I ,: ,:,:,..,,.i E 1,'; _..r "/lj_ i,l/1,., I I CharlesP. Howard I TerminalExtensron ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT REPORT t Port of Oakland I I rll I Draft EIR I
I JUNE 1994 I I I PREPAREDBY BRADY AND ASSOCIATES,INC. I PLANNERSAND T-ANDSCAPEARCHITECTS IN ASSOCIATIONW]TH DONALD BALLANTI DOWLING ASSOCIAIES I ENTRIX ILLINGWORTH AND RODKIN MOFFATANDNICHOL TJRIBEAND ASSOCIATES I wooDRurrMmoR I I l ! t t I I I I I I I I I T I I l I I I I I Charles P. Howard Terminal Extension t Environmental Impact Report TABLE OF CONTENTS I
I INTRODUCTION A Preface B. ProposedAction I C. use of the EIR D. EIR Scope:Sigrificant Issues and Concerns E. .ReportOrganization I F. OtherReports G. RelatedActions Assessed in Other I EnvironmentalDocuments II. SI,JMMARY OF FINDINGS
I PROJECTDESCRIPTION A. Location 23 B. Purposeof the Report 23 I C. ProposedProject /,1 I D. Background 39 IV. CONTEXT OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL PI-ANS AND POLICIES 4l I A. Backgmund 4l B, Localand Regional Planning Documents 4l t C. Summaryand Conclusions of Plansand Policies 56 V. SETTINGS,IMPACTS AND MMGATION MEASURES 6t A. HistoricResources 6l I B. Socio-Economics 83 C. Land Use 9l D. Transponation 99 I E, Noise 129 F. Air Quality 145 I G. Geologr,Seismicity and Soils 157 I I C}TARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL E iTENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I TABLE OF CONTENIS
H. HazardousMaterials 165 I I, SedimentQuality t't9 J. Water Quality 189 I K. Biologic Resources 2Al L. PublicServices and Utilities 215 M. Public Access and Recreation 221 I N. Visual Resources 233 PROJECTALTERNATIVES u9 l A AltemativesConsidered but Eliminated 249 B. No Project Altemative 251 C. Pile SupportedWharf Altemative 256 I D. Comparisonof Altemativeswith the ProposedProject 261 E EnvironmentallySuperiorAltemative zil I CEQA-REQUIREDOVERVIEW 265 A Introduction 265 B. Effects Not Found to be Significant 265 I C. Short-TermlJses Versus I-ong-Term ProductMty 266 D. SigttificantIrreversible and UnavoidableChanges 268 E. Growth-Inducinglmpacts 269 t F, CumulativeImpacts '249
ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONSCONSULTED 111 I A- Consultation 271 B. ReportPreparers 273 I REFERENCESAND LTTERATURECITED 275 I APPENDICES A. PermittedBerth MaintenanceDepths B. Initial Study T C. Transportation D. Air Quality E. HazardousMaterials T F. SedimentCharacterization. Port of Oakland 1994 I I l I I JUNE T994 CTIARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL D(TENSION I DRAFT EN!'I RONMENTAL TMPACTREPORT TABLE OF CONIENTS t List of Figures
I 1. Regional Ircation u 2. Projeci Vicinity 25 I 3. Existing Conditions at Howard Terminal 29 4. ProposedProject 31 5. ProposedFill and Dredging JJ t 6. Proposed Upland Handling Facility for Dewatering DredgedSediments 38 '7. City of OaklandGeneral Plan Designations 45 I 8. QuayWall, 1911and 1918 63 9. MunicipalPort Facilities,1910-1950s 65 10. FourteenthStreet Unit, Outer HarborTerminal, 1967 and 1981 67 t 11. GroveStreet Pier (HowardTerminal), En-D28 69 12. GroveSt. Pier and HowardTerminal, 1930s-1982 70 13. HowardTerminal Transir Shed 1994 7I I 14. OtherExtant Bay Area Port Buildingsfiom the 1920s 79 15. ExistingI-and Use 93 16. AM PeakHour Traffic Counts 102 T 17. ExistingDaily Traffic Volumes 106 18. Area setting - Highwaysand Rail Yards lZ0 19. I-andfill Sites 134 I 20, NoiseGuidelines 136 21. Noise SensitiveReceptors 142 I 22. Locatlon of Former Gas ManufacturingPlant Near Howard Terminal 169 23. I-ocationof SamplingStations at Befth 69 185 I U. CrossSections of ProposedRehandling Facility t92 '25. PublicAccess and Recreationin the Vicinity 223 26. ProposedPublic Access - ConceptualPlan and SectionA: I Shenanigan'sRestaurant )t< 27. ProposedPublic Access Section B: InfrastructurePark and View ftom Alice Street 22:t t ,9. ProposedPublic Access Section C: ConcreteLanding ))A 29. ProposedPublic Access Section D: BoulderBenches 229 30. PhotographI-ocations ?15 I 31. Viewsof the Site 237 JZ, Viewsof the Site 239
JJ. VisualSimulation of the ProposedProject u5 t 34. Pilo SupportedWharf Altemative 257 I I lll I CIIARLES P, HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables T
