Oakland Alameda Access Project Alameda County, California California Department of Transportation District 4
Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report and Paleontological Mitigation Plan
Prepared for:
March 2020
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK For individuals with sensory disabilities this document is available in alternate formats. Please call or write to Chris Risden, Office of Geotechnical Design-West, 111 Grand Avenue, Oakland, California, 94612, and CA Relay Service TTY number 1-800-735-2929.
March 2020
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Oakland Alameda Access Project Alameda County, California
Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report and Paleontological Mitigation Plan
Submitted to: California Department of Transportation District 4 Alameda County Transportation Commission
This report has been prepared by or under the supervision of the following Registered Geologist. The Registered Geologist attests to the technical information contained herein and has judged the qualifications of any technical specialists providing engineering or geological data upon which recommendations, conclusions, and decisions are based.
Prepared by: ______Date: 3/4/2020_ James R. Allen, P.G.
Reviewed by: ______Date: ______3/25/20 Trinity Nguyen Director of Project Delivery Alameda County Transportation Commission
Approved by: ______Date: ______3/25/20 Chris Risden, C.E.G. Office of Geotechnical Design-West California Department of Transportation District 4
March 2020 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
March 2020
Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Table of Contents Executive Summary ...... iii 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Purpose of Study ...... 1 1.2 Project Description ...... 2 1.3 Purpose and Need ...... 2 1.3.1 Purpose ...... 2 1.3.2 Need ...... 3 1.4 Project Alternatives ...... 3 1.4.1 No-Build (No-Action) Alternative ...... 3 1.4.2 Build Alternative ...... 3 1.5 Project Study Area ...... 18 1.6 Preparer ...... 18 2 Regulatory Context ...... 19 2.1 Federal Laws and Regulations ...... 19 2.1.1 Antiquities Act of 1906 ...... 19 2.1.2 National Registry of Natural Landmarks ...... 19 2.1.3 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ...... 19 2.1.4 Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 ...... 20 2.1.5 Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009 ...... 20 2.2 State Laws and Regulations ...... 20 2.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act ...... 20 2.2.2 Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 ...... 22 2.3 Local Laws, Ordinances and Statutes ...... 22 2.4 Discussion ...... 22 3 Resource Context ...... 25 3.1 Regional Geologic Setting ...... 25 3.2 Site Geology...... 25 3.2.1 Artificial Fill ...... 25 3.2.2 Bay Mud ...... 25 3.2.3 Merritt Sand ...... 26 3.3 Land Use ...... 27 4 Known Paleontological Resources ...... 31 5 Paleontological Potential/Sensitivity ...... 33 6 Impact Analysis ...... 35 6.1 Baseline Considerations ...... 35 6.2 Definition of Significance for Paleontological Resources ...... 35 6.3 Significance Evaluation ...... 36
March 2020 i Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
7 Specific Recommendations for a Paleontological Mitigation Plan ...... 41 7.1 Summary ...... 41 7.2 Qualified Paleontologist and Paleontological Monitor ...... 41 7.3 Worker Training and On-call Paleontological Monitoring ...... 41 7.4 Salvage and Recovery Operations ...... 43 7.4.1 Macrofossils ...... 45 7.4.2 Microfossils ...... 46 7.4.3 Laboratory Efforts ...... 47 7.5 Donation to Repository or Museum ...... 48 7.6 Paleontological Mitigation Report ...... 49 8 References ...... 51
Figures Figure 1. Build Alternative Proposed Elements, Project Overview ...... 5 Figure 2. Build Alternative Proposed Elements, Oakland ...... 7 Figure 3. Build Alternative Proposed Elements, Oakland East ...... 8 Figure 4. Build Alternative Elements, Alameda ...... 9 Figure 5. Geologic Map ...... 28 Figure 6. Geologic Map and Cross-Section (Radbruch 1957) ...... 29 Figure 7. Proposed Retaining Walls in Oakland West of Oak Street ...... 38 Figure 8. Proposed Retaining Walls in Oakland East of Oak Street ...... 39
Tables Table 1. Retaining Wall Locations and Dimensions (Oakland) ...... 14 Table 2. Excavation Depths ...... 15 Table 3. Proposed Utility and Underground Work ...... 16 Table 4. Results of Paleontological Records Search from Oak Knoll Hospital ...... 32 Table 5. Paleontological Sensitivity ...... 34 Table 6. Summary of Project Excavations ...... 37 Table 7. Summary of Paleontological Monitoring Requirements ...... 43
List of Appendices Appendix A Proposed Letter Donating Salvaged Fossils to an Appropriate Museum Repository Appendix B Worker Training Log
March 2020 ii Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed Project (Project), the Oakland Alameda Access Project, is located in the cities of Oakland and Alameda in Alameda County, California. The Project would improve access along Interstate 880 (I-880), the Posey and Webster Tubes, downtown Oakland, and the City of Alameda. Within the approximately 1-mile-long Project extent, I-880 (PM ALA 30.47 to PM 31.61) and State Route 260 (PM ALA R0.78 to R1.90) are major transportation corridors that currently experience heavy congestion during peak travel periods. Moreover, the I-880 freeway viaduct is a physical barrier, limiting bicycle and pedestrian connectivity between downtown Oakland and Chinatown to the north and the Jack London District and Oakland Estuary to the south. Existing local street patterns across I- 880 are intertwined with freeway entrance and exit ramps and the Posey and Webster Tubes through downtown Oakland and to and from the City of Alameda, affecting the cross-freeway circulation of motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
The goal of this combined Paleontological Identification and Evaluation Report (PIR/PER) is to evaluate the known and/or potential paleontological resources associated with the geology within the Project alignments, which could contain significant, non-renewable paleontological resources. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (2010) defines significant paleontological resources as “fossils and fossiliferous deposits, here defined as consisting of identifiable vertebrate fossils, large or small, uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils, and other data that provide taphonomic, taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, stratigraphic, and/or biochronologic information.”
The study area for this PIR/PER includes the entire area within the proposed right-of-way within the Cities of Oakland and Alameda. A majority of the Project footprint is underlain by artificial fill, which diminishes the likelihood of discovering undisturbed fossils. In Alameda, artificial fill overlies Bay mud to a depth ranging between 35 and 50 ft. However, Pleistocene-age Merritt sand is present within the study area in Oakland immediately below existing roadway sections, locally placed fills, and foundations to a depth of approximately 50 ft. Significant nonrenewable paleontological resources have been recovered from Merritt sand and Alameda at the Oak Knoll Hospital in the Project vicinity, as well as numerous locations in age-equivalent sand deposits on the San Francisco Peninsula (Colma formation).
Based on assessment of the potential paleontological resources at the locations planned for excavation work, this PIR/PER proposes a Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP). The PMP emphasizes construction worker training prior to ground disturbance. If construction workers identify any fossils within Project excavations, an on-call Paleontological Monitor would be available to monitor excavations in Merritt sand and/or implement the fossil recovery plan as needed.
March 2020 iii Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
March 2020 iv Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Study This Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report (PIR/PER) presents an assessment of potential impacts to significant paleontological resources that may occur during construction of the Oakland Alameda Access Project (Project). The PIR/PER was written to ensure Caltrans’ compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with respect to non-renewable paleontological resources. This PIR/PER also includes information and conclusions resulting from field and literature investigations of the Project site, as well as recommendations for the specific contents of a Paleontological Mitigation Plan (PMP) containing all sections described in Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference (SER).
Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of plants and animals, and associated deposits. CEQA requires that a determination be made as to whether a project would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature (CEQA Appendix G(v)(c)). If an impact is significant, CEQA requires feasible measures to minimize the impact (CCR Title 14(3) § 15126.4 (a)(l)). Also pertinent is California Public Resources Code § 5097.5.
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology has identified vertebrate fossils, their taphonomic and associated environmental indicators, and fossiliferous deposits as significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. Botanical and invertebrate fossils and assemblages may also be considered significant resources (Conformable Impact Mitigation Guidelines Committee 1995).
Paleontological resources include fossils, fossil localities, and stratigraphic units that contain the preserved remains or traces of fossil organisms. Fossils may be found as individual specimens or as assemblages of many organisms. Paleontological resources are older than 5,000 years before present (BP) (i.e., they include resources from the first half of the Holocene) (Society for Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP] 2010). By convention, paleontological resources do not include human remains, artifacts (objects created by humans), or other evidence of past human activities; these are subjects of the field of archaeology and are not considered in this report.
Of particular importance are fossils that are unique or unusual and that may make significant contributions to taxonomy, systematics, evolutionary theory, paleoecology, stratigraphy, or enhance our understanding of regional geologic history. Fossils found in situ (i.e., have not been disturbed subsequent to their burial and fossilization) provide the most useful scientific data for reconstructing taphonomic processes (i.e., conditions under which the fossils were preserved).
March 2020 1 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Most fossils are remains of now extinct organisms, and therefore are nonrenewable resources. Even if the fossils are of extant organisms, they document the state of that species at some point in the past, and likewise are nonrenewable resources. Therefore, fossils are valuable scientific and educational resources that are afforded protection under state and federal environmental laws (California Office of Historic Preservation 2006; see also Marshall 1976 and West 1991), most notably by the 1906 Federal Antiquities Act, other subsequent federal legislation and policies, and by CEQA Section 15064.5.
This PIR/PER adheres to the requirements of CEQA and other state, federal, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations. Assessment criteria and mitigation recommendations regarding adverse impacts to paleontological remains follow those prepared by the SVP (2010) whose standards are broadly accepted. 1.2 Project Description The proposed project is located in the cities of Oakland and Alameda in Alameda County, California. The project proposes to improve access along I-880 and in and around the Tubes, downtown Oakland, and the City of Alameda. Within the approximately 1-mile-long project, I-880 (PM ALA 30.47 to PM 31.61) and SR-260 (PM ALA R0.78 to R1.90) are major transportation corridors. Also, the I-880 freeway viaduct is a physical barrier, limiting bicycle and pedestrian connectivity between downtown Oakland and Chinatown to the north and the Jack London District and Oakland Estuary to the south. Existing local street patterns across I-880 are intertwined with on- and off-ramps and the Tubes connecting Oakland and Alameda affecting the cross-freeway circulation of motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
1.3 Purpose and Need
1.3.1 Purpose The purpose of the project is to: Improve multimodal safety and reduce conflicts between regional and local traffic; Enhance bicycle and pedestrian accessibility and connectivity within the project study area; Improve mobility and accessibility between I-880, SR-260 (Tubes), City of Oakland downtown neighborhoods, and City of Alameda; Reduce freeway-bound regional traffic and congestion on local roadways and in area neighborhoods.
