protected tree None: groves (eucalyptus, Monterey pine, Monterey cypress), with nectar and water monarch butterfly State none no suitable habitat present sources nearby. for wintering colonies. Other DFG: Special Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Marin, Animal Mendocino, Monterey, Orange, San Diego, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, (wintering) San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, Ventura counties. Additional distribution: winter roost sites extend along the coast from northern Mendocino to Baja California, Mexico.
Trachusa gummifera Federal none Known from two collections made in 1957 and 1962. No specific habitat Not expected: information is available. no common name-a leaf cutting bee State none marginally suitable habitat Leafcutting bees use cut leaves to construct nests in cavities (mostly in present. Other DFG: Special rotting wood). They create multiple cells in the nest, each with a single larva Animal and pollen stored for the larvae to eat. Leafcutting bees are important pollinators of wildflowers, fruits, vegetables and other crops. Recorded from Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo counties.
TM Page 2 CalBiota Potentially Occurring Special-status Animal Feb 5, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project SORTED BY CLASS Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Occurrence On Site Cephalaspidomorphi - Lampreys Lampetra ayresi Federal none Anadromous; adults spend 3-4 months in the ocean, the rest of their life Low: history in rivers and streams. Adults need clean, gravelly riffles. Ammocoetes river lamprey State none Type specimen from San need sandy backwaters or stream edges with good water quality and Francisco Bay, the southern Other DFG: CSC temperatures below 25 degrees C. terminus of their distribution. General distribution:Occurs in the lower Sacramento River, San Joaquin Thought to be declining in River and Russian River. May occur in coastal streams north of San California. Francisco Bay.
Lampetra tridentata Federal none Anadromous and parasitic. Anadromous; predatory phase is coastal marine Low: except for land-locked populations. Spawning adults inhabit gravel riffles and Pacific lamprey State none Anadromous forms are runs of clear coastal streams. Feeding adults usually inhabit the ocean, but diminished in number; they Other DFG: Special landlocked populations occur. Ammocoetes inhabit silt, mud, and sand of have been petitioned and Animal shallow eddies and backwaters of streams. Occurs in freshwater, brackish, USFWS is considering them and marine environments. for listing.
Actinopterygii - Ray-finned Fishes Acipenser medirostris Federal FT Anadromous. Found in estuaries, lower reaches of large rivers, and in salt or High: brackish water off river mouths. Probably spawns in deep, fast freshwater. State none suitable habitat present. green sturgeon Spawns in the Sacramento River and the Klamath River. Other AFS: Endangered Adults and juveniles migrate DFG: CSC through the San Francisco Bay.
Archoplites interruptus Federal none Common in ponds and impoundments. Prefers warm water. Aquatic Low: vegetation is essental for young. Tolerates wide range of physico-chemical Sacramento perch State none Largely extirpated from water conditions. Freshwater. Historically found in the sloughs, slow-moving historical range. Other DFG: CSC rivers, and lakes of the Central Valley. Recorded from Contra Costa, Lake, Sacramento counties. Additional distribution: native range is Sacramento-San Joaquin, Pajaro, and Salinas River drainages, and Clear Lake.
TM Page 3 CalBiota Potentially Occurring Special-status Animal Feb 5, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project SORTED BY CLASS Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Occurrence On Site
Eucyclogobius newberryi Federal FE Inhabits shallow waters of bays and estuaries, lower stream reaches and Low: coastal stream lagoons. Requires fairly still but not stagnant water and high State none Believed extirpated from tidewater goby oxygen levels. Tolerates a wide variation in salinity (1-28 ppt.) and San Francisco Bay; possibly Other AFS: temperature (9-25°C). The substrate and vegetation can vary among lagoon, present in Lake Merritt. Endangered creek and marsh habitats. DFG: CSC
Recorded from Alameda, Del Norte, Humboldt, Los Angeles, Marin, Mendocino, Monterey, Orange, San Diego, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Sonoma, Ventura counties. Additional distribution: occurs along the southern California coast from Agua Hedionda Lagoon, to the mouth of the Smith River.
Hypomesus transpacificus Federal FT Pelagic, euryhaline, mostly within 2-7 ppt salinity, especially upper San Low: Francisco Estuary (e.g. Suisun Bay). Spawns February - July, shallow edge delta smelt State ST Absent West of the waters in the upper Delta. Occurs in open brackish and freshwater of large Carquinez bridge except Other AFS: channels. Most frequently found at salinities < 2ppt.; seldom found at occasionally during years of Threatened salinities > 10 ppt. Occurs in the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta. Occurs heavy rainfall. DFG: Special seasonally in Suisun Bay, Carquinez Strait and San Pablo Bay. Animal Recorded from Solano County. Largely restricted to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, including the Carquinez Strait and Suisun Bay.