1. Permitand Review Requirements 2. Summaryof Impactsand Mitigation Measures 10 I 3. Volumeof DredgingFill and Pile Removal 36 4. Area of DredgingFill andWharf Removal 36 I 5. EconomicImpacts of Pon of OaklandMaritime Operations,1993 84 5. OaHandLiner ForeignTrade, July 1992- June 1993 85 7. I-evelof ServiceDefinitions, Unsignalized Intersections I (One or Two-WayStop) 104 8. ExistingIntersection l,evels of Service,AM PeakHour 104 9. RegionalHighway Facilities t07 I 10. Annual AverageDaily Truck Percentagesof Total Traffic ttz 11. AdditionalPeak Hour TruckTrips tl4 12. CombinedOrigin/Destination I-ocations of Truck Trips 116 T 13. RoutesUsed by Truck TravellingTo/From the Port of Oakland 116 14. IntersectionLevels of Service 117 15. Year 2000Cumulative Traffic Levelof ServiceAt I NearbyIntersections, Without Mitigations 126 16. Definitionsof AmusticalTerms r30 17. TypicalSound Levels Measured in the Environmentand Industry t3l t 18. City of AlamedaNoise kvels for CommercialProperties t37 19. AmbientNoise Measurement Dat4 January4, 1993 t37 20. EstimatedRange of ConstructionNoise Lwels t4l I 21. ArnbientAir QualityStandards 146 22. Exceedancesof Air PollutantStandards at Oaklan4 1988-1992 148 t 23. Construction-RelatedRegionalEmissions 151 U. PredictedWorst-Case Carbon Monoxide Concentrations 154 25. Project-RelatedRegionalEmissionIncreases 155 I 26. GeneralizedDescriptions And SomeEngineering Characteristics of GeologicMap Units in the Port of Oakland 158 27. Resultsof PaintChip Sampling 16 I 28. Asbestos-ContainingMaterials at Transi,Shed (Building E407A) 168 29. Speciesof CommonOrganisms in the OaklandInner Harbor 202 30. CumulativeImpact Analysis - Year 2000With and WithoutProject 253 I 31. CumulativeLevel of Serviceon Freeways- Year 2000With and WithoutProject 1 I B. ProposedAction I The Port of Oakland proposesto extendthe length of Berths 67 and 68 from 7,ilZlineal feet to 1,948feet to accommodatetwo large container ships simultaneously.The project would increasethe area of the Howard Terminal I wharf and yard by 48,240square feet. Berth 69, which is 558 feet long, would ceaseto function as a useableberth. The terminal storageyard would also be enlargedas part of the wharf extension,thus increasingthe yard area for I stackingand storing cargo containen, and improving truck circulation. A transit shed built in 1929would be demolishedin order to expandthe container storageyard and the berth area adjacentto the wharf would be I dredgedto 42 feel (13,600cubic yards) to create the new berth area and accommodatethe larger ships. Solid fill placedin the Inner Harbor would cover 46,500square feet of bottom. Much of this fill would derive from I deepeningberths alreadyat 42 feet to provide a neededsafety factor for the I deeper draft shipscalling on the Port. T t C}IARIES P, HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I INTRODUCTION The project site is locatedwithin a developedmaritime industrial area and just T west of the Jack l-ondon Squarecommercial and office center. Vehicular accessto the site is from Market Street and Ma in Luther King Jr. Way, off I the Embarcadero. Ship accessfrom the SanFrancisco Bay is via the Oakland Estuary,which mnsistsof the Oakland Middle and Inner Harbor. I Severalmmponents of the project would take place off-site. The Port would build a rehandlingfacility on Berth 10 in which to dewater dredgematerials before disposingof them in landfills. Wharf and piling would be removedat I the Sherexand Pacific Drydock sites to meet permit requirementsregarding Bay fill. Public accesswould be improved along a portion ofthe shoreline at Jack London Square. Outer and inner harbor berths (22, 23, ?14,30,67 and t 68) would be deepenedto provide suitablefill for the wharf and yard extension, t C, Useof the EIR This assessmentis designed to fully inform the Port Boardof Commissioners, I responsibleagencies, and the publicat largeof the proposedactions and possibleeffects of their approval.This assessmentalso examines two altemativesto the proposedproject and recommendsa setof mitigation I measuresto reduceor avoidpotentially sigrificant impacts. This documentis a ProjectEIR for the proposedHoward Terminal Extension, consistent with I CEQAGuidelines Section 15161. Table 1 showspermit requirements. The Boardof Port Commissionerswill usethis reportas part of its reviewand I approvalof the project. Other affecteddepartments and agencies,such as the SanFrancism Bay Consewation and Development Commission (BCDC), San FranciscoBay Regional Water QualityControl Board (RWOCB), the U.S. I ,ArmyCorps of Engineers(Corps), the StateOffice of HistoricPreservation, the City of Oakland,and Stateand federalresources agencies will alsouse the documentto reviewthe proposedproject and issue any necessary permits or I approvalsas Responsible Agencies. No furtherenvironmental rwiew of the HowardTerminal Extension project is contemplatedfor subsequentapprovals. Table1 showspermit and rwiew requirements.Berths 22,23.,24,30, 67 and I 68would be deepenedto a depthof 44 feet plustwo feet overdredge,to providefill for the projectand a neededsafety margin of depthfor the berths. Dredgingto a depthof 42 feetplus two feet overdredgeis coveredby the I