March 2020 2 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
1.3.2 Need
Access between the freeway and the roadway networks between I-880 and the Tubes is limited and indirect, and access to/from the cities of Oakland and Alameda is circuitous. Existing access to I-880 from Alameda and the Jack London District requires loops through several local streets and intersections, routing vehicles through the downtown Oakland Chinatown neighborhood, which has the following operational impacts on local streets:
Streets in and around the downtown Oakland Chinatown area have a high volume of pedestrian activity and experience substantial vehicle-pedestrian conflicts, and the I-880 viaduct limits bicycle and pedestrian connectivity between downtown Oakland and the Jack London District.
SB I-880 traffic heading to Alameda must exit at the Broadway/Alameda off-ramp, then travel south along 5th Street for more than a mile — through nine signalized and unsignalized intersections — before reaching the Webster Tube at 5th Street/Broadway.
WB I-980 traffic heading to Alameda must exit at the Jackson Street off-ramp and circle back through Chinatown through seven signalized and unsignalized intersections to reach the Webster Tube.
NB I-880 traffic heading to Alameda must exit at the Broadway off-ramp and form a queue on Broadway between 5th and 6th streets, which backs up onto the ramp. Alternatively, drivers may loop through Chinatown to access the Webster Tube. 1.4 Project Alternatives
1.4.1 No-Build (No-Action) Alternative Under the No-Build Alternative, there would be no improvements to bicycle or pedestrian connectivity or safety. Freeway traffic to/from the cities of Oakland and Alameda would continue to use city streets through Oakland and Chinatown, which are areas with a high volume of pedestrian activity. Vehicle-pedestrian or -bicycle conflicts from traffic traveling through city streets would continue. The I-880 viaduct would continue to impede connectivity between downtown Oakland and the Jack London District, and access would not be improved for bicycles and pedestrians traveling between Oakland and Alameda.
1.4.2 Build Alternative Under the Build Alternative, Caltrans and ACTC propose to remove and modify the existing freeway ramps and to modify the Posey Tube exit in Oakland. The Build Alternative would improve access to NB and SB I-880 from the Posey Tube via a right-turn-only lane from the Posey Tube to 5th Street and a new horseshoe connector at Jackson Street below the I-880 viaduct that
March 2020 3 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
would connect to the existing NB I-880/Jackson Street on-ramp. The existing WB I-980/Jackson Street off-ramp would be reconstructed and shifted to the south.
The Webster Tube entrance at 5th Street and Broadway would be shifted to the east to create more space for trucks to make the turn from Broadway into the Webster Tube. A bulb-out would be constructed to extend the sidewalk, reducing the crossing distance and allowing improved visibility of pedestrians on the southeast corner.
The NB I-880/Broadway off-ramp would be removed and the NB I-880/ Oak Street off-ramp to 6th Street would be widened. The NB I-880/Oak Street intersection would become the main NB I- 880 off-ramp to downtown Oakland and to Alameda. 6th Street would become a one-way through street from Oak Street to Harrison Street and a two-way street from Harrison Street to Broadway.
The proposed project would include the addition of a Class IV two-way cycle track on 6th Street between Oak and Washington streets and on Oak Street between 3rd and 9th streets. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements would be constructed at the Tubes’ approaches in Oakland and Alameda, and the Webster Tube westside walkway would be opened to pedestrians. This would improve connectivity to existing and future planned bicycle paths in the City of Oakland and implement various “complete streets” improvements to create additional opportunities for non-motorized vehicles and pedestrians to cross under I-880 between downtown Oakland, the Jack London District, and Alameda. See Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4 for proposed elements of the Build Alternative.
March 2020 4 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Figure 1. Build Alternative Proposed Elements, Project Overview
March 2020 5 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
March 2020 6 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Figure 2. Build Alternative Proposed Elements, Oakland
March 2020 7 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Figure 3. Build Alternative Proposed Elements, Oakland East
March 2020 8 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Figure 4. Build Alternative Elements, Alameda
March 2020 9 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Additional details on the Build Alternative improvements:
1. Construction of a new horseshoe connector under I-880 at Jackson Street. Vehicles exiting the Posey Tube would have direct access to NB I-880 via the proposed horseshoe connector. Vehicles heading to NB and SB I-880 would use the right-turn-only lane at the Posey Tube exit to turn onto eastbound 5th Street. Access to a new horseshoe connector would be provided from the left side of 5th Street and would loop below the I-880 viaduct to connect to the existing NB I-880/Jackson Street on-ramp. Traffic heading to SB I-880 would continue eastbound on 5th Street to the SB I-880/Oak Street on-ramp. Figure 2 shows the new horseshoe connector under I-880 at Jackson Street. Construction of the new right-turn-only lane onto 5th Street would require new retaining walls along the right side of the Posey Tube exit replacing the historic Posey Tube wall. The horseshoe connector would provide a direct route between the Posey Tube and NB I-880/ EB I-980 and SB I-880, substantially improving connectivity and minimizing the need for freeway-bound vehicles to travel through Chinatown to access the ramps. This configuration would also reduce intersection and bicycle-pedestrian conflicts. Posey Tube traffic heading to Chinatown and downtown Oakland would remain in the left lane and continue onto Harrison Street or turn left onto 6th Street to reach downtown via Broadway. A new left-turn pocket to accommodate the turn onto 6th Street would be constructed requiring removal of a section of the historic Posey Tube western exit wall. 2. Reconstruction of the existing WB I-980/Jackson Street off-ramp. To provide space for unimpeded movement from the Posey Tube to the new horseshoe connector, the WB I-980/Jackson Street off-ramp would be realigned to the south. Figure 2 shows the relocated Jackson Street off-ramp. The realigned off-ramp would touch down at-grade on 5th Street at the Alice Street intersection. Off-ramp and 5th Street traffic would continue to be separated by a landscaped median past the condominium building at 428 Alice Street. 5th Street would be converted to a two-way street to accommodate condominium residents allowing vehicles to turn left or right onto 5th Street. 3. Removal of the existing NB I-880/Broadway off-ramp viaduct structure including the bridge deck and supporting columns. Removing the NB I-880/Broadway off-ramp structure would provide the space for complete street improvements on 6th Street. It would also restore an element of the City of Oakland’s street grid system by providing a continuous 6th Street between Oak Street and Broadway. Figure 2 shows where the existing NB I-880/Broadway off-ramp would be removed. This
March 2020 10 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
would provide for a more efficient street network, and it would allow traffic to be more evenly distributed on Oakland city streets. Also, it would improve traffic operations at the Broadway/6th Street and Broadway/5th Street intersections by eliminating the stream of traffic exiting the Broadway off-ramp and heading to the Webster Tube entrance. Instead, this traffic would use 6th Street and turn left at Webster Street to access the Webster Tube. 4. Widening of the NB I-880/Oak Street off-ramp. The existing Oak Street off-ramp would be widened from a one- to a two-lane exit by restriping the NB I-880 mainline and reconfiguring the ramp terminus. Figure 3 shows the proposed widening at the NB I-880/Oak Street off-ramp and restriping on NB I-880. At the Oak Street intersection, the ramp would be further widened from one left-turn-only pocket lane, one through and left-turn lane, and one through and right-turn lane to provide one left-turn-only (SB) pocket lane, one through westbound (WB) lane, one through (WB) and right-turn (NB) lane, and one right-turn-only (NB) lane. Two new retaining walls would be constructed along the widened ramp’s new edge of the shoulder. In advance of the Oak Street exit, NB I-880 would be restriped from four to five lanes, including a standard 1,400-foot-long auxiliary lane to accommodate the additional traffic resulting from the Broadway off-ramp removal. 5. Modification of 5th Street/Broadway access to the Webster Tube. The 5th Street/Broadway entrance to the Webster Tube would be moved slightly east (refer to Figure 2. Also, the 5th Street crosswalk on the east side of Broadway would be shifted east and considerably shortened, and the signal phasing would be modified to include a pedestrian-led signal phase for eastbound pedestrian traffic. This would improve safety by giving pedestrians priority over turning traffic. Also, this would improve truck access to the Webster Tube and minimize conflicts with other vehicular traffic. 6. Construction of a new through 6th Street connecting Oak Street to Broadway. Improvements to 6th Street would be accomplished by turning the street into a one-way street in the westbound direction from Oak Street to Harrison Street and a two-way street from Harrison Street to Broadway (refer to Figure 2). The lanes would be a minimum of 11 feet wide. There would be a minimum of two through lanes with additional turn pockets at intersections in the westbound direction. There would be one lane in the eastbound direction from Harrison Street to Broadway. A new sidewalk would be constructed along the south side between Broadway and Oak Street. Segments of the existing sidewalk along the north side between Oak Street and Broadway would be reconstructed to a minimum of 10 feet wide between Harrison and Alice streets to provide continuity for pedestrians. A continuous Class IV two-way cycle track would also be
March 2020 11 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
provided between Oak and Washington streets. Parking spaces would be provided along portions of this roadway. 7. Construction of a two-way bicycle/pedestrian path and walkway from Webster Street in Alameda to 6th Street in Oakland through the Posey Tube and from 4th Street in Oakland through the Webster Tube to Mariner Square Loop in Alameda. The path would begin at Webster Street and Constitution Way in Alameda, would continue through the Posey Tube on the existing eastside walkway, and would exit the Tube via a new ramp with a hairpin turn at 5th Street. Figure 4 shows the proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The path in Alameda connecting to the Posey Tube would be realigned and widened. The path in Oakland would wrap around the back of the Portal building on 4th Street and continue onto Harrison Street. It would continue onto a Class I two-way bicycle/pedestrian path under I-880 just west of Harrison Street and connect to the Class IV two-way cycle track on 6th Street between Oak and Washington streets. The new bicycle and pedestrian ramp exit from the Posey Tube would require removal of the existing historic Posey Tube staircase to provide street level ADA-compliant access from the Tube. The proposed project would improve access between Oakland and Alameda by opening the Webster Tube maintenance walkway to bicycle and pedestrian travel. The walkway would connect to the proposed path under I-880 at 4th Street (near the Posey Tube Portal building).It would continue onto 4th Street to Webster Street, and it would turn north through the existing parking lot on the west side of the Webster Tube entrance before making a hairpin turn to connect to the westside walkway inside the Tube. On the Alameda side, the walkway would connect to existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities at Mariner Square Loop and Willie Stargell Avenue. The existing sidewalk within Neptune Park would be widened to match the proposed sidewalk to the north. Improvements inside the Tube would include widening the existing walkway, upgrading the existing railings, and relocating call boxes and fire extinguishers. 8. Modification of 5th, 7th, Madison, Jackson, Harrison, Webster, Oak, and Franklin streets. The street modifications (refer to Figure 2) would include replacing the dual right turns at the 7th Street/Harrison Street intersection with a single right-turn-only lane and removing the free right turn (where the island allows cars to turn right without stopping) at the 7th Street/ Jackson Street intersection. These would no longer be needed because Alameda traffic bound for NB/SB I-880 would be better served by the right turns from the Posey Tube to 5th Street. With the removal of the free right turns, vehicles would observe the traffic signal before turning
March 2020 12 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
right. With the curb extension proposed at this location, the pedestrian crossing distance would be shortened, which would decrease vehicle-pedestrian conflicts. In addition, a PHB beacon would be installed on 7th Street across the street from the Chinese Garden Park. There would also be restrictive right-turn movements to reduce bicycle and vehicle conflicts at the 5th/Broadway, 6th/Webster, 6th/Harrison, 6th/Jackson, 6th/Madison, 5th/Jackson, 8th/Oak, and 7th/Oak intersections. A continuous sidewalk would be installed along the perimeter of Chinese Garden Park. Additional improvements, including landscaping modifications, could occur adjacent to the southern boundary of the park and would be coordinated through the City of Oakland. Jackson Street between 5th and 6th streets would be converted from two- to one-way travel lanes in the northbound direction, and it would provide an emergency-only access lane.