Oncorhynchus kisutch Federal FE Anadromous. Inhabits Bay Area and coastal rivers and streams with fish Low: access from/to ocean, cover and acceptable water quality. Requires beds of coho salmon - Central Cal. ESU State SE Coho salmon are believed loose, silt-free, coarse gravel for spawning. Also requires cover, cool water extirpated from the San Other DFG: Special and sufficient dissolved oxygen. Federal Listing covers populations between Francisco Bay & Animal Punta Gorda and San Lorenzo River. State listing covers populations south Sacramento-San Joaquin of San Francisco Bay only. River system. Recorded from Humboldt, Marin, Mendocino, Santa Cruz, Sonoma counties.
TM Page 4 CalBiota Potentially Occurring Special-status Animal Feb 5, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project SORTED BY CLASS Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Occurrence On Site
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus Federal FT Anadromous. Inhabits Bay Area and coastal rivers and streams with fish High: access from/to ocean. Requires good water quality and silt-free gravel for State none These fish are known to steelhead - central Calif. coast ESU spawning. Occurs from the Russian River south to Soquel Creek and to, but spawn in streams entering Other DFG: Special not including the Pajarro River. Also occurs in the San Francisco and San San Francisco and San Animal Pablo basins. Pablo Bays. Recorded from Alameda, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Sonoma counties.
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus Federal FT Anadromous. Spawns in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their High: tributaries. Federal listing refers to all accessible reaches in the Sacramento steelhead - Central Valley ESU State none Adults and juveniles migrate and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries. Also included are river reaches through San Francisco, San Other DFG: Special and estuarine areas of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, all waters from Pablo, and Suisun Bays and Animal Chipps Island westward to Carquinez Bridge, including Honker Bay, Grizzly the Delta. Bay, Suisun Bay, and Carquinez Strait, all waters of San Pablo Bay westward of the Carquinez Bridge, and all waters of San Francisco Bay (north of the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge) from San Pablo Bay to the Golden Gate Bridge.
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Federal FT Anadromous. Spawning and rearing restricted to a few tributaries of the High: Sacramento River basin. Federal listing refers to populations spawning in chinook salmon - spring-run State ST Migrate through San Sacramento River and its tributaries. Adult numbers dependet on pool depth Francisco Bay and Other DFG: Special and volume, amunt of cover,and proximiy to gravel . Water temeratures Sacramento-San Joaquin Animal grater than 27 C lethal to adult. Delta to/from spawning FS: Sensitive grounds. Recorded from Butte, Humboldt, Nevada, Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama, Trinity, Yuba counties.
TM Page 5 CalBiota Potentially Occurring Special-status Animal Feb 5, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project SORTED BY CLASS Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Occurrence On Site
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Federal FE Anadromous. Spawning restricted to the Sacramento River. Requires clean, High: cold water over gravel beds with water temperatures between 6 and 14 c for State SE Migrate through San chinook salmon - winter-run spawning. Federal listing refers to populations in the Sacramento River from Francisco Bay and Other DFG: Special Keswick Dam, Shasta County (River Mile 302) to Chipps Island (River Mile 0) Sacramento-San Joaquin Animal at the westward margin of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, all waters Delta to/from spawning from Chipps Island westward to Carquinez Bridge, including Honker Bay, grounds. Suisun Bay, and Carquinez Strait, all waters of San Pablo Bay westward of the Carquinez Bridge, and all waters of San Francisco Bay (north of the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge) from San Pablo Bay to the Golden Gate Bridge. Recorded from Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, Glenn, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, Shasta, Solano, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Yolo, Yuba counties.
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Federal none Anadromous. Spawning and rearing restricted to lower reaches and High: tributaries of the Sacramento River basin. The ESU includes all naturally State none Migrates through San chinook salmon - fall/late fall-run, Central spawned populations of fall-run chinook salmon in the Sacramento and San Valley Francisco Bay and Other DFG: CSC Joaquin River Basins and their tributaries, east of Carquinez Strait. Sacramento-San Joaquin FS: Sensitive Delta to/from spawning NMFS: SC Recorded from Alameda, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra Costa, Glenn, grounds. Mariposa, Merced, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Shasta, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tuolumne, Yolo, Yuba counties.
TM Page 6 CalBiota Potentially Occurring Special-status Animal Feb 5, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project SORTED BY CLASS Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Occurrence On Site
Pogonichthys macrolepidotus Federal none Inhabits slow-moving river sections, dead end sloughs. Requires flooded Low: vegetation for spawning and foraging for young. Inhabits fresh and brackish State none Previously common in San Sacramento splittail water. Pablo Bay and Carquinez Other DFG: CSC Recorded from Sacramento, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus counties. Strait following high winter Additional distribution: endemic to the lakes and rivers of the Central Valley, flows. but now confined to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Suisun Bay and associated marshes. Now largely confined to the Delta, Suisun Bay, Suisun Marsh, Napa River, Petaluma River, and other parts of the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary.