Port'smaintenance dredging permits, as shown in AppendixA.t Maintenance l I U.S. Anny Corps of Engine€rs Permit No. 18921E35and San Francisco Bay Conservation and DeveloDmentDistdct Permit No. M92-41. I I I JUNE 1994 CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT INTRODUCTION I Table 1 PERMIT AND REVIEW REQUIREMENTS I Ag.ncy Permit Revierr San Francisco Bay For fill, dredging and Rwiew conformity to C-ooservation&nd construction in shoreline McAtcer-Petris Act and I Devel opment Commission band San Francisco Bay Plan U.s. Anny Corpsof Clean Water Act Section Envimnmgntal Ass€sstrent Engine€rs 4Of for discharging dredged for National Enviromental material,placing fill and Policy Act (NEPA) I pilings; River and Harbors Act Se€tion 10 for co$truction iD navigable l wateIs U.s. EnvitlJnmeotal Prcje€t Revisw NEPA Oversight Protection Agency Comments, l Section404 and Air Quality National Marine Fisbedes NEPA Comments Service Corps pennit proccss US. Fish and Wildlife NEPA Comments I Service Corps penoit proc€ss Califomia Departmeot of Fish and wildlife impactE, Fish and Game CEQA and Section ,104 t U^s. Coast Guard Navisatiooalhazards San Francisco Bay Regional Waterquality c€nification, Pofler-Crlogne Act, Water Quality Control NPDESpennit, Clean Water Act I Board wastedischarge Title 23 tEquirements State Ofrice of Historic US. ArDy Corps of National Historic Preservation Engineers Environmental Preservation Act t Assessment Section 106 I City of oakland Buildine and demolition CEQA review dredginginvolves recent Bay mud on top of Merritt sands.The recentBay t mud is testedfor contaminantsand disposed of accordingto the regulationsof the U.S.Army Corpsof Engineers(COE), the SanFrancism Bay Regional Water QualityControl Board (RWOCB), the U.S.Environmental Protection I Agency(EPA), andthe SanFrancism Bay Consewation and Development Commission(BCDC). The Merritt sandsare extremelyhard-packed and cohesive,and have never been exposed to man-madecontaminants.2 I Therefore,the EPA and COE havestated that Merritt sandsdo not needto be testedprior to oceandisposal. For this project,the portionof the I t U.S. Antry Corps of Engineers, l99L Envbonmental Assetsment,OaVaul Innet Harbor 3&Foot Sepoablz Element ol the OaUasd Haftq Ncvigqlion Improwmed Prcjecl. U.S. Army I Corps of Engineen, San Francisco. t I CTIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL D(TENSION JUNE 1994 RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I DRAFT EI.IVI INTRODUCTION deepeningdown to the depthsspecified in the maintenancepermits would be I tested and disposedas describedin those permits. The portion below the depths specifiedin the maintenancepermits would all be in Merritt sands; I therefore, no testingwould be required before the dredgedsands are used for fi[ in constructingthe Howard Terminal extension. In the unlikely event that holes have been dug in the Merritt sands,recent Bay muds would have filled I in these holes. If recent Bay muds are encounteredin the deep Merritt sands, they will be treated and disposedof accordingto agencyregulations, in the samemanner as specifiedin the maintenancedredging permits. I D. EIR Scope: Signilicant Issuesand Concerns I As required by CEQA Guidelines,the focusof this EIR is limited to those specificissues and concemsidentified as potentially significantby the Port of Oakland in the initial study (Appendlr B) preparedfor the project. In t addition, an issuesmemo was preparedwhich provided more technical information about the environmentalimpacts ofthe project' These issuesand concemsare identified below. l 1. Local and RegionalPlans and Policies I Policy mnsistencywith local land use plans including the Port of OaHand I-and Use Plan and the City of Oakland'sComprehensive Plan and with I regional land use plans,including the San FranciscoBay Conservationand DevelopmentCommission's (BCDC) San FranciscoBay Plan and the BCDCMetropolitan TransportationCommission\ (MTC) SeaportPlan. T 2. Historic Resources I Historic significanceof the structuresat the Howard Terminal and potential impactsdue to the transit shed'sproposed removal. I 3. Socio-Ecouomics The potential socio-economicimpacts of the proposedproject on the Port of T Oakland'sHoward Terminal, including its employmentand its effect to the local and regional economy. I 4. Land Use Compatibility of the proposedaction with existingand proposedland usesin I the vicinity. I I I JUNE 1994 CTIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E I The potential effectsto ambient noise levels related to operational noise, increasedtraffic noise,and temporary constructionphase noise. I 7. Air Quality Potential short-term and regional-scaleimpacts to air quality. Potential I