1.4.2.1 Retaining Walls and Excavation The proposed improvements would include construction of several new retaining walls along the NB I-880 Jackson Street on-ramp, WB I-980 Jackson Street off-ramp, NB I-880 Oak Street off- ramp, and new horseshoe connector. Retaining wall construction would minimize the need for right-of-way (ROW) acquisition. Table 1 lists the retaining walls needed for the proposed project including their locations and approximate dimensions. Table 2 lists the excavation depths of other proposed project features.
March 2020 13 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Table 1. Retaining Wall Locations and Dimensions (Oakland) Anticipated Approx. Wall Height Excavation Location Length Number (feet) Depth (feet) (feet) 1 Supporting Harrison Street as Posey Tube 215 8-12 36 right lane runs onto 5th Street 2 Supporting existing fill in front of the 65 8-30 13 existing abutment at Harrison Street 3 Supporting the I-880 mainline 410 24-32 28 4 Supporting the Jackson Street abutment 145 17 2 4A Supporting the Jackson Street abutment 60 10 20 4B Supporting the Jackson Street abutment 60 14 20 5 Supporting cut slope south of 6th Street 510 4-22 44 and parallel to existing NB I-880 Broadway off-ramp 6 Supporting Posey Tube bicycle/pedestrian 105 10 32 switchback on the exit’s east side 7 Supporting along the NB I-880 Oak Street 215 4-10 6 off-ramp to accommodate an additional left- turn pocket 8R Supporting reconstruction of the WB I-980 230 24 32 Jackson Street off-ramp (north wall) 8L Supporting reconstruction of the WB I-980 225 22 6 Jackson Street off-ramp (south wall) 9 Supporting additional left-turn pocket for 95 8 12 traffic from the Posey Tube at Harrison Street and 6th Street intersection 10 Supporting NB I-880 Oak Street 399 12 4 off-ramp widening
March 2020 14 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Table 2. Excavation Depths Excavation Feature Description Depth (feet) OAKLAND Bike Path Assumed pavement depth = 0.5’ PCC, 0.5’ CL 2 1 aggregate base (AB) Roadway Assumed pavement depth =0.75’ hot mix asphalt 2.5 (HMA) (type A), 0.75’ class 2 AB, 1’ class 2 aggregate subbase (AS) WB I-980 Jackson Street New bents (columns) and an abutment 50 Off-ramp ALAMEDA Bike Path Assumed pavement depth = 0.5’ PCC, 1 0.5’ class 2 AB Roadway Assumed pavement depth =0.75’ HMA (type A), 2.5 0.75’ class 2 AB, 1’ class 2 AS Overhead Sign Foundation Truss single-post Type V with assumed span length 20 = 32’
1.4.2.2 Property Acquisitions The proposed project would require the transfer of ROW from the following public entities: City of Oakland and City of Alameda. It would also require a permanent maintenance easement from Laney College to maintain a retaining wall for the Oak Street off-ramp. The Build Alternative would not result in the displacement of any residences or businesses.
1.4.2.3 Utilities Existing Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) overhead distribution electric lines along 5th and Harrison streets would be relocated as part of the Build Alternative. Some of these overhead lines would be placed underground. Utility relocations may require trenching to a depth of approximately 6 feet. Positive location (potholing) would be performed to verify the location of mapped utilities. Table 3 lists proposed utility work for the Build Alternative.
March 2020 15 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Table 3. Proposed Utilities, Operational Elements, and Drainage Systems
Location Type of Work Utility/Service System Size
Harrison Street from 4th Relocate existing Pacific Gas & Electric Overhead lines (both) th overhead utilities (PG&E): Electric to 5 streets underground. American Telephone and Telegraph Company
(AT&T): Telecom
Relocate fire hydrant. East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD 6” water line
Relocate fire hydrant. EBMUD: Water 6” water line
5th Street from Harrison Protect existing EBMUD: Water 4”, 6” water lines underground utilities City of Oakland: Sewer 8” sewer lines to Jackson streets in place. and storm drain 21”, 24” storm drain Possible permanent PG&E: Gas 2” gas lines relocation. AT&T: Fiber optic
5th Street from Webster Protect existing EBMUD: Water 4”, 6” water lines underground utilities City of Oakland: Sewer 8” sewer lines to Harrison streets in place. and storm drain 24” storm drain Possible temporary PG&E: Gas 1-1/4” gas lines relocation.
Posey Tube Protect existing EBMUD: Water 10” water lines underground utilities City of Oakland: Sewer 8” sewer lines Walkway in place. and storm drain 24” storm drain Possible permanent PG&E: Gas 1-1/4”, 2” gas lines relocation. AT&T: Fiber optic
Install new lines. Caltrans: Street lighting New – TBD and drainage
6th Street from Oak Install new lines. EBMUD: Water New – TBD Street to Broadway City of Oakland: Sewer Existing lines will be and storm drain relocated if is PG&E: Gas determined they are in conflict.
Protect in place. PG&E: 115 kilovolt Unknown size (kV) Electric
Jackson Street Install new lines. Caltrans: Street lighting New – TBD and storm drains Horseshoe
Intersections Modify traffic and City of Oakland: Traffic N/A bicycle signals. signals and lighting
March 2020 16 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
3rd/Oak 5th/Broadway 5th/Jackson 5th/Oak 6th/Harrison 6th/Broadway 7th/Harrison 7th/Jackson 7th/Oak 8th/Oak 9th/Oak
Intersections Install new traffic City of Oakland: Traffic N/A signals. signals and lighting 6th/Jackson th Install a PHB at 6 /Webster 7th/Alice. 6th/Franklin 6th/Oak 7th/Alice
1.4.2.4 Construction Schedule Construction activities would last approximately 36 months. Construction is expected to begin in mid-2023. There would be two major stages with several phases in each. The first stage would include construction of the Jackson Street horseshoe and associated improvements on the southside of I-880 as well as the widening of the walkway in the Webster Tube. The second stage would include widening of the NB I-880/Oak Street off-ramp, removal of the Broadway NB I-880 off- ramp, and construct 6th Street improvements with associated elements on the northside of I-880.
Construction equipment would be staged in areas underneath I-880 that are owned by Caltrans and currently leased as parking lots. Construction activities would completed during the day; however, nighttime work would be needed to minimize impacts to traffic, especially in the Webster Tube. Caltrans would continue to coordinate with the cities of Oakland and Alameda to develop and implement a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) and other measures to minimize construction impacts on the human and natural environment. As part of the TMP, a shuttle may be needed to transport bicyclists and pedestrians between Oakland and Alameda during construction.
The proposed project contains a number of standardized project measures which are employed on most, if not all, Caltrans projects. They were not developed in response to any specific environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project.
March 2020 17 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
1.5 Project Study Area Because all Project-related impacts will be confined within the areas described in Section 1.2, the horizontal study area includes the existing and proposed right-of-way. Site geology and potential paleontological resources were evaluated within the horizontal study area. A majority of the Project’s excavations will be relatively shallow where new roadway sections and bike paths are constructed. However, the Project will include excavations up to 50 ft bgs. Therefore, the vertical study area extends up to 50 ft bgs within the existing and proposed right-of-way. 1.6 Preparer This PIR/PER was prepared by Mr. James R. Allen, Professional Geologist No. 8335. Mr. Allen has a Bachelor of Science and Master of Science in geology from Sonoma State University and California State University, San José, respectively. Mr. Allen has extensive knowledge of the paleontology and geology of the San Francisco Bay Area, and he has prepared numerous paleontological environmental technical reports for SR 120, SR 65, SR 99, I-5, I-80, I-580, and I- 680. Moreover, Mr. Allen was involved in the geotechnical seismic retrofit project of the Posey- Webster tubes where he logged over 40 coring operations in Merritt sand, and at least 25 hollow- stem auger drilling operations on either side of the Tubes. In 2012, Mr. Allen provided paleontological resources protection when a Mammoth tooth was discovered within an excavation in the Transbay Transit Center Project in the Colma formation, which is age-equivalent to Merritt sand. Mr. Allen conducted paleontological monitoring for a project along I-80 Integrated Corridor Mobility Adaptive Ramp Metering Project in 2013. In 2018, Mr. Allen logged core for Millennium Tower where the initial 275 feet were Pleistocene-age deposits equivalent to the units at the Project area. In 2018, Mr. Allen and University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) issued a report detailing major fossils preserved between 2010 and 2014 at Hetch-Hetchy Seismic Retrofit Project at Calaveras Dam in Sunol, California.