Spirinchus thaleichthys Federal none Pelagic, euryhaline and anadromous. Spawnsin freshwater streams from Moderate: February to April. Larval nurseries in brackish estuarine waters. Late juvenile longfin smelt State none Spawns in the lower San - adult forms appear to prefer 15-30 ppt salinity. Found mostly close to shore, Joaquin and Sacramento Other AFS: in bays and estuaries, ascending coastal streams to spawn. Anadromous. Rivers and upper Suisun Threatened Occurs in fresh and brackish water, and marine environments. Bay. DFG: CSC High larval densities in Suisun and San Pablo Bays. Amphibia - Amphibians Ambystoma californiense Federal FT Needs underground refuges, especially ground squirrel burrows and vernal None: pools or other seasonal water sources for breeding. State None no suitable habitat present. California tiger salamander - Central Recorded from Alameda, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Contra Costa, Fresno, Calif. DPS Other DFG: CSC Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, Riverside, Sacramento, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tulare, Yolo counties.
TM Page 7 CalBiota Potentially Occurring Special-status Animal Feb 5, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project SORTED BY CLASS Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Occurrence On Site
Rana aurora draytonii Federal FT Inhabits lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep water None: with dense, shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation. Requires 11-20 weeks State none no suitable habitat present. California red-legged frog of permanent water for larval development. Must have access to estivation Other DFG: CSC habitat. Recorded from Alameda, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Lake, Los Angeles, Marin, Mariposa, Mendocino, Merced, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Riverside, San Benito, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tehama, Tuolumne, Ventura, Yuba counties.
Reptilia - Reptiles Actinemys marmorata Federal none A thoroughly aquatic turtle inhabiting ponds, marshes, rivers, streams and None: irrigation ditches with aquatic vegetation. Needs basking sites and sandy State none no suitable habitat present. western pond turtle banks or grassy open fields in upland areas for egg-laying. Other DFG: CSC Recorded from Alameda, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra Costa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Humboldt, Kern, Kings, Lake, Lassen, Los Angeles, Madera, Marin, Mariposa, Mendocino, Merced, Modoc, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Orange, Placer, Plumas, Riverside, Sacramento, San Benito, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tehama, Trinity, Tulare, Tuolumne, Ventura, Yolo, Yuba counties.
Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus Federal FT Inhabits south-facing slopes and ravines where shrubs form a vegetative None: mosaic with oak trees and grasses. Restricted to valley-foothill hardwood State ST no suitable habitat present. Alameda whipsnake habitat of the Coast Ranges between Monterey and northern San Francisco Other DFG: Special Bay. Animal Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa counties.
TM Page 8 CalBiota Potentially Occurring Special-status Animal Feb 5, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project SORTED BY CLASS Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Occurrence On Site Aves - Birds Accipiter cooperii Federal none Inhabits primarily open, interrupted or marginal woodlands. Nests mainly in Possible: riparian groves of deciduous trees in canyon bottoms on river flood-plains. Cooper's hawk State none marginally suitable habitat Also nests in coast live oak. present. Other DFG: CSC Recorded from Alameda, Colusa, Contra Costa, Fresno, Humboldt, Imperial, (nesting) Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Monterey, Orange, Placer, Riverside, Sacramento, FWS: MBTA San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Siskiyou, Tulare, Ventura counties.