impactsdue to short-term constructionemissions from demolition; heavy constructionequipment and vehicles;fugitive dust; and evaporationof hydrocarbonsfrom curing asphalt,drying paints,solvents, and adhesives. I Potential regional-scaleimpacts due to increasedoperational actMty from vehicular and truck traffic; shipsand tugboats;and trains. I E. Geologr,Seismicity and Soils I Potential geologicand seismicconstraints from active faults, liquefaction,and differential settlementdue to underlyingbay mud and proposedfill. I 9. HazardousMaterials Possiblehazardous material impactsto bay waters and sensitivereceptors (i.e., t constructionworkers, port employees,general public) from the demolition of the transit shed and removal of existingwharf piers and pilings; during the constructionphase from diesel oil and grease,construction materials, and T debris; and during operation from crane equipment,ships, and transpon trucks. I 10. SedimentQuality Potential sedimentimpacts due to proposeddredging and disposalof dredge I materials in bay waters and/or landfills. I I l I CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I INTRODUCTION I 11. Water Quality Potential effectsto water quality from the disturbanceto bay sedimentsduring I constructionand increasedrunoff from impervioussurface area after the wharf extension. I L2. Biologic Resources Potential impactsto special-statusspecies and habitatsof benthic organisms, I fish, plantlife, and wildlife due to construction,dredging and disposalof dredgematerials, t 13. Public Servicesand Utilities Effects on the provisionofwater and sewerservices, fire and police I protection, and vesselwastes as a direct result of the wharf extensionproject. 14. Public Accessand Recreation I Effects of the proposedproject on existingand planned public accessand passiveand active recreationopportunities. I 15. Visual Resources I Potential impactsto on-site and off-site views due to removal of the existing transit shed and developmentofthe expandedterminal. I E. Report Organization l The EIR is divided into the following major sections: Chaoter I - Introduction providesa summaryof the proposedaction, identifies I potentially sigrrificantissues and concems,discusses the overall purpose'use' and organizationof the EIR. t Chaoter II - Summarvprovides a summaryof the significantimpacts that would result from implementationof the proposedproject and describesthe mitigation measuresto reduceor avoid sigrificant impacts. I Chapter III - Project Description providesa descriptionof the project site location, existingmnditions, and the proposedproject. I I I I JUNE 1994 CHARLES P, HOWARD TERMTNAL EXTENSION I DRAFI ENVI RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I INTRODUCTION Chapter IV - Context Within Local and Reeional Plans and Policiesprovides descriptionsof relevant planning documentsand policies, It cites the relevant I policies and discussesthe proposedproject's consistencyand/or inmnsistencies with them. I Chapter V - EnvironmentalSettins. Impacts.and Mitigation Measures describes for each environmental technical topic the existing conditions (setting), potential environmentalimpacts and their level of significance, I mitigation measuresrecommended to mitigate identified impacts,and other recommendedmeasures to improve the project. The discussionof environmentalimpacts includes a code to mnvey information regardingthe I sigtificance of impacts, The codesand their meaningsare as foltows: (S) = a sigtificant inpact; (PS) = a potentially significantimpact, usedwhen there is not enoughinformation known such as preliminary nature of project designor I policies that have not yet been determined;(I-S) = a less than significant impact or insignificantimpact; and (B) = a beneficial impact, usedwhen the I project plans are credited for providing self mitigating measures. Chapter VI - Project Alternatives analyzesalternatives to the proposed I project, including a no project alternative,and an on-site project altemative, and determinesthe environmentallysuperior altemative other than the no I project as required by CEQA. Chaptet VII - CEOA-Reouired Overviewprovides the required analysisof the overall impactsof the proposedproject, including the relationshipbetween t short-term usesof the environmentand the enhancementof long-term productivity,sigrificant ineversible and unavoidablechanges, growth inducing impacts,and cumulativeimpacts for the environmentalissues found to have I signifi cant cumulativeeffects. Chapter VIII - Orqanizationsand PersonsConsulted identifies all federal, 1 state,or local agencies,other organizations,and private individuals consulted in the preparation of the EIR and identifies the firms and individuals