March 2020 18 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
2 REGULATORY CONTEXT 2.1 Federal Laws and Regulations A variety of Federal statutes specifically addresses paleontological resources. These laws and regulations become applicable to specific projects if the delivery crosses Federal lands or involves a Federal agency’s license, permits, approval, or funding.
2.1.1 Antiquities Act of 1906 The Antiquities Act of 1906 (Public Law [P.L.] 59-209; 16 United States Code [USC] 431-433, 34 Statute 225) has been cited in past efforts to protect paleontological resources on federal lands, and it is recognized for regulation of collecting “any object of antiquity,” which includes fossils, on land managed by the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Forest Service, Department of Energy, and other federal agencies. This Act also establishes criminal sanctions for unauthorized appropriation or destruction of antiquities.
2.1.2 National Registry of Natural Landmarks The National Natural Landmarks Program (16 USC 461-467), established in 1962 under the authority of the Historic Sites Act of 1935, recognizes and encourages the conservation of outstanding examples of our country’s natural history. As the only natural areas program of national scope that identifies and recognizes the best examples of biological and geological features in both public and private ownership, National Natural Landmarks (NNLs) are designated by the Secretary of the Interior, with the owner’s concurrence, as being of national significance, defined as being one of the best examples of a biological community or geological feature within a natural region of the U.S., including terrestrial communities, landforms, geological features and processes, habitats of native plant and animal species, or fossil evidence of the development of life (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 62.2). The National Park Service administers the NNL Program, and if requested, assists NNL owners and managers with the conservation of these important sites.
2.1.3 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NEPA (P.L. 91-190, 31 Statute 852, NEPA, 42 [USC] 4321-4327) requires that important natural aspects of our national heritage be considered in assessing the environmental consequences of any proposed project and directs Federal agencies to “Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage…” (Section 101[b] [4]). Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA are found in 40 (CFR) 1500- 1508.
March 2020 19 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
2.1.4 Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (P.L. 94-579; 90 Statute 2743, 43 USC1701- 1782) requires that public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality of their scientific values and authorizes inventories of paleontological resources on federal land, which now issues permits for collecting paleontological resources (fossils) to qualified individuals and entities. Paleontological resources are also afforded federal protection under the CFR, Title 40, Section 1508.27 as a subset of scientific resources.
2.1.5 Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009 The Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (PRPA) is part of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-011, Title VI Subtitle D). This act directs the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture to manage and protect paleontological resources on federal land, and develop plans for inventorying, monitoring, and deriving the scientific and educational use of such resources. It prohibits the removal of paleontological resources from federal land without a permit issued under this act, establishes penalties for violation of this act, and establishes a program to increase public awareness about such resources. The bill imposes criminal penalties for violating this act, which includes serving up to 10 years in prison if convicted. 2.2 State Laws and Regulations Several state laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS) protect paleontological resources on state lands as well as projects undertaken by state agencies. A summary of these LORS follows.
2.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act The primary California state environmental law protecting fossils is CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.). CEQA requires that public agencies and private interests identify the environmental consequences of their proposed projects on any object or site of significance to the scientific annals of California (Division I, California Public Resources Code Section 5020.1 [b]). Pertinent sections of the Act include the following. CEQA (Chapter 1, Section 21002) states:
“It is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects, and that the procedures required are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.”
March 2020 20 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Administrative regulations for the implementation of CEQA are set forth in California Code of Regulations (CCR) 15000 et seq., commonly known as the “CEQA Guidelines.” The Guidelines define procedures, types of activities, persons, and public agencies required to comply with the Act. CEQA Guidelines (Article 1, Section 15002(a) (3)) state that CEQA is intended to:
“…prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible.”
Appendix G of the Guidelines provides an Environmental Checklist of questions that a lead agency should normally address if relevant to a project’s environmental impacts. One of the questions to be answered in this Environmental Checklist (CCR Section 15063; Appendix G, Section V, c) is the following: “Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site…?”
CEQA Guidelines Section XVII.a, of the Environmental Checklist asks a second question equally applicable to paleontological resources: “Does the project have the potential to . . . eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre-history?” Fossils are important examples of the major periods of California prehistory. To be in compliance with CEQA, environmental impact assessments, statements, and reports must answer both these questions in the Environmental Checklist. If the answer to either question is yes or possibly, a mitigation and monitoring plan must be designed and implemented to protect significant paleontological resources.
The CEQA lead agency that has jurisdiction over a project is responsible to ensure that significant paleontological resources are protected in compliance with CEQA and other applicable statutes. CEQA Section 21081.6 requires that the lead agency demonstrate project compliance with mitigation measures developed during the environmental impact review process. Other state requirements for paleontological resource management are in California Public Resources Code Chapter 1.7, Section 5097.5 (Statutes 1965, Chapter 1136, Page 2792), titled Archaeological, Paleontological, and Historical Sites. This statute defines any unauthorized disturbance or removal of a fossil site or fossil remains on public land as a misdemeanor and specifies that state agencies may undertake surveys, excavations, or other operations as necessary on publicly owned lands to preserve or record paleontological resources.
March 2020 21 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
2.2.2 Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 California Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 prohibits excavation or removal of any “vertebrate paleontological site, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands and specifies that state agencies may undertake surveys, excavations, or other operations as necessary on publicly owned lands to preserve or record paleontological resources.” Public lands are defined to include lands owned by or under the jurisdiction of the state or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. Section 5097.5 states that any unauthorized disturbance or removal of archaeological, historical, or paleontological materials or sites located on public lands is a misdemeanor. Section 30244 requires reasonable mitigation for impacts on paleontological resources where development might adversely impact paleontological resources, as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer. 2.3 Local Laws, Ordinances and Statutes California Planning and Zoning Law requires each county and city jurisdiction to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for its development. The general plan is a policy document designed to give long-range guidance to those making decisions that will affect the future character of the planning area. It represents the official statement of the community’s physical development and its economic, social, and environmental goals. The general plan also acts to clarify and articulate the relationship and intentions of local government to the rights and expectations of the general public, property owners, and prospective investors. Through the general plan, the local jurisdiction informs these groups of the county or city’s goals, policies, and development standards, thereby communicating what must be done to meet the objectives of the general plan. Many counties and cities have adopted ordinances and goals that provide protection to paleontological resources. 2.4 Discussion Violation of the previously outlined federal, state, and/or local regulations is punishable by civil and criminal penalties, including fines and/or imprisonment, and could result in the revocation of project certification and shut-down of a project at the direction of the appropriate lead agency. During initial project scoping studies, when a paleontological resource within a project area is determined to be scientifically significant, the sponsoring agency must take those resources into consideration when evaluating project effects. Monitoring and mitigation should be considered when project-related activities disturb formations with a high potential for containing significant paleontological resources, because these formations are likely to contain significant
March 2020 22 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
paleontological resources. A PIR/PER recommending a PMP is then developed and implemented. When a PMP is implemented proactively, paleontological resources are not likely to restrict project options, slow construction, or affect project deadlines. In areas of high potential for containing significant paleontological resources, a pre-excavation field survey may be performed to locate surface concentrations of fossils, which might need special salvage methods (SVP 1995).
This PIR/PER recommends the implementation of a PMP, which will in turn offer guidance for protecting and preserving paleontological resources during construction in order to reduce potential impacts on paleontological resources to a less-than-significant level as required by NEPA, CEQA, and the SVP. In order to demonstrate compliance with applicable statutory requirements, one purpose of this PIR/PER is to provide for the preservation of a representative sample of any scientifically significant paleontological resources discovered during ground disturbing activities for any project that will impact sediments that have been determined to have a High (SVP 1995) paleontological sensitivity (SFCTA and Caltrans, 2011). With implementation of the recommended PMP and its worker training, excavations may result in beneficial impacts, including the salvage and preservation of fossils that would not have been exposed without these Project-related excavations and, therefore, would not have been available for scientific study or for public display in museums.
March 2020 23 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
March 2020 24 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
3 RESOURCE CONTEXT This section discusses the geologic formations that have been mapped within the Project area. 3.1 Regional Geologic Setting The Project is physiographically centrally located within the Coast Ranges Geomorphic province, in west-central California (California Geological Survey [CGS], 2002). The San Francisco Bay itself fills a northwest trending structural depression in the central Coast Ranges, lying between the San Andreas Fault to the southwest and the Hayward Fault to the northwest. Regional surficial geologic mapping of the Project site and vicinity is provided by USGS (2000) at a scale of 1:50,000. This mapping indicates that the entire Project site is underlain by unconsolidated Holocene age alluvial fan deposits equivalent to Lawson’s (1914) Temescal Formation, which also includes recent Bay muds and “salt-marsh deposits” (Trask and Rolston, 1951, Atwater et al., 1977). 3.2 Site Geology According to Figure 5, the Project site is underlain by artificial fill (Historic) placed over deposits of Bay mud along the shoreline of Alameda and Oakland and surficial Merritt sand (Holocene and Pleistocene) in the northern portion of the study area in Oakland.
3.2.1 Artificial Fill Artificial fill consists of man-made deposits of various materials and ages. Some fills are compacted and quite firm, but fills made before 1965 are typically not compacted and consist simply of dumped materials. Artificial fill occurs within the Project limits in Oakland and Alameda. Much of this fill was placed on marshes and Bay mud located along the margin of San Francisco Bay to facilitate urban development. Artificial fill in Oakland is associated with the existing embankments along I-880 as well as land reclamation in the vicinity of Lake Merritt Channel. Additionally, artificial fill was widely placed in Alameda for land reclamation. The thickness of artificial fill within the Project limits varies. It can be up to 50 feet thick in Alameda, or relatively thin or non-existent within Oakland (Radbruch 1957).