Agelaius tricolor Federal none Highly colonial species. Requires open water, protected nesting substrate, Not expected: and foraging areas with insect prey within a few km of the colony. Greatest tricolored blackbird State none marginally suitable habitat concentrations are in the Central Valley and vicinity. Largely endemic to present in the stormwater Other Audubon: California. drainage ditches along Watch List Recorded from Alameda, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Contra Costa, El Canal Blvd. BLM: Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Humboldt, Kern, Kings, Lake, Lassen, Los Angeles, Sensitive Madera, Marin, Mendocino, Merced, Modoc, Monterey, Napa, Orange, DFG: CSC Placer, Riverside, Sacramento, San Benito, San Diego, San Joaquin, San (nesting Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Siskiyou, colony) Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tuolumne, Ventura, Yolo, FWS: BCC; Yuba counties. MBTA USBC: Watch List
TM Page 9 CalBiota Potentially Occurring Special-status Animal Feb 5, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project SORTED BY CLASS Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Occurrence On Site
Aquila chrysaetos Federal none Nests and winters in rolling foothills and mountain areas in sage-juniper flats None: and deserts. Nests on cliff-walled canyons and large trees in open areas. State none no suitable habitat present. golden eagle Recorded from Alameda, Colusa, Contra Costa, El Dorado, Fresno, Other BLM: Humboldt, Kern, Lassen, Madera, Modoc, Mono, Monterey, Napa, Orange, Sensitive Riverside, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Clara, Siskiyou, CDF: Solano, Trinity counties. Sensitive DFG: CSC (nesting, wintering) DFG: fully protected FWS: BCC; MBTA, BEPA
Ardea herodias Federal none Nests colonially in tall trees, cliffsides, and sequestered spots on marshes. None: Rookery sites are usually in close proximity to foraging areas such as State none no suitable habitat present. great blue heron marshes, lake margins, tide-flats, rivers and streams, wet meadows. Other CDF: Recorded from Alameda, Butte, Del Norte, Humboldt, Imperial, Lake, Sensitive Lassen, Marin, Merced, Monterey, Placer, Riverside, Sacramento, San DFG: Special Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Shasta, Siskiyou, Solano, Sonoma, Animal Stanislaus, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo counties. (rookery) FWS: MBTA
Asio flammeus Federal none Inhabits both freshwater and salt water swamp lands, lowland meadows, and None: irrigated alfalfa fields. Tule patches/tall grass needed for nesting/daytime State none no suitable habitat present. short-eared owl seclusion. Nests on dry ground in depressions concealed in vegetation. Other Audubon: Recorded from Contra Costa, Imperial, Los Angeles, Modoc, Monterey, San Watch List Mateo, Solano counties. DFG: CSC (nesting) FWS: MBTA USBC: Watch List
TM Page 10 CalBiota Potentially Occurring Special-status Animal Feb 5, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project SORTED BY CLASS Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Occurrence On Site
Athene cunicularia Federal none Inhabits open, dry annual or perenial grasslands, deserts and scrublands None: characterized by low-growing vegetation. Nests underground in mammal State none no suitable habitat present. burrowing owl burrows, especially those of California ground squirrel. Other BLM: Recorded from Alameda, Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, Fresno, Glenn, Sensitive Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Lassen, Los Angeles, Madera, Marin, Merced, DFG: CSC Monterey, Napa, Orange, Placer, Riverside, Sacramento, San Benito, San (burrow sites) Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa Clara, Santa FWS: BCC; Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Ventura, Yolo MBTA counties.
Buteo regalis Federal none Winters in open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low foothills and None: fringes of pinyon-juniper habitats. Feeds primarily on lagomorphs (rabbits State none no suitable habitat present. ferruginous hawk and hares), ground squirrels, and mice. Population trends may follow Other Audubon: lagomorph population cycles. Does not nest in California. Watch List General distribution: recorded throughout coastal California, Cetral Valley, BLM: San Joaquin Valley, central and southern Sierra Nevada, eastern Sierras and Sensitive inland deserts. DFG: CSC (wintering) FWS: BCC; MBTA
Buteo swainsoni Federal none Breeds in stands with few trees in juniper-sage flats, riparian areas and in None: oak savannah. Requires adjacent suitable foraging areas such as State ST no suitable habitat present. Swainson's hawk grasslands, or alfalfa or grain fields supporting rodent populations. Other Audubon: Recorded from Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, Fresno, Glenn, Inyo, Kern, Watch List Kings, Lassen, Los Angeles, Madera, Merced, Modoc, Mono, Placer, (Yellow) Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Joaquin, Siskiyou, Solano, Stanislaus, DFG: Special Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo counties. Animal (nesting) FS: Sensitive FWS: BCC; MBTA USBC: Watch List
TM Page 11 CalBiota Potentially Occurring Special-status Animal Feb 5, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project SORTED BY CLASS Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Occurrence On Site
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Federal FT Inhabits sandy beaches, salt pond levees and shores of large alkali lakes. None: Requires sandy, gravelly or friable soils for nesting. State none no suitable habitat present. western snowy plover Other Audubon: Federal listing applies only to the Pacific coastal population. Watch List (full species) Recorded from Alameda, Del Norte, Humboldt, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Los DFG: CSC Angeles, Marin, Mendocino, Modoc, Monterey, Napa, Orange, Riverside, (nesting, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, coastal Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Siskiyou, Sonoma, Ventura, Yolo counties. population) FWS: BCC (full species) FWS: MBTA USBC: Watch List (full species)
Circus cyaneus Federal none Inhabits coastal salt and freshwater marshes. Nests and forages in None: grasslands, from salt grass in desert sink to mountain cienagas. Nests on northern harrier State none no suitable habitat present ground in shrubby vegetation, usually at marsh edge. Nests are large on site. Other DFG: CSC mounds of sticks in wet areas. (nesting) Recorded from Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa, Inyo, Marin, Merced, Marginally suitable habitat FWS: MBTA Monterey, Orange, Riverside, San Diego, San Mateo counties. present on adjacent lands.