that l prepared the EIR. Chapter IX - Referencesand Literature Cited identifies the reference documents,publications, and literature reviewedand cited, and where these I referencesare availablefor review. I Chaoter X - Appendicesincludes the technicatsupport documentationfor the EIRs environmentaltopics. I I I CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE T994 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I TNTRODUCTION T F. OtherReports This reportwas prepared using site visits, original dat4 and existingpublished I and unpublisheddata and information, including the TechnicalReports preparedfor the proposedproject. I G. RelatedActions Assessedin 0ther Environmental Documents I Severalactions related to the proposedproject havebeen assessedin other environmental documents, I A CategoricalE:remption for maintenancedredging in the Port area dated July 17, 1992was filed with the County Clerk of Alameda County on July 17, I 1992. The federal channel adjacent to Berth 68 will be deepened by the U.S. Army I Corps of Engineersto 42 feet as part of the Oakland Harbor Deep-Draft navigationImprovements project. A SupplementalEIR/EIS is being prepared I presentlyon the Oakland 42-foot project. Operation of the landfills that would be used for disposalof dredged I sediments,demolition/construction debris and piles is assessedin the environmentalimpact reports for the landfills. These include: . Vasco Road Sanitarylandfill Area "Y' ExpansionEIR, State I ClearinghouseNumber (SCH #) 87022420,proposed by Alameda County in February1994, I . RedwoodI-andfill Solid waste Facilities Permit ExpansionProject EIR, SCH # 91033042,prepared for Marin County in February 1994by Woodward-Clyde, I . Keller Canyonl-andfill EIR, SCH # 89040415,prepared for Contra Costa County in January1990, and I . Forwar4 Inc. Landfill Use Permit Modifications EIR, SCH # 92032013,prepared for San Joaquin County In March 1993 by LSA Associates,Inc. I I I I I I I I ChapterII I SI,JMMARYOF FINDINGS I ll! The potential impactsand mitigation measuresare summarizedby I environmentalissue in Table 2. The table providesan overviewof the anallsis containedin ChapterV. It includesidentification of the significantimpacts, summarizationof the recommendedmitigation measures, and the impacts' I level of significanceafter implementationof appropriatemitigations. Please refer to the text of this Draft EIR for a full discussionof eachissue. I l I I I I I I T I t I I x 91 I z Eg'g l I I .A e I & .A 4 t= s tl T E a! g z I n t-,' I { a ,1 c{a I .eo E! 4Z ,F< = z =l I H"l .9 kE q) F&E I ,\ '.: ". .F.Er g E 9; Fi $ r* I .EEE: !, E 6 A -O I sF-.E.EE.s tl cE:E ul z9) D 9r-> (a I 2XA Eia=e€:$ € i! qs xE^< ?€€E q) I 338 .9P R ' E=e doE! E ;i,t< iEggEgg R:EE O t FI]rr EeeE E IA ? eE3 4 Fs=;s z c B6= exE:tga, E=H i;fEa I d>: r tEl* r:s:g€F* ..;iET? -'.0 n6E ra b E 5 ; atr z tr5 i{€EFE ta gg s tl I tx; AIO EE I fil€E ggtz I I I I nlr EE3 q q I $EEEg'g I FEE I EgE E3i;*egtuc I HEi t r= tl !a a I E I p E I T z I IiiigiigiE ll u) l g;E .9 E ;S *E I ,lo oP tl (4 I FC EggEig;iEgc: I E€EfiE €EgE!3 t6i F= 2 tl E>, F e€tiE!EgEiH s e I € '..8; x ID lrl 2 at N il3 E vtln > It A z xtu : a rri Elg5 F iEEiEE?Ef,EE l1 t I qi I 2 Eg'g .tl I I I I .i frf 2 tl T { I att E I I 5 a E .9p a I ca SI a tl g;g I 'Et I I t4 Ets .3 E.0 ,fi *b 4 9e,> ^.c I 2A7 5b ITEF t$af 6€ aF,= I E.9 _.9 33= -Ea EE' I Fi; 9E t ! ah9 ? = :e XEE .n HP I {Fa A \ig l..tt i - 7,tz N {.) Blt"s HEI Fl fi! tl I z z€n $*; F t I I F ls c z 9] lD fi EE=€U? z II o $F'g z sJ frs.u, 2 rf Ec,l E €r b z etF t -t $ z gE laz (J iEH ; EEi E u,l I r$rs g n ). E E E I tl t0 4) I r!r q I E E I iiaisiiiisiigisitl 3"! I Frg I {t tl I {l ..1 I E I I I o. I d .EE lt .9 t vE N {) q lg ,il tl jtE=lo l= I I I zlll Efr'g q t I giiti$;* t x I FE€iFE€: .E JI Ei I ll aa € tg€€fiig g I I ErE:ig;lI *I I a! =l fies;gE$Etl Es-E Frg I I I :'F ll rfi .dE o'l I I 9r.> 0t 66 266 oE !( xEf att .qE z E.g I *rE ' gF =EA i-z .F ':t ,t < ;{E trSn ^o t 9 th r€9 II x -E:o.x-s p ?EE: a z7z F .EPE I € bog ;EA t g d trE!,9 rZ; . .t, eil " 3r-< (D c.t F alA> clE tl I $r= F EI tgta g,l s q r5 2 Eg-g z E .l z rE E E z z n ls z A; k E t$ x 1, E iiEsrgEigiiFgEE E I tl AD € I k ! I I E IE t iiggiglaggiaEasgssstl EsE I 3ig I 9s ud q ok tl I .c-i. 4 ': €6 :t€ I * g.r cl gEFed I *b fr!a :?; I : 3l.s p R rtt I 'tt €e E F i= 1 E€7 r- g (.) e.l N ., () g lg t FIE tl E f;ts! l= t I I zF,l Eg'gq q ul I . l& I Et) EEEEE,ts €f I E;g€$€iEg ,EEe Ee'gE ;sd B gE I €e I igsi+ciEE€ Egf E I I .a F E.F gEgF:EgEa* .it ats.H I gEE l E;I;EiEts E.D a {g e EEEEFESISP: I +r? ? q! rlll B F ! !a*p€E I qi , tl rfi (4 , €+E€i F ! I YFE i.EaaEE E 99E.Eor: 2*,4 1; F -^7 0 = e*F ! xEr 6; .;'F gggE.= I E EE26 3!E 5U zz2 oF oE .g E'< €.a I oii ll -= p <>a:EEHal .