3.2.2 Bay Mud Bay muds are Holocene-age fine-grained estuarine and marine sediments deposited within stream valleys incised into Merritt sand and the upper Alameda formation (Rogers and Figuers, 1991; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2015). Within the study areas in Oakland and Alameda, Bay mud underlies artificial fills. Bay mud generally extends to a depth between 25 and 50 ft bgs within the
March 2020 25 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
study area, but it extends up to 100 ft bgs along the northern shoreline of Alameda (Radbruch, 1957).
3.2.3 Merritt Sand The Alameda Formation is a name given to a geologic unit at the Project site that contains laterally equivalent facies of deposits that differ in environment of deposition and lithology (Atwater, 1979; Trask and Rolston, 1951; Sloan, 1981, 1990). These units within the Alameda Formation are the Posey, San Antonio, and Merritt units that interfinger laterally with each other. Sea level regression during the subsequent Wisconsin glacial age (ca. 75,000 to 10,000 years ago) witnessed the retreat of the shoreline westward to about the position of the Farallon Islands, contemporaneous with abundant sand deposition. These coarser grained terrestrial sediments relating to this period have been identified as the San Antonio Formation by some authors, and the Merritt sand or Merritt Formation by others (Trask and Rolston, 1951). In this PIR/PER, this unit is referred to as Merritt sand. Additionally, some authors have named equivalent sand deposits on the San Francisco Peninsula the Colma Formation, while stating that the marine portion of Colma Formation is “correlated with the Merritt sand” (Schlocker et al., 1958). Overlying this sand deposit is Young Bay Mud, which marks the rise in the sea level and a return of marine and estuarine-type deposits between approximately 15,000 and 9,000 years ago.
In the eastern portion of the San Francisco Bay area, such as within Oakland and Alameda, Merritt sand deposited in a marine environment grades into and interfingers with terrestrial alluvial fan deposits. Merritt sand is described by USGS (2000) as a fine-grained, very well sorted, well- drained eolian deposits of western Alameda County. Merritt sand outcrops in three large areas in Oakland and Alameda. Merritt sand displays morphology of large sheets up to 15 meters high with yardang morphology. Merritt sand has been reported to be fossiliferous.
Caltrans boring logs from the Posey Tube Seismic Retrofit project, the original construction of the Posey Tube (Alameda County Estuary Subway project), and 5th and 6th Street Viaduct Widening project were reviewed to evaluate the depth of Merritt sand below artificial fill within the Project limits. As mentioned earlier, coeval facies associated with the Merritt eolian sands are the San Antonio/Posey alluvial and fluvial coarser deposits that contain abundant red chert and other Franciscan-derived pebbles deposited in meandering streams adjacent to the Merritt dune/eolian deposits (Trask and Rolston, 1951; Sloan, 1981, 1990). The boring logs provide soil textures encountered within the bore holes and the depths at which they were encountered, but the boring logs do not specify the geologic formations encountered. Therefore, existing boring logs do not
March 2020 26 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
provide enough information to estimate a depth to Merritt sand below artificial fill and Bay mud within the Project limits.
A study by Radbruch (1957) contains a geologic cross-section that extends from San Francisco Bay south of Alameda island in a north-northeast direction and passes near the present-day location of the Webster Street tube and intersects I-80 near Franklin Street. The location of the cross-section as well as the cross-section are shown in Figure 6. According to Figure 6, Merritt sand or equivalent units mentioned earlier are anticipated to occur immediately below existing roadway sections, foundations, and any locally placed fills to an approximate depth of 50 ft in Oakland. 3.3 Land Use Currently, the land use in the area consists of the existing residential and commercial real estate in Alameda. In Oakland, the land is occupied by I-880 and associated structures, as well as industrial, commercial, and residential facilities.
March 2020 27 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Figure 5. Geologic Map
March 2020 28 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Figure 6. Geologic Map and Cross-Section (Radbruch 1957)
March 2020 29 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
March 2020 30 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
4 KNOWN PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Paleontological and geological records searches were conducted in the UCMP online database, accessed December 28, 2015 and updated in March, 2018. In addition, an extensive library, literature, and map search was conducted at the University of California Berkeley Map and Earth Sciences library on December 2, 2015, and the U.S. Geological Survey on December 3, 2015, updated April 2, 2018. A paleontological survey was not conducted because the extensive urbanization of the Project area precluded an effective survey of native soil conditions.
The results of the paleontological records search for Merritt sand yielded Pleistocene-age fossils from Oak Knoll Hospital (Locality ID V5834) several miles southeast of the Project site. Fossils of turtles, birds, voles, horses, frogs, newts, deer, and bony fish have been discovered at this site (Table 4). Additionally, the Colma Formation on the San Francisco Peninsula, which is age- equivalent to Merritt sand and portions of which are correlated with Merritt sand, has also generated significant paleontological resources. In 1993, Rodda and Baghai reported bones and teeth of mammoths and bison, and a bone from a ground sloth was discovered in shallow well in the same vicinity (Winslow, 1876; Stock, 1925; Hay, 1927). In the Potrero District of San Francisco, these sand deposits have produced marine megafossils, marine and nonmarine diatoms, and sponge spicules from interbeds in the sand or from the sand directly (Schlocker, 1974). Fossil mollusk shell fragments were observed in a core from a depth of approximately 30 feet in a geotechnical bore hole, also in the Potrero District of San Francisco (Fisk 2004). Excavations in Colma Formation for the construction of the Broadway Tunnel in San Francisco uncovered a fossilized tree, likely a juniper or red cedar, and radiocarbon dating placed the tree’s age at greater than 30,000 years (Schlocker, 1974). Savage (1951) listed vertebrate fossil localities in the San Francisco Bay region to which he assigned an “undifferentiated Pleistocene” age; a portion of these fossils may be attributable to Merritt sand. Therefore, Merritt sand, age-equivalent sand deposits in the San Francisco Bay area, such as Colma Formation, have produced significant paleontological resources at numerous localities, including the Project vicinity.
Other geologic units within the Project limits, including artificial fills and Holocene deposits (surficial deposits, Bay mud, undivided Holocene [USGS, 2000], including surficial soils), are not likely to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. Artificial fill contains no in- situ fossils, although fossils have been recorded from artificial fill in the San Francisco Bay area. The source of artificial fill often includes sediment from older fossil-bearing formations, including Merritt sand, so it is possible that fossils exist in artificial fills. However, such fossils would have been transported from their original source and would be lacking stratigraphic context and provenance, reducing their scientific significance.
March 2020 31 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Table 4. Results of Paleontological Records Search from Oak Knoll Hospital Specimen ID Specimen No. Class Genus Epoch V57817 57817 Reptilia Clemmys Pleistocene V57818 57818 Aves Pleistocene V57819 57819 Aves Pleistocene V57820 57820 Aves Pleistocene V57821 57821 Aves Pleistocene V57822 57822 Reptilia Clemmys Pleistocene V58204 58204 Mammalia Microtus Pleistocene V58208 58208 Mammalia Pleistocene V58209 58209 Aves Pleistocene V67529 67529 Mammalia Equus Pleistocene V77172 77172 Aves Pleistocene V77446 77446 Osteichthyes Pleistocene V77447 77447 Amphibia Rana Pleistocene V77448 77448 Amphibia Taricha Pleistocene V77449 77449 Reptilia Pleistocene V77450 77450 Mammalia Microtus Pleistocene V77451 77451 Mammalia Odocoileus Pleistocene V77452 77452 Aves Pleistocene V77453 77453 Amphibia Taricha Pleistocene V77454 77454 Osteichthyes Orthodon Pleistocene V77455 77455 Reptilia Pleistocene V78248 78248 Aves Pleistocene V112742 112742 Osteichthyes Pleistocene V112743 112743 Osteichthyes Pleistocene V113312 113312 Osteichthyes Archoplites Pleistocene V113313 113313 Osteichthyes Archoplites Pleistocene
March 2020 32 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
5 PALEONTOLOGICAL POTENTIAL/SENSITIVITY Caltrans utilizes a tripartite scale to characterize paleontological sensitivity consisting of no potential, low potential, and high potential (Caltrans 2012). A multilevel ranking system was developed by professional resource managers as a more practical tool, the Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) system (BLM 2007) which has a multi-level scale based on demonstrated yield of fossils. The PFYC system provides additional guidance regarding assessment and management for different fossil yield rankings and is therefore used here to complement the Caltrans scale.
Occurrences of fossil resources are closely tied to the geologic units (e.g., formations or members) that contain them. The probability for finding significant fossils in a project area can be broadly predicted from previous records of fossils recovered from the geologic units present in and/or adjacent to the study area.
Using the PFYC system, geologic units are classified based on the relative abundance of vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils and their sensitivity to adverse impacts. This ranking is not designed to be applied to specific paleontological localities or small areas within units. Although significant localities may occasionally occur in a geologic unit, a few widely scattered important fossils or localities do not necessarily indicate a higher PFYC value; instead, the relative abundance of localities is intended to be the major determinant for the value assignment. Geological setting and fossil localities were considered in determining paleontological sensitivity according to PFYC criteria.
Paleontological sensitivities by geologic unit are summarized in Table 5.
March 2020 33 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Table 5. Paleontological Sensitivity Caltrans Sensitivity Designation Characteristics of Geologic Units in this Category High Potential (High Sensitivity) This category consists of rock units known to contain Merritt sand (Holocene significant vertebrate, invertebrate, or plant fossils and Pleistocene) anywhere within their geographic extent, including sedimentary rock units that are suitable for the preservation of fossils, as well as some volcanic and low-grade metamorphic rock units. This category includes rock units with the potential to contain: abundant vertebrate fossils; a few significant vertebrate, invertebrate, or plant fossils that may provide new and significant taxonomic, phylogenetic, ecological, and/or stratigraphic data; areas that may contain datable organic remains older than recent; areas that may contain unique new vertebrate deposits, traces, and/or trackways; and fossiliferous deposits with very limited geographic extent or an uncommon origin (e.g., tar pits and cave deposits). Low Potential (Low Sensitivity) This category includes sedimentary rock units None that are potentially fossiliferous, but have not yielded significant fossils in the past; have not yet yielded fossils, but have the potential to contain fossil remains; or contain common and/or widespread invertebrate fossils of species whose taxonomy, phylogeny, and ecology are well understood. No Potential (No Sensitivity) This category includes rock units of intrusive igneous Artificial fill origin, most extrusive igneous rocks, and moderate- Surficial soils to high-grade metamorphic rocks. Bay mud Note: sedimentary rocks expected to contain vertebrate fossils are considered highly sensitive, because vertebrates are generally rare and found in more localized strata.