Egretta thula Federal none Nests colonially, with nest sites situated in protected beds of dense tules. None: Rookery sites are usually situated close to foraging areas consisting of State none no suitable habitat present. snowy egret marshes, tidal-flats, streams, wet meadows, and borders of lakes. Other DFG: Special Recorded from Contra Costa, Del Norte, Humboldt, Kern, Marin, Riverside, Animal Sacramento, Stanislaus counties. (rookery) FWS: MBTA USBC: Watch List
TM Page 12 CalBiota Potentially Occurring Special-status Animal Feb 5, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project SORTED BY CLASS Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Occurrence On Site
Elanus leucurus Federal none Inhabits rolling foothills andvalley margins with scattered oaks and river Possible: bottomlands or marshes next to deciduous woodlands. Utilizes open State none marginally suitable nesting white-tailed kite grasslands, meadows, or marshes for foraging close to isolated, habitat present on site and Other DFG: fully dense-topped trees for nesting and perching. adjacent lands. protected Recorded from Alameda, Colusa, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Marin, Napa, FWS: Placer, Riverside, Sacramento, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, MNBMC, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, Tehama, Ventura, Yolo counties. MBTA
Falco columbarius Federal none Winters on the seacoast, in tidal estuaries, open woodlands, savannahs, None: edges of grasslands and deserts, farms and ranches. Clumps of trees or merlin State none no suitable habitat present windbreaks are required for roosting in open country. on site. Other DFG: CSC (wintering) Marginally suitable wintering FWS: MBTA habitat present on adjacent lands.
Geothlypis trichas sinuosa Federal none Inhabits freshwater and salt marshes. Requires thick, continuous cover down Not expected: to water surface for foraging. Nests in tall grasses, tule patches and willows. saltmarsh common yellowthroat State none marginally suitable habitat Resident of the San Francisco Bay region. present. Other DFG: CSC Recorded from Alameda, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa FWS: BCC Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma counties.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Federal Delisted Found on ocean shores, lake margins, and rivers. Mostly nests within 1 mile Low: of water. Nests in large, old-growth, or dominant live trees with open bald eagle State SE Species is making a branches, especially ponderosa pine. Roosts communally in winter. comeback and may return Other CDF: Occasional visitor to San Francisco Bay habitats, primarily in migration and to more former breeding Sensitive winter. Recently (2007) delisted and no longer on the U.S. list of threatened locations in the San DFG: fully and endangered species. Francisco Bay region. protected Recorded from Alameda, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, El Dorado, (nesting Fresno, Glenn, Humboldt, Inyo, Lake, Lassen, Los Angeles, Madera, wintering) Mendocino, Modoc, Mono, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Plumas, Riverside, San FWS: MBTA Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Tehama, Trinity, Tuolumne, Yuba counties. Formerly common and widely distributed as a breeder throughout the state.
TM Page 13 CalBiota Potentially Occurring Special-status Animal Feb 5, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project SORTED BY CLASS Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Occurrence On Site
Hydroprogne caspia Federal none Nests in small colonies inland and along the coast. Inhabits inland freshwater None: lakes and marshes. Also found in brackish or salt waters of estuaries and State none no suitable habitat present. Caspian tern bays. Other DFG: Special Recorded from Contra Costa, Imperial, Solano counties. Animal (nesting colony) FWS: BCC; MBTA
Larus californicus Federal none Inhabits littoral waters, sandy beaches, waters and shorelines of bays, tidal None: mud-flats, marshes, lakes, etc. Nests colonially on islets in large interior California gull State none no suitable nesting habitat lakes or fresh to strongly alkaline water. present. Other DFG: CSC Recorded from Lassen, Modoc, Mono counties. (nesting Species does not nest in the colony) project region. FWS: MBTA
Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus Federal none Mainly inhabits salt-marshes bordering larger bays. Occurs in tidal salt marsh None: densely vegetated with pickleweed. Also found in freshwater and brackish State ST no suitable habitat present. California black rail marshes, near sea level. Other Audubon: Recorded from Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa, Imperial, Los Angeles, Marin, Watch list (full Napa, Nevada, Orange, San Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Luis species) Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, Yuba counties. DFG: Fully protected FWS: MBTA FWS: MNBMC (full species) USBC: Watch list (full species)
TM Page 14 CalBiota Potentially Occurring Special-status Animal Feb 5, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project SORTED BY CLASS Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Occurrence On Site
Melospiza melodia pusillula Federal none Inhabits pickleweed marshes. Nests low in Grindelia bushes (high enough to None: escape high tides) and in pickleweed. Resident of salt marshes bordering the State none no suitable habitat present. Alameda song sparrow southern arm of San Francisco Bay. Other DFG: CSC FWS: BCC; Marginally suitable nesting MBTA habitat present in project vicinity.