-c AA= ES EEFeiia€b5'i5s€ od EEx .s I F AE ,Q: ie,l (-.1 iir.E a) i$=iir€ Iri *t: Nle ll I E p I g;e 6 E I T E >B q o R rt E tl q I HT g E() I d E$ -g& eA I 'ac fig 5g x3 ., q) -Er 'ij oi !9 I r, ,g sii €g y7 o2 Eg z8 ::f; P9 tl R Et: E5 xb n s e= x lic I .s - 6.= €€ 9E FJ I6E 9p e8 E9tr F! d F4 o.l .-.€ € -ilr.: brt a;t3 tn E. Nt -. c $|F Nt e Nl€ tl E tl I aa ra g I E I U I aa =l ll B".E Ffg IE I I lJl qt ll 6-g 4 I 2t6 xa*HTF I -r t'i tr **= =zE E E'< = I IFE tl ?93 E E ? t !Egxe6E o 6;3 .9p aai o.l .\t ] irI a) ll I E F qJ lez E I{ q (4 F ri z Eg-g ,l s oE z lEFI , & E Eu EE z z .Es o { EF E?t€i lf z E€ EJ EH k 6E IH IIT o€ r$ €&D 68 EEEIE- Po d 9- 6 I tl ca jrE ct =.9 a I g g5e 9 g I P q FEE 9 o I &- n "a a c Fg 'it EEFigF I 5r Fa II E; ul* g : El ; i. z z z I FIigEE$ tl 3"s T Fig k') Sg I € -E*-6 .i6 E3 3Ego5 s €8 .3 ag $"b rr9g B5 tl rt: HEEIEE8 q 'qE I I ?8 EFH.e EE ('c E;EEE*s ()5 ' .E! affE 9'O r8 Ex:6 :ECEF ,\6 nqg E* x.lr E xt I -- ) te rE'"8a r i{; 6? 9.: gEE E Es'+ E5 E - -€E bi 5,| i!'- s at qX H Ya0rtt ag I ! l,E ts ET E.e sE ; f,ET q.r xxo iJ E B E€'t= F I F€F.r 8'5 o" E;E bigHs gE n o E s PBs 9t g.E Hee g€?"tE I H z c 6 r.9 E trE H lHF$ F FOU U = I qrr€.9{E ld (.1 er.EP rr *l; $ JIFE q) -il sQ-c lc FIJ GI fi19€n EE|€3g3 E r; I ?l 6.9 ra B Ele tl z l| tsleE z $aE 3sgs E g€cficfIEF I I I I z Eg-gq q ql I 'Ec*B -: = E I E^^ *;i. 9'E b.F Oa I E =g Efigf U Ez UT gE 5it E €EE$ tg g.E$ t r€ !Et sli; :} !l:o EI 2E Eg E EEFE :; 9-? tl T aa T> !Fi" .= oEd:;E€€Eq) ee .EbE z,-9a:i n 9; E I 9 T frli:E .gg:5 .r>EF"E EDA E gEEE .{r.o Tse elI Ed H,E oo .q I irs'E gIFF E gl€Egz xt E 3. =t/{ 0. RI E"s 3rg g) p I o* EE 6U e {l .:j l gl ; !H g b i"€i; 'rgo F.EB * €hE c tl -8 ,.- 1o r/t 9l-> gEE ?,! t 266 g'F _E E:*5 s -= E'E:E ilE* fe.EsgiEgE.E; I €8e9 jE.s ath !og *,xz t.E:=* s a €eiis tr =22 EEfiEI;E€E e(! E3; 6 I Ea u td rFF*; tl 289 x <>i 6 t"Egs +6 7AZ t]dAFt 3.x i:iEE: tl.6 I EEx fi ;FEEi R i€ E3€e q 5e =2> 5IF9E 9l.fE eets Hd rrEE-s;oE *-j a.l .E ", EI; H fil?9inF .jrE {) FIE:: .E Ir! I EI:E F .X.E ,r.l's ite.H.E3 tl I El *r $IE;E >"ltE5EFE col i EI9EE* #x; t-i I I I I sgg ' lEHEg-e I E*s , $Ee t r HEF|la \)g lH tl aa d g I .ll I E 9 I I E ca N E z z I I Ee-€ I Flg !s e 'tt t I 0t 7 i;E-€.-lrsiEH tl H I I z gcFgi?ffE.t) F t:iEre H l a 4 & z I 'E z !€EiEg EEgEEFg;E4h rlt s pt)ah tl E€lale$+E BI tp o .3 t ah I I frg$g:E d lx N J; tl 3 z flsigite t' ;gEEFE,ia* I I d I z Eg-gvl I T .EH:! €edi I b o; € g.g F= X t '6 1-Ee E:a= E P.E qo I I !a R:.9 eh E€:E .E E.!E C9. oo 9 ax., I rll 6 d 8; a e,Ee tr 6E z I rr5 F $l thl RI a FIEE >l tl fl;cth at2 I E!i .Hs dF KI tga E; t E-eHe .3 E€F E g tl q zd 6 VE 6 4 gEFE 9r.E I 2X7 EH fi3€ :EESF q f;HF ; E;$F EEEiE rntr E;€E'.a I *xi JIEF!€.:EE-B; EEe H€;iP Fl3 n ! x.g tE E*EET I A2Fi tl ll €EqgE tiI ah AAE 's EEJE: rl t EEx ,t Egjre d>' t'l sEEJE5 aaz FI at) e-iEE ir.9o', fi U' Enj tl I $r= E z gltEE F sl€€dE $ I I I I I Chapter III I PROJECT DESCRIP{ION I !at I A, Location The CharlesP. Howard Terminal is located in the Middte Harbor of the Oakland Estuary in Oakland, Califomia, as shownin Figure 1. The terminal I is part of the Port of Oaklan{ and is just west of Jack London Square,as shown in Figure 2. Ground transportationaccess is from I-880; the truck entrancesand exits to the terminal are at Market Street and the foot of I Martin Luther King Jr. Way, off the Embarcadero,just north of the terminal. A City of OaHand fire station and the Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) Pier are east of the terminal, and SchitzerSteel is west of the terminal. Ship accessto I the terminal from the San Francism Bay is via the OaHand Estuary,which I mnsists of the Oakland Middle and Inner Harbors. B. Purposeof the Pmject I The purposeof the project is to provide a se.@ndberth for new-generation containervessels and an efficient terminal spacefor handling cargo from two I vesselsat once. Howard Terminal is one ofthe last ofthe Port of Oakland's 12 container terminals to be renovatedfor new-generationcontainer vessels. I The SeaportPlan (preparedby the Bay Conservationand Development Commissionand the Metropolitan TransportationCommission) recognizes the need for new terminals in the Bay Are4 including this site at the Port of I Oakland. Most ofthe other sites identified in the SeaportPlan have been developed,except for the military sites. I Renovation of the terminal requires demolishingan existingbuilding on the site, lengtheningan existingberth to accommodatelonger container vessels, deepeningthe channeladjacent to the new wharf, and enlargingthe container I storagearea to accommodatethe gleater number of containerswhich would I be transportedby the larger ships. I z5 I sJ\w-slds