March 2020 34 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
6 IMPACT ANALYSIS 6.1 Baseline Considerations Merritt sand and equivalents such as Colma formation have produced significant fossils at numerous localities in the San Francisco Bay Area, including in geotechnical boreholes at a site several miles southeast of the Project. The presence of these fossil sites suggests that these sediments have high potential to produce additional similar fossil remains during deep excavations at the current proposed Project site. Therefore, they possess high sensitivity and additional identifiable fossil remains recovered from these sediments during Project construction could be significant and scientifically important. The Caltrans guidance (2012) for evaluating the sensitivity of paleontological resources states:
“Regardless of the format used by a paleontologist to rank formations, the importance of any rock unit must be explicitly stated in terms of specific fossils known or suspected to be present (and if the latter, why such fossils are suspected), and why these fossils are of paleontological importance. Some land-managing agencies may require the use of specific guidelines to assess significance whereas others may defer to the expertise of local paleontologists and provide little guidance. Because each situation may differ, it is important that there is a clear understanding between Project staff (Caltrans or local), consultants, and personnel from other agencies as to exactly what criteria will be used to assess the significance of rock units affected by a particular project.
As a practical matter, no consideration is generally afforded paleontological sites for which scientific importance cannot be demonstrated. If a paleontological resource assessment results in a determination that the site is insignificant or of low sensitivity, this conclusion should be documented in a Paleontological Evaluation Report (PER) and in the project’s environmental document in order to demonstrate compliance with applicable statutory requirements.
If a paleontological resource is determined to be significant, of high sensitivity, or of scientific importance, and the project impacts it, a mitigation program must be developed and implemented. Mitigation can be initiated prior to, and/or during, construction. The latter is more common for Caltrans projects. It should be pointed out, however, that mitigating during construction poses a greater risk of construction delays. Mitigation is an eligible federal project cost, in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 305, only if acceptable significance documentation is submitted. Thus, coordination between Caltrans, FHWA, and all jurisdictional agencies is critical to formally establishing the significance of a resource.” 6.2 Definition of Significance for Paleontological Resources The SVP (2010) defines significant paleontological resources as “fossils and fossiliferous deposits, here defined as consisting of identifiable vertebrate fossils, large or small, uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils, and other data that provide taphonomic, taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, stratigraphic, and/or biochronologic information. Paleontological resources are considered to be older than recorded human history and/or older than middle Holocene (i.e., older than about 5,000 radiocarbon years).” According to the SVP’s definition, fossils may be considered to be significant if one or more of the following criteria apply:
March 2020 35 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
1. The fossils provide information on the evolutionary relationships and developmental trends among organisms, living or extinct; 2. The fossils provide data useful in determining the age(s) of the rock unit or sedimentary stratum, including data important in determining the depositional history of the region and the timing of geologic events therein; 3. The fossils provide data regarding the development of biological communities or interaction between paleobotanical and paleozoological biotas; 4. The fossils demonstrate unusual or spectacular circumstances in the history of life; 5. The fossils are in short supply and/or in danger of being depleted or destroyed by the elements, vandalism, or commercial exploitation, and are not found in other geographic locations. 6.3 Significance Evaluation As stated previously, the Merritt sand and age-equivalent sand deposits in the San Francisco Bay area have produced significant fossils at numerous localities, including the Project vicinity. Thus, fossil remains recovered during construction of the proposed Project could also be significant and scientifically important. However, the potential to impact paleontological resources depends on the depths of proposed earthwork and excavations, previous site disturbances, and the presence of non-fossiliferous sediment. Table 6 lists all of the Project’s proposed excavations, including the depth and impacted geologic unit, while Figure 7 and Figure 8 depict the locations of the proposed retaining walls in Oakland.
March 2020 36 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Table 6. Summary of Project Excavations Depth of Excavation Project Feature Geologic Unit (feet bgs) Oakland Retaining wall 1 36 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Retaining wall 2 13 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Retaining wall 3 28 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Retaining wall 4 2 Artificial fill Retaining wall 4a 20 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Retaining wall 4b 20 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Retaining wall 5 44 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Retaining wall 6 32 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Retaining wall 7 6 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Retaining wall 8L 32 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Retaining wall 8R 6 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Retaining wall 9 12 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Retaining wall 10 6 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Bike path 1 Artificial fill Roadway 2.5 Artificial fill New bents for WB I-980 Jackson 50 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Street off-ramp Utility trenching 6 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Alameda Bike path 1 Artificial fill Roadway 2.5 Artificial fill Overhead sign foundation 20 Artificial fill, Bay mud
March 2020 37 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Figure 7. Proposed Retaining Walls in Oakland West of Oak Street
March 2020 38 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Figure 8. Proposed Retaining Walls in Oakland East of Oak Street
March 2020 39 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
The top of many excavations in Oakland will be within previously disturbed artificial fill in existing embankments along I-880 and underlying existing paved surfaces. However, Merritt sand is located directly beneath these artificial fills, often quite close to the ground surface. It is likely that the upper layers of Merritt sand have been previously disturbed by historic urban development spanning more than 100 years as well as previous excavations associated with I-880 and the Posey Tube. Nevertheless, there is potential for deeper excavations to encounter relatively undisturbed Merritt sand. Within Alameda, all excavations are only expected to encounter artificial fills and Bay mud. Because there is potential to encounter undisturbed fossiliferous sediment in Project excavations for retaining walls, bents for the WB I-980 Jackson Street Off-ramp, and utility trenching in Oakland, any fossil remains recovered from these excavations may be significant and scientifically important.
A PMP is recommended for the proposed Project because Merritt sand has been reported to contain significant paleontological resources, and any significant paleontological resources that may exist in the subsurface within the Project limits have the potential to be disturbed by Project-related excavations. Recommendations for the specific contents of the PMP are described in Section 7.
March 2020 40 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
7 SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A PALEONTOLOGICAL MITIGATION PLAN This PIR/PER recommends a PMP following the Caltrans SER Guidelines. The following section discusses conditions and decision criteria for how and when fieldwork (monitoring and recovery) would achieve the goals of the PMP. 7.1 Summary The PMP emphasizes construction worker training with an on-call monitoring program. Prior to construction, work crews and equipment operators would be trained to identify paleontological resources by a Qualified Paleontologist. If trained construction worker crews and equipment operators discover potential paleontological resources during excavations, an on-call Paleontological Monitor would be immediately notified. The Paleontological Monitor would notify and consult with the Qualified Paleontologist. If the fossils are evaluated to be significant paleontological resources by the Qualified Paleontologist in consultation with Caltrans and museum repositories or local experts, as applicable, salvage and recovery operations would be performed. Significant paleontological resources would be recovered and donated to a museum or repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology at the University of California Berkeley. 7.2 Qualified Paleontologist and Paleontological Monitor The Qualified Paleontologist must have a graduate degree in paleontology, geology, or related field with demonstrated experience in the vertebrate, invertebrate, or botanical paleontology of California; at least one year of full-time professional experience, or equivalent specialized training in paleontological research, administration, or management; at least four months of supervised field and analytic experience in general North American paleontology; and demonstrated ability to carry research to completion.
A Paleontological Monitor is an individual who has demonstrated experience in the collection and salvage of fossil materials. An undergraduate degree in geology or paleontology is preferable, but is less important than documented experience performing paleontological monitoring and mitigation. The Paleontological Monitor must work under the direction of the Qualified Paleontologist. 7.3 Worker Training and On-call Paleontological Monitoring The identification of paleontological resources within Project excavations would be performed primarily by a trained construction work crew. Prior to any ground disturbances, a Qualified Paleontologist would inform the worker crew about the geologic formations that may be
March 2020 41 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California encountered during excavations, including the types of material associated with each of those formations (i.e., fill, clay, sand, etc.). The Qualified Paleontologist would document the training in a worker training log. An example worker training log is provided in Appendix B.
If significant fossils are discovered during excavations, the trained work crew would immediately notify the Resident Engineer, who has the authority to stop all work in the immediate vicinity of the discovery/excavation. The Resident Engineer would immediately notify an on-call Paleontological Monitor, who would evaluate the discovery and consult with the Qualified Paleontologist, Caltrans, museum repositories, and local experts, as applicable, to determine if salvage, recovery, and curation is required. For significant paleontological resources, a recovery program would be initiated that would follow the general steps outlined in Section 7.3 with refinements as needed based on the type and nature of the discovery.
This approach to paleontological monitoring was successful when, in 2012, a mammoth tooth was found by trained work crews in an in-situ Merritt sand outcrop at shallow depth during the construction of a project in San Francisco. The discovery shut down work until the Qualified Paleontologist could arrive on site, identify the Columbian Mammoth, and get crews back to work within the hour (ABC News, 2012). This was a successful approach to paleontological mitigation because the work crews only spotted the tooth after a pre-construction worker training session.
All Project-related excavations, including the depth, impacted geologic unit, and paleontological monitoring requirements, are summarized in Table 7. In Oakland, most excavations are anticipated to encounter Merritt sand while all excavations in Alameda are anticipated to be entirely within artificial fills and Bay mud. Therefore, paleontological monitoring is required for excavations in Oakland but not for excavations in Alameda.