Melospiza melodia samuelis Federal none Inhabits tidal sloughs in pickleweed marshes. Nests in Grindelia bushes None: bordering slough channels. Resident of salt marshes along the north side of State none no suitable habitat present. San Pablo song sparrow San Francisco and San Pablo bays. Other DFG: CSC Recorded from Solano County. FWS: BCC; Project is outside the range MBTA of the subspecies.
Nycticorax nycticorax Federal none Nests colonially, usually in trees, but occasionally in tule patches. Rookery None: sites located adjacent to foraging areas such as lake margins, mud-bordered State none no suitable habitat present. black-crowned night-heron bays, marshy spots. Other BLM: Recorded from Contra Costa, Humboldt, Marin, Riverside, Sacramento, Sensitive Sutter counties. DFG: Special Animal (rookery) FWS: MBTA
Pandion haliaetus Federal none Nests along ocean shores, bays, freshwater lakes, and larger streams. Not expected: Constructs large nests in tree-tops within 15 miles of good fish-producing osprey State none no suitable nesting habitat body of water. present. Other CDF: Recorded from Butte, Del Norte, El Dorado, Humboldt, Inyo, Lake, Lassen, Sensitive Marin, Mendocino, Modoc, Mono, Placer, Plumas, Shasta, Siskiyou, Solano, DFG: CSC Sonoma, Tehama, Trinity, Tuolumne counties. (nesting) FWS: MBTA
TM Page 15 CalBiota Potentially Occurring Special-status Animal Feb 5, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project SORTED BY CLASS Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Occurrence On Site
Phalacrocorax auritus Federal none Nests colonially on coastal cliffs, offshore islands, and along lake margins in None: the interior of the state. Nests along coast on sequestered islets, usually on State none no suitable habitat present. double-crested cormorant ground with sloping surface, or in tall trees along lake margins. Other DFG: CSC Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, (rookery site) Mariposa, Monterey, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa FWS: MBTA Barbara, Sonoma, Ventura counties.
Picoides nuttallii Federal none A common, permanent resident of low-elevation riparian deciduous and oak Possible: habitats. Nuttall's woodpecker State none suitable habitat present both on site and on adjacent Other Audubon: General distribution:Occurs in the Central Valley, Transverse and Peninsular lands. Watch List Ranges, in the Coast Ranges north to Sonoma Co. and rarely to Humboldt (Yellow) Co., and in lower portions of the Cascade Range and Sierra Nevada. Occurs DFG: Special as a vagrant in the Owens Valley. Animal (nesting) FWS: MBTA USBC: Watch List
Rallus longirostris obsoletus Federal FE Inhabits salt-water and brackish marshes traversed by tidal sloughs in the None: vicinity of San Francisco Bay. Associated with abundant growths of State SE no suitable habitat present. California clapper rail pickleweed, but feeds away from cover on invertebrates from mud-bottomed Other DFG: Fully sloughs. protected Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Humboldt, Marin, Monterey, Napa, Marginally suitable wintering FWS: MBTA San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma counties. habitat present on adjacent USBC: Watch lands. list (full species)
TM Page 16 CalBiota Potentially Occurring Special-status Animal Feb 5, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project SORTED BY CLASS Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Occurrence On Site
Rynchops niger Federal none Nests on gravel bars, low islets, and sandy beaches, in unvegetated sites. None: Nesting colonies usually less than 200 pairs. Nests along the north and south State none no suitable habitat present. black skimmer ends of the Salton Sea and on salt pond dikes of south San Diego Bay. Other Audubon: Recorded from Alameda, Imperial, Orange, Riverside, San Diego counties. Watch List (Yellow) DFG: CSC (nesting colony) FWS: BCC; MBTA USBC: Watch List
Selasphorus sasin Federal none Breeds most commonly in coastal scrub, valley foothill hardwood, and valley Possible: foothill riparian habitats, but also are common in closed-cone pine-cypress, Allen's hummingbird State none suitable habitat present both urban, and redwood habitats. Occurs in a variety of woodland and scrub on site and on adjacent Other Audubon: habitats as a migrant. lands. Watch List (Yellow) DFG: Special Animal (nesting) FWS: MBTA USBC: Watch List
TM Page 17 CalBiota Potentially Occurring Special-status Animal Feb 5, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project SORTED BY CLASS Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Occurrence On Site
Sterna antillarum browni Federal FE Breeds in colonies on bare or sparsely vegetated, flat substrates consisting Not expected: of sand beaches, alkali flats, land fills, or paved areas. Nests along the coast State SE marginally suitable nesting California least tern from San Francisco Bay south to northern Baja California. habitat present on roof top Other Audubon: Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, of bldg 24. Watch List San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Ventura counties. (Red) No evidence of recent DFG: Fully nesting observed. protected FWS: MBTA USBC: Watch List (full species)