FBqL \ $eN Project Site trfrAl{ct5c0 1994 Source: Brady aDd As\diarer, CharlesP. Howard TerminalExtension FIGURE I ErvrBoiuEtT . rrPlcT R€POfiI Port of Oakland Regional Location raa BneoY AND AssocIATEs JUNE 1994 CIIARI-ES P. HOWARD TERMINAL D(TENSION I DRAFT ET.IVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PROJECT DESCRIPNON I The area now known a$the Howard Terminal wasoriginally built to operate as a break-bulkterminal. Break-bulkcargoes are transportedon palletsand I needthe shelterand securityprovided by transitsheds adjacent to wharvesto storethe cargowhile theyare waitingto be transferredto a ship,train or truck. Shipsthat carrybreak-bulk cargo are older,of differentconfiguration t andsmaller, and need shallower water to navigate. Modem containerterminals have very differentfunctional requirements than t break-bulkterminals. Container terminals utilize immense dockside cranes and expansesof pavementfor the stackingof mntainersand the circulationof loadingvehicles and trucks. WhenHoward Terminal was built in 1982, I cellularmntainer ships of the secondand third generationwere in use. These shipshad lengthsranging from 700to 850feet and draftsup to 33 feet. As built in 1982,Howard Terminal could adequately accommodate two vessels. I However,fourth-generation vessels, which are nowthe shippingindustry standarqare approximately900 to 1,000feet in lengthand requirewharf spaceof approximately1,200 feet. Theseships also require channels of I approximately47 to 43 feet of depth. I Existingconditions at HowardTerminal are shownin Figure3. I C. Proposed Project The proposed project consists of the wharf extension (including demolition of I the existingtransit shed and dredgingand filling), dewateringand disposalof dredgedsediments, construction and improvementof public accessareas, and removal of wharf area at two other sites. These componentsofthe project I are described below. I 1. Wbarf Extension The Port proposesto extendthe wharf 306 lineal feet (48,240square feet) to the east,so that Berth 68 at Howard Terminal can accommodatenew- I generationcontainer vessels (Figure 4). This would make the wharf adequate to accommodatetwo new-genefationcontainer vesselssimultaneously. The Project would also increasesurface area which can be used to stack and store I containersand improve truck circulation. As a result of increasedefficiency' the capacityof the terminal would increase. Plan views of filling and dredging I required to cary out the project are shown in Figure 5. The wbarf extensionportion of the proposedproject consistsof the following I actions: I 27 I CI{ARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL D(TENSION JTJNE1994 DRAFT ET{VIRONMET.IIAL IMPASI REPORT I PROJECT DESCRIPNON I Demolitionand Wharf Removal . Demolishingthe transitshed (Building E-407A). I . Removing80,350 square feet of wharf. . Removing1,100 piles, including 700 concrete piles and 400creosote- treatedwooden piles (2J20 squarefeet, 1,200cubic yards of piles). I Dredeine . Dredgingunstable mud underlyingthe dike footprint(30p00 cubic I yards). . DredgingBerths 67 and 68 to -44 feet MLLW (meanlower low water), I and extendingBerth 68 (39,000square feet, 13,600 cubic yards)r. . DeepeningBerths 22 through24 and30 from 42 feet plustwo feet overdredgeto 44 feet plus two feet overdredgeto provide fill for the I projectas well asprovide needed depth at the berths. Filling I . Buildinga newdike and filling behindit to supportthe wharfextension (mveringa 150,300square foot areaand using144,000 cubic yards of fill from the on-goingand permitted dredging projects and crushed I concretefrom @ncretepile removal). . Surchargingbehind the dike by rapidlyheaping fill on top ofmud to I compactthe mud. . Installingwicks behind the dike threefeet apartto drawoff moisture andstabilize the fill. I . I-ossof Berth 69 asan activetugboat berthing area. BuildineWharf andBackland I . Drivingpiles through the newdike andconstructing a 100-footwide strip of pile-supportedwharf for the cranerails (495square feet, 536 I cubicyards of newpiles). The depthof the pileswould be approximate$126 feet belowmean sea level. I . Excavatingbehind the existingdike and replacingexcavated soils with strongerengineered soils. . Creatinga backlandon solid fill for maximumoperational efficiency t andcapability in mntainertransport and storage. I r Moffatt & Nichol, 1994, Befh 68 extension = 306 feet x 125 feet = 38,5O plus access from channel. Depth from existing zurface to -rg feet, I I 28 I IIIIIIIIIIT*II III .jt"I.^-.ff_ xr"'t', .-...*---- (o o I EEFSgg \.J +t 9rl^ X U' .t =EV $ 939 i2;il { {\ oq =FU I o (tcl Ell 6 F' = !i'r-r Fl ti (D' (, c: Sr oOO ;; € Fl a T 8." !) i:ll i3a ;"- oll cn N N\ d + 3 { Fo t eqot$FoPls { a tFqtFb:! 