March 2020 42 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Table 7. Summary of Paleontological Monitoring Requirements Depth of Monitoring Project Feature Excavation Geologic Unit Required (Yes/No) (feet) Oakland Retaining wall 1 36 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Yes Retaining wall 2 13 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Yes Retaining wall 3 28 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Yes Retaining wall 4 2 Artificial fill No Retaining wall 4a 20 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Yes Retaining wall 4b 20 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Yes Retaining wall 5 44 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Yes Retaining wall 6 32 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Yes Retaining wall 7 6 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Yes Retaining wall 8L 32 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Yes Retaining wall 8R 6 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Yes Retaining wall 9 12 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Yes Retaining wall 10 4 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Yes Bike path 1 Artificial fill No Roadway 2.5 Artificial fill No New bents and abutments for WB 50 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Yes I-980 Jackson Street off-ramp Utility trenching 6 Artificial fill, Merritt sand Yes Alameda Bike path 1 Artificial fill No Roadway 2.5 Artificial fill No Overhead sign 20 Artificial fill, Bay mud No foundation
7.4 Salvage and Recovery Operations Salvage and recovery methods would vary to some degree depending on the types of fossils discovered (e.g., invertebrate macrofossils, invertebrate microfossils, vertebrate macrofossils, vertebrate microfossils, or plant fossils). Many fossil specimens discovered during excavation monitoring are readily visible to the naked eye and large enough to be easily recognized and removed. Upon discovery of such macrofossils, the Paleontological Monitor would temporarily flag the discovery site as an Environmentally Sensitive Area until salvage and recovery operations are complete. Actual recovery of unearthed macrofossils can involve several techniques including immediate collection, hand quarrying, plaster-jacketing, and/or large-scale quarrying. The
March 2020 43 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
immediate collection technique would be used when there is a high level of construction activity in the vicinity of the discovery area and immediate action is required to remove an isolated specimen so as not to slow construction progress. This salvage method involves exploratory probing around a partially exposed fossil specimen to determine its dimensions, the application of consolidants (e.g., Acryloid, Butvar, or Vinac) to stabilize any damaged or weakened areas of the fossil, and removal of the specimen in a block of matrix.
Hand quarrying typically consists of site specific “mining” of fossil-rich sedimentary rock layers without establishment of a geographic grid framework. Fragile fossils are stabilized as described above. Particularly large vertebrate fossils require special handling because of their size and/or fragility and are typically recovered in a process called plaster-jacketing. The process begins by isolating a partially exposed specimen from the temporary exposure in a matrix-supported sedimentary pedestal. The pedestal is then slightly undercut at its base to form an overhanging lip, and a layer of damp newsprint or tissue paper is placed on the upper surface of the block.
Strips of burlap fabric are then soaked in a mixture of Plaster-of-Paris and laid across the matrix block to dry. Depending upon the volume of the block, one, two, or more layers of plaster- soaked burlap strips are formed on the block. Especially large blocks (over 2 ft in length) are reinforced with wooden or metal splints. Once the plaster hardens, the supporting pedestal is undercut and the block turned over. Hand tools are then used to remove any excess matrix from the bottom of the block and a plaster and burlap cap constructed on the inverted bottom of the block using the same methods described above. When all layers of plaster are dry and hard, the completed plaster "jacket" is then labeled with a field number and north arrow and removed from the field.
The discovery of a concentration of large vertebrate fossils would require more time for recovery. In such cases, the Qualified Paleontologist would request an immediate halt of construction activities in the area of the fossil discovery and contact the appropriate Caltrans representative. Together, the Project Paleontologist and Caltrans representative would evaluate the discovery and take action to protect or remove the resource within the shortest period of time possible.
Many significant vertebrate fossils (e.g., small mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, or fish remains) often are too small to be readily visible in the field, but they are nonetheless significant and worthy of attention. The potential discovery of microvertebrate sites is anticipated for this Project and can include sites that produce remains of large vertebrate fossils from fine-grained deposits, sites with an obvious concentration of small vertebrate fossil remains, and sites that, based on lithology alone (e.g., paleosols), appear to have a potential for producing small vertebrate fossil remains.
March 2020 44 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Microvertebrate sites would be sampled at reasonable stratigraphic intervals (based on overall stratigraphic thickness) and should consist of either standard hand samples or by collecting bulk quantities of sedimentary matrix. An adequate bulk sample comprises approximately 12 cubic meters (6,000 pounds or 2,500 kilograms) of matrix for each formation, or as determined by the Project Paleontologist (SVP 1995). The uniqueness of the recovered fossils may dictate salvage of larger amounts. However, conditions in the field may make it impossible to recover such large samples. To avoid construction delays, bulk matrix samples would be transported to an offsite location for processing as described below.
The discovery of fossil plants is possible along the proposed Project alignment, possibly in clayey units that may be interbedded with Merritt sand. Paleobotanical specimens typically occur in fine- grained, laminated strata (e.g., shale) and would require special recovery techniques. Large blocks (>2 cubic feet) of sedimentary rock are hand quarried from the temporary outcrop and then split along bedding plains to reveal compressed fossil plant material (e.g., leaves, stems, and flowers).
Individual slabs are then wrapped in newsprint to minimize destructive desiccation of the fossils. Specimens that are delaminating or flaking badly may need to be coated with special consolidants (e.g., Vinac or Butvar).
Oriented matrix samples may be collected for paleomagnetic analysis. Such sampling would likely only be necessary in instances where long, continuous sections of stratified rocks produce fossils from several different stratigraphic horizons or where vertebrate fossils are being collected in stratigraphic sections lacking in biochronologically useful microfossils. Likewise, it may be necessary to collect stratigraphically positioned samples of fine matrices for pollen analysis to aid in addressing questions of geologic age, depositional environment, or paleoecology.
All fossil discoveries would also include the collection of stratigraphic data to delimit the nature of the fossil-bearing sedimentary rock unit, determine its areal distribution and depositional contacts, record any evidence of structural deformation, generate lithologic descriptions of fossil- bearing strata, determine stratigraphic relationships (bedding type, thickness, and contacts), and topographic position, measure stratigraphic sections, and describe taphonomic details.
7.4.1 Macrofossils If invertebrate macrofossils are uncovered during excavation operations, a representative sample of well-preserved and identifiable remains would be recovered. Poorly preserved and/or unidentifiable remains may not be recovered, at the discretion of the Project Paleontologist and/or
March 2020 45 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Paleontological Monitor. If unidentifiable remains are recovered, further processing would only be done if dictated by the research design for that particular geologic formation. A research design is an outline of research methods which differs depending on fossil type. If fossils are microscopic, such as algae, foraminiferans, or radiolarians, the research design would involve microscope work and the necessary laboratory items required for that style of research.
When vertebrate macrofossils are uncovered during excavation operations, all well-preserved and identifiable remains would be recovered. Poorly preserved and/or unidentifiable remains may not be recovered, at the discretion of the Project Paleontologist and/or Paleontological Monitor. If unidentifiable remains are recovered, further processing would only be done if directed by the research design for that particular geologic formation.
When plant macrofossils are uncovered during excavation operations, a representative sample of well-preserved and identifiable remains would be recovered. Poorly preserved and/or unidentifiable remains may not be recovered, at the discretion of the Project Paleontologist and/or Paleontological Monitor. If unidentifiable remains are recovered, further processing would only be done if directed by the research design for that particular geologic formation.
7.4.2 Microfossils If marine microfossils are discovered or their presence is suspected based on site conditions during excavation operations, it may be necessary to collect stratigraphically-controlled matrix samples as directed by the research design for that particular geologic formation. Such samples should be taken at reasonable stratigraphic intervals (based on overall stratigraphic thickness) and should consist of standard hand samples. If initial processing of such samples shows them to be barren or sparsely fossiliferous, the Project Paleontologist may authorize suspension of further processing of the sample, and the sample may be discarded.
When vertebrate microfossils are discovered (or their presence suspected based on site conditions) during excavation operations, it may be necessary to collect stratigraphically- controlled bulk matrix samples (up to 6,000 pounds) for processing. The decision to collect such samples would be made if relatively well-preserved vertebrate microfossils are observed in hand samples in the field or if processing of a 100-pound test sample yields more than five identifiable microvertebrate fossils.
March 2020 46 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
If during processing of a bulk matrix sample, too few identifiable microvertebrate fossils are recovered, the Project Paleontologist may suspend further processing of the sample and the sample may be discarded. The following criteria must be met to suspend sample processing:
No or few identifiable microvertebrate fossils are recovered after processing 200 pounds. Recovered fossils are too poorly preserved to be identified. Recovered fossils are not taxonomically, biochronologically, or paleoenvironmentally diagnostic.
Any unidentifiable microvertebrate fossils salvaged during sample processing would not receive further treatment.
7.4.3 Laboratory Efforts Fossil remains collected during salvage and recovery operations would be cleaned, repaired, and/or screenwashed as described below. Preparation of fossil specimens would involve removal of extraneous and concealing sedimentary matrix from specimens using various mechanical methods including pneumatic air scribes, micro sandblasters, and simple hand tools (hammers, chisels, X- acto knives, brushes, dental picks, and pin vises). Fossil preparation would also involve consolidation of weak or porous specimens by the application of specialized media including polyvinyl acetate resins (e.g., Vinac), acrylic resins (e.g., Acryloid), or polyvinyl butyral resins (e.g., Butvar).
Repair of broken/damaged specimens would require the use of various adhesives including cyanoacrylate glues (e.g., Zap) polyvinyl acetate emulsions (e.g., Elmer’s glue), and polyvinyl butyral resins (e.g., Butvar). Recovery of microvertebrate fossils would be accomplished by screenwashing bulk samples of fossil-bearing sedimentary matrix. The process begins by breaking large blocks into 2-3 centimeter cubes to facilitate air-drying of the matrix. Once dry, the matrix is placed into water-filled 5 gallon plastic buckets to soak for no less than 15 minutes with stirring. The slurry is then poured onto nested 20 mesh (0.84 millimeter openings) and 30 mesh (0.59 millimeter openings) stainless steel screens placed in water-filled troughs. Manual agitation of the screens forces the fine clays and silts through the mesh and concentrates the coarser sand and fossil material on the screens. The screens are then placed at a tilt facing the sun to dry. Once dry, the coarse concentrate is transferred into plastic sample bags and labeled with all pertinent site locality data. Screenwashed concentrates can be further concentrated by the use of heavy liquids (e.g., zinc bromide and/or tetrabromoethane) to concentrate particles of equal density. Generally, fossil bones and teeth sink along with heavy mineral grains (e.g., magnetite) while lighter quartz and feldspar
March 2020 47 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California mineral grains float. This separation process produces a very rich concentration of fossil remains, typically isolated teeth of small mammals (e.g., rodents).