Toxostoma redivivum Federal none A common resident of foothills and lowlands in cismontane California. None: Occupies moderate to dense chaparral habitats and, less commonly, California thrasher State none no suitable habitat present extensive thickets in young or open valley foothill riparian habitat. In on site. Other Audubon: southern California, occurs in montane chaparral up to 1500-2000 m Watch List (5000-6600 ft). Avoids dense tree canopy. Suitable habitat present on (Yellow) adjacent lands. DFG: Special General distribution:Occurs from the Mexican border north to Shasta, Trinity, Animal and southern Humboldt counties., and into the Shasta Valley of Siskiyou FWS: MBTA County. USBC: Watch List
Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Federal none Nests in freshwater emergent wetlands with dense vegetation and deep None: water. Often found along borders of lakes or ponds. State none no suitable habitat present. yellow-headed blackbird Nests only where large insects such as odonata are abundant, nesting timed Other DFG: Special with maximum emergence of aquatic insects. Animal (nesting) FWS: MBTA
TM Page 18 CalBiota Potentially Occurring Special-status Animal Feb 5, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project SORTED BY CLASS Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Occurrence On Site Mammalia - Mammals Antrozous pallidus Federal none Inhabits deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands and forests. Most Not expected: commonly found in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. Roosts pallid bat State none marginally suitable roosting must provide protection from high temperatures. Species is very sensitive to habitat present in structures Other BLM: disturbances to roosting sites. on site. Sensitive Recorded from Calaveras, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Lake, Marin, Mariposa, DFG: CSC Mono, Napa, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin, FS: Sensitive San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Siskiyou, Sonoma, Tuolumne counties. WBWG: High Also from Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington. priority
Enhydra lutris nereis Federal FT Occurs in nearshore marine environments. Needs canopies of giant kelp Low: (Macrocystis pyrifera) and bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana) for rafting and southern sea otter State none CNDDB includes a single feeding. Prefers rocky substrates with abundant invertebrates. record off Sausalito Point, Other DFG: Fully Recorded from Marin, Ventura counties. Additional distribution: distributed San Francisco Bay. protected from about Ano Nuevo, San Mateo County to Point Sal, Santa Barbara County.
Lasionycteris noctivagans Federal none Summer habitats include coastal and montane coniferous forests, valley Not expected: foothill woodlands, pinyon- juniper woodlands, and valley foothill and silver-haired bat State none marginally suitable roosting montane riparian habitats. Summer distribution of the silver-haired bat habitat present in structures Other DFG: CSC includes coastal and montane forests from the Oregon border south along on site. WBWG: the coast to San Francisco Bay, and along the Sierra Nevada and Great Medium Basin region to Inyo Co. This species also is recorded in Stanislaus and priority Monterey cos. During spring and fall migrations and in winter, the silver-haired bat may be found anywhere in California. Recorded from Alpine, Del Norte, El Dorado, Fresno, Humboldt, Inyo, Lassen, Madera, Marin, Mariposa, Mendocino, Modoc, Mono, Monterey, Placer, Plumas, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sonoma, Trinity, Tuolumne counties.
TM Page 19 CalBiota Potentially Occurring Special-status Animal Feb 5, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project SORTED BY CLASS Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Occurrence On Site
Lasiurus cinereus Federal none The hoary bat is the most widespread North American bat. May be found at None: any location in California, although distribution patchy in southeastern State none no suitable habitat present. hoary bat deserts. This common, solitary species winters along the coast and in Other southern California, breeding inland and north of the winter range. During migration, may be found at locations far from the normal range, such as the Channel Islands (Brown 1980) and the Farallon Islands (Tenaza 1966). Habitats suitable for bearing young include all woodlands and forests with medium to large-size trees and dense foliage.
Microtus californicus sanpabloensis Federal none Constructs burrows in soft soil. Feeds on grasses, sedges and herbs. Forms None: a network of runways leading from the burrow. Occurs in saltmarshes. State none no suitable habitat present. San Pablo vole Recorded from Contra Costa County. Additional distribution: San Pablo Other DFG: CSC Creek, on the south shore of San Pablo Bay.
Nyctinomops macrotis Federal none Prefers rugged, rocky terrain. Found to 2500 m (8000 ft). Feeds principally None: on large moths but also takes a variety of other flying insects. Roosts in State none no suitable habitat present. big free-tailed bat buildings, caves, and occasionally in holes in trees. Also roosts in crevices in Other DFG: CSC high cliffs or rock outcrops. WBWG: Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, San Diego counties. Additional med.-high distribution: rare in California, as fall and winter vagrants. Probably does not priority breed in California. Alameda and Contra Costa records are suspect. Also from Arizona, New Mexico, Texas.
Reithrodontomys raviventris Federal FE Pickleweed (Salicornia) is the primary habitat. Builds loosely organized nests None: and does not burrow into the ground. Requires higher areas to escape State SE no suitable habitat present. salt-marsh harvest mouse flooding. Restricted to saline emergent wetlands. Other DFG: Fully Recorded from Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, protected Sonoma counties. Additional distribution: San Francisco Bay and its tributaries.
Scapanus latimanus parvus Federal none Known only from Alameda Island. Found in a variety of habitats, but None: especially associated with annual and perennial grasslands. State none no suitable habitat present. Alameda Island mole Prefers moist, friable soils. avoids flooded soils. Other DFG: CSC Recorded from Alameda County.
TM Page 20 CalBiota Potentially Occurring Special-status Animal Feb 5, 2008 Species Evaluated For The Honda Port Of Entry Project SORTED BY CLASS Scientific Name Habitat Affinities And Potential For Common Name Status Reported Distribution Occurrence On Site
Sorex ornatus sinuosus Federal none Inhabits tidal marshes. Require dense low-lying cover and driftweed and None: other litter above the mean hightide line for nesting and foraging. State none no suitable habitat present. Suisun shrew Recorded from Napa, Solano counties. Additional distribution: northern Other DFG: CSC shores of San Pablo and Suisun bays.
Sorex vagrans halicoetes Federal none Inhabits salt marshes. Occurs in medium-high marsh 6-8 ft above sea level None: where abundant driftwood is scattered among pickleweed. State none no suitable habitat present. salt-marsh wandering shrew Recorded from Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara counties. Other DFG: CSC Additional distribution: southern arm of the San Francisco Bay.
Taxidea taxus Federal none Most abundant in dry, open stages of most shrub, forest, and herbaceous None: habitats. Needs sufficient food, friable soils and open, uncultivated ground. State none no suitable habitat present. American badger Preys on burrowing rodents. Excavates its own burrows. Other DFG: CSC General distribution: recorded from every California county except Del Norte.
TM Page 21 CalBiota
Appendix H
Special–Status Plant Designation Codes
EXPLANATION OF RARITY STATUS CODES
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA) LISTING CODES OTHER CODES FE = federally listed as Endangered AFS: American Fisheries Society categories of risk for marine, estuarine and diadromous fish FT = federally listed as Threatened stocks. FPE = federally proposed for listing as Endangered Audubon: Watch List: Bird species facing population declines and/or threats such as loss of FPT = federally proposed for listing as Threatened breeding and wintering grounds, or species with limited geographic ranges. FPD = federally proposed for delisting BLM: Sensitive: Bureau of Land Management. Includes species under review by FWS or FC = federal candidate; former Category 1 candidates NMFS, species whose numbers are declining so rapidly that federal listing may become FSC = federal species of concern; receives no legal protection. Use of the term does not necessary, species with small and widely dispersed populations, or species inhabiting necessarily mean that a species will eventually be proposed for listing. refugia or other unique habitats. CDF: Sensitive: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Includes species that warrant special protection during timber operations. CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (CESA) LISTING CODES DFG: CSC: California species of Special Concern. SE = State-listed as Endangered DFG: Special Animal: Species included by the Department of Fish and Game in their special ST = State-listed as Threatened species lists. SR = State-listed as Rare DFG: Fully Protected: Species protected under Sections 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 SCE = State candidate for listing as Endangered (reptiles and amphibians), and 5515 (fish) of the California Fish and Game Code. SCT = State candidate for listing as Threatened FS: Sensitive: USDA Forest Service. Species identified by a regional forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, or in habitat capability that would CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY DESIGNATIONS (CNPS) reduce a species’ existing distribution. List 1: Plants of highest priority FWS: BCC: Birds of Conservation Concern: migratory and non-migratory bird species (beyond List 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California listed species) that represent the FWS’s highest conservation priorities. List 1B: Plants rare and endangered in California and elsewhere FWS: BEPA: Bald Eagle Protection Act List 2: Plants rare and endangered in California but more common elsewhere FWS: MBTA: International Migratory Bird Treat Act List 3: Plants about which additional data are needed FWS: MNBMC: US Fish and Wildlife Service: Migratory Nongame Birds of Management List 4: Plants of limited distribution Concern. Species considered to be of concern in the U.S. due to documented or apparent population declines, small or restricted populations, or dependence on restricted or CNPS Threat Code Extensions (replaces the RED code) vulnerable habitats. .1 - Seriously endangered in California USMC Watch List: US Bird Conservation Watch List. WBWB: Priority: The Western Bat Working Group. Species imperiled or at high, medium, or .2 – Fairly endangered in California low risk of imperilment based on available information on distribution, status, ecology, and .3 – Not very endangered in California known threats.
Wood Biological Consulting