Following preparation of salvaged fossil remains the specimens would be sorted/picked, identified, and catalogued as described below:
1. Sorting/picking – Fossils require sorting/picking to group together specimens of the same taxon (e.g., species and/or genus). 2. Identification – Once sorted, individual taxon lots would then be identified to the lowest taxonomic level practical (e.g., family, genus, and/or species). 3. Cataloguing – Sorted and identified specimens are then assigned unique specimen catalogue numbers and entered into an electronic catalogue database. A specimen number may represent a single fossil specimen or a batch of specimens belonging to a single species. Catalogue numbers are written on individual specimens using India ink on a patch of white acrylic paint. Curation also involves placement of taxon lots into archival specimen trays with labels containing relevant curatorial information. 4. Locality data – Formal descriptions of fossil collecting locality records, including geographic, geologic, taphonomic, and collecting data, need to be written and stored electronically with the specimen catalogue data.
Where appropriate, specimens shall be analyzed by stratigraphic occurrence, and by size, taxa, or taphonomic conditions. The results shall be presented in a faunal list, a stratigraphic distribution of taxa, or evolutionary, ecological, or depositional deductions. 7.5 Donation to Repository or Museum Adequate storage in a recognized repository institution for the salvaged or recovered specimens is an essential goal of the PMP. Specimens shall be cataloged and a complete list shall be prepared of specimens introduced into the collections or a repository by the curator of the museum or university. Adequate storage includes curation of individual specimens into the collection of a recognized, nonprofit paleontological specimen repository with a permanent curator, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology at University of California Berkeley. A complete set of field notes, geologic maps, and stratigraphic sections must accompany the fossil collections. An example letter donating salvaged paleontological resources to an institution is provided in Appendix A.
March 2020 48 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
7.6 Paleontological Mitigation Report A final Paleontological Mitigation Report (PMR) shall be prepared by the Project Paleontologist documenting implementation of the approved PMP. The report would adhere to Caltrans SER guidelines and would include, at a minimum, discussions of Project impacts, regulatory requirements, purpose of mitigation, regional geologic context, Project stratigraphy, stratigraphic and geographic distribution of paleontological resources, field and laboratory methods and procedures, fossil recovery, and paleontological significance. The report would also include geological cross sections and stratigraphic sections depicting fossil discovery localities and excavated rock units; maps showing the Project location and vicinity, as well as Project geology and location of discovered fossil localities; appropriate photographs or illustrations depicting monitoring conditions, field context of collecting localities, quarry maps, and laboratory activities; and appendices including an itemized listing of catalogued fossil specimens, complete descriptions of all fossil collecting localities, an explanation of report acronyms and terms, and a signed curation agreement with an approved paleontological repository.
March 2020 49 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
March 2020 50 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
8 REFERENCES ABC News, 2012, “San Francisco Construction Crew Unearths Wooly Mammoth Tooth” (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?id=8808641); article dated September 12, 2012.
Atwater, B. F., Hedel, C.W., and Helley, E.J., 1977. Late Quaternary depositional history, Holocene sea-level changes, and vertical crust movement, southern San Francisco Bay, California. U. S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 1014. 15 pp.
Atwater, B.F., 1979, Ancient Processes at the Site of Southern San Francisco Bay: Movement of the Crust and Changes in Sea Level; in: San Francisco Bay: the Urbanized Estuary, 58th meeting of the Pacific Division American Association for the Advancement of Science on June 12-16, 1977, edited by Conomos, T. J., Leviton, A.E., and Berson, M., p 31-45.
Axelrod, D. I., 1971, Fossil plants from the San Francisco Bay Region: p. 74-86 in Lipps, J. H. and Moores, E. M. (editors), Geologic guide to the northern Coast Ranges, Point Reyes region, CA, Annual field trip guidebook of the Geological Society of Sacramento, Sacramento, CA, 135 p.
Borcherdt, R.D. and Gibbs, J.F., 1976, Effects of Local Geological Conditions in the San Francisco Bay Region On Ground Motions and the Intensities of the 1906 Earthquake: Bull Seis. Soc. Am. v. 66, pp. 467-500.
California Department of Transportation, 2012, California Department of Transportation, Standard Environmental Reference, Volume 1, Chapter 8, Paleontology:
California Department of Transportation. 2008. Standard Environmental Reference. Environmental Handbook, Volume I: Guidance for Compliance. Chapter 8, “Paleontology.” Available:
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2002, California Geomorphic Provinces. Note 36. Sacramento, CA.
Fisk, L. H., 2004. Paleontological Resources. Subsection 8.16 in San Francisco Electric Reliability Project Application for Certification. Prepared by CH2H HILL. Submitted to
March 2020 51 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
the California Energy Commission on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco (04-AFC-1).
Grant, U.S., IV, and Gale, H.R., 1931, Catalogue of the marine Pliocene and Pleistocene Mollusca of California: San Diego Society of Natural History, Memoir 1, 1036 p. Hay, O. P. 1927. The Pleistocene of the Western Region of North America and Its Vertebrate Animals. Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication. 322(B), 346 p.
Helley, E. J., Lajoie, K. R., Spangle, W. E., and Blair, M. L. 1979. Flatland Deposits of the San Francisco Bay Region, California — Their Geology and Engineering Properties, and Their Importance to Comprehensive Planning. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 943. 88 p.
Hertlein, L.G., 1951, Invertebrate Fossils and Fossil Localities in the San Francisco Bay Region. In: Geologic Guidebook of the San Francisco Bay Counties, Calif. Div. Mines Geol. Bull. 154,392 pp.
Parkman, E.B., 2002, Evidence of Rancholabrean Rubbing Rocks on California’s North Coast, Vol. 36, No. 4, December 2002, pp. 26-31.
Rodda, P. U., and Baghai, N. 1993. Late Pleistocene Vertebrates from Downtown San Francisco, California. Journal of Paleontology. Vol. 67, P. 1,058-1,063.
Rogers, J.D., and S.H. Figuers. 1991. Final Report to National Science Foundation Engineering Geologic Site Characterization of The Greater Oakland-Alameda Area Alameda and San Francisco Counties, California.
Savage, D.E., 1951, Late Cenozoic vertebrates of the San Francisco Bay region, University of California Publications, Bulletin of the Department of Geological Sciences 28:215-314
March 2020 52 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Schlocker, J., Bonilla, M. G., and Radbruch, D. H. 1958. Geology of the San Francisco North Quadrangle, California. U. S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map I-272, scale 1:24,000.
Schlocker, J. 1974, Geology of the San Francisco North Quadrangle, California. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 782, 109 p., scale 1:24,000.
Scott, W.B., 1913, A history of land mammal in the Western Hemisphere, the Macmillian Company, New York, 693 p.
Sloan, D., 1981, Ecostratigraphic Study of Sangamon Sediments Beneath Central San Francisco Bay; unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Department of Paleontology, 315 pp.
Sloan, D., 1990, The Yerba Buena Mud: Record of the Last Interglacial Predecessor of San Francisco Bay, California: Geol. Soc. Amer., vol. 104, p. 716-727.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP), 1995, Assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts to nonrenewable paleontological resources -- standard guidelines: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin, no. 163, p. 22-27.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP), 1996, Conditions of receivership for paleontological salvage collections: Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin, no. 166, p. 31-32.
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee (SVP), 2010, Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Last revised 2010. Available:
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP), 2012, North American Land-Mammal Ages. Last revised unknown. Available:
Stock, C. 1925. Cenozoic Gravigrade Edentates of Western North America with Special Reference to the Pleistocene Megalonychinae and Mylodontidae of Rancho La Brea. Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication. 331, 206 p.
March 2020 53 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Trask, P. D., and Rolston, J. W., 1951, Engineering Geology of the San Francisco Bay, California. Geological Society of America Bulletin. Vol. 62, No. 9. pp. 1,079-1,109.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2015. South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Phase I Study, Appendix G, Geotechnical Engineering.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2000. Geologic map and map database of the Oakland metropolitan area, Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties, California: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies MF–2342, scale 1:50,000, compiled by Graymer, R. (Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/mf/2000/2342/.)
Winslow, C. F. 1876. [Untitled communication]: Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences. Vol. 6, p. 141.
March 2020 54 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Appendix A Proposed Letter Donating Salvaged Fossils to an Appropriate Museum Repository
March 2020 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
March 2020 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Date
Dr. Mark Goodwin, PhD Collections Manager for Vertebrate Paleontology University of California Museum of Paleontology University of California at Berkeley 1101 Valley Life Sciences Building Berkeley, CA 94720
Re: Gift of Fossil Collections & Samples from Oakland Alameda Access Project
Dear Dr. Goodwin: Caltrans, in its on-going contract with the University of California contract to curate significant fossils from Caltrans projects, hereby irrevocably and unconditionally donates, gives, and assigns to the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) absolute and unconditional ownership of fossils collected during excavations for Caltrans’s “Oakland Alameda Access Project”.
It is my understanding that you are already in receipt of a copy of the project Final Report authored by the Supervising Paleontologist (NAME). This report describes the fossil collection to which this letter refers and will suffice as a legal description of the property we are herewith donating.
This gift includes without limitation full powers of management, access, display, conservation, and disposition at UCMP’s sole discretion and in exercise of its general purpose, together with all other rights associated with this property to which we are hereby assigning UCMP full title. To the best of our belief, the subject of this gift is free and clear of all encumbrances and restrictions.
We request that the fossils being donated with this letter be identified in UCMP records and, if put on display, to the public as a gift of Caltrans.
Respectfully,
(Name here;) On behalf of Caltrans
March 2020 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
March 2020 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Appendix B Worker Training Log
March 2020 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
March 2020 Paleontological Identification/Evaluation Report 04-ALA-880 PM 30.47/31.61 and Paleontological Mitigation Plan 04-ALA-260 PM R0.78/R1.90 Oakland Alameda Access Project EA 04-0G360 Alameda County, California
Oakland Alameda Access Project PALEONTOLOGICAL TRAINING ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM
I hereby acknowledge that I attended paleontological training regarding the scientific importance of fossil remains; the potential for fossil remains being uncovered and/or disturbed by project- related earth moving; where such remains are most likely to be encountered during earth moving; and procedures to be employed if fossil remains are discovered during excavations. I understand the requirements to protect fossils during project construction and agree to follow the procedures outlined in the paleontological training. I understand that failure to follow these procedures may result in disciplinary action including dismissal from the job site, fines, and imprisonment.
Name (please print) Signature Date
Paleontologist providing the paleontological training:
______Date: ______
March 2020