6 II JILJLJL IHEFF ===== n'HHH! --FiFr..-F- HHHHH ====L_J FF t1 :H o@@o@E Fl -to- 3ds ID c+ 93P 599r3Fdr (.) +i a=o L:3e1<€.;- oq ti:il =FD ?' AEEeEiTH a ull = !i'r'r xe='5 :,!'rt t.l l.J a: q(D O drr ii F ;= { uFj'ol d9 x - =,J ii-z -il o I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I iil iii l: iii I ii :e iii .: 'l: i .i; ii .ii .ii 'i i:i 'iiii t: il :1, :; i : 9B EH 9g HE ti6 j ! , I ,sh€; j rrftr I I I I ;e I r-l ,-. :> Fl o-*l =EV c+ 33 H :> a ll I \ ?Bg (t) oc A I : (D ; I:v t'l I j, :o ts I = ii'r+ A F. ('(D O Fi Ft ;; { Ili e (D F4. rE t.) o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II v) d a '.t o o x - I .D I o 15 v tD (! (D U) ' i,, irs *T ,-i :_* ii s'B-H94*ryT€ i.rO : s: : FSlre : iS 5EX ii J inlp€ 5;l ?& ! i=: xEfgB 3 +s NP ;{ E t{ ,i Fil P 9Y i Eigal -a d i:!JJf* *iF # r E t EF CL - q: m ': =r x o 2. o .d i' o ,.(jrrr4. I .D '.):'*. (D a?, d oe(D ,,,, *6 *S i .iFqi! .-s9 gl =*i =sE'g3"i! Hr*& ts Fs s g+=i: g*.? si iF$Ei* a. r* i*fr '$ sl ts{*F i$[ti*€* F .l rs i; =e =g = .I gfr,:i eH FF fra .i T] 0q Ft a r! (D o (D oq (rl { V2 li:il oa JUNE 1994 CHARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL E'(TENSION t DRAFT E}WI RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PROJECTDESCRIPTION I . Gradingi,pavin& lighting and striping the wharf and upland area for I terminal use. Tables 3 and 4 summarizedredging and filling at Howard Terminal, and wharf I removal at the Sherexand Pacific Drydock sites. A clamshelldredging machine would be used for the dredging. (A clamshell is a bucketwith two hingedjaws.) The dredgedmud would be placed on I bargesand transportedto an upland handling facility, as describedbelow under 'Dewatering and Disposal of Dredged Sediments."After the rehandling facility is filled, dredgingwould stop and other constructiontasks would be I completedwhile the dredgedsediments are dewateredand hauled to landfills. I The project is anticipatedto take a total of approximatelyeight to nine months. It is anticipatedthat the setup and demolition would take eight weeks, dredging two weeks and filling four weeks. The pile driving would I then last up to three to five weeks. Constructionofthe concretewharf would take about tbree months. I Piles would be driven with a 160,000-footpound diesel hammer. It would typically operate from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, but may operate during other hours if it becomesnecessary to meet the construction I schedule. Pile driving is expectedto take up to six weels. During constructionthere would be 20 to 50 constructionworkers on the site I per day. Workers would normally enter the site between6:30 and 7:00 a.m. and would leave the site between3:30 and 4:00 p.m. Some dirt would be hauled for on-site fill, aggregatebase, asphalt, etc, Constructiondebris would T be disposedof at Vasco Road, Redwood,Keller Canyonor Fomard Landftll. The wharf extensionwould increasethe number of vesselcalls at Howard I Terminal by an averageof one vesselper week. This would increaseloading and unloading actMty. The terminal has 12 lanesfor processingtrucks I (8 lanes in-bound and 4 out-bound,with two reversible). At peak in-bound hours, S lanes are set up for trucks going into the terminal, Peak activity would be 120 transactionsper hour (65 out,55 in). Activity levelswould peak I in Septemberthrough November and on Wednesdaythrough Saturday. Employment at the terminal would be 82 when one vesselis in port, and 122 I when two are in Dort. I I J) t CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT EI{VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I PROJECT DESCRIPIION Table 3 I VOLI,'ME OF DREDGING AND PILE REMOVAL Fill I Dredgirg or Plaoernent Pile Removal (cubic Net Change hojcct CoDponetrt (cubic yards) ysrds) (cubic yards) T Dredging for new wharf 30,000 Dredging to extend Berth 68 13600 I Total dredging at Ho$/ard Terminal 43,ffi Filling to support Dew wharf 144,0m I Removing old piles from under L20o Horvard Terminal Placing oew piles under portion of 5K I wharf extension Net Changes st Horvard Terminal 42offi r44536 + 102,136 I Removing piles at Sberex Site 1t1 Removing piles at Pacific Dry Dock 693 Off-Site Plle Removal 820 - E20 I Total Net Change 43J'20 t44,SX +l0r3t6 I Table 4 AREA OF DREDGING, FILL AND WIHRF REMOVAL I Dredging or lVharf Fill I Removal PlaceEent Net Change Project Componcnt (square feet) (squar€ feet) (square feet) Filling ro support wharf extension 150,3m I Removing pile+up'ported wharf 80350 Net Changes .t Howard Tennihal EoJs0 150,3{x} + G1,65t) t Removingwharf at SherexSile 13J90 Remoir'ingwharf at PacincDrydock 33,000 t Net Chanses Off-Site 46,590 - 46,590 Totel Net Change 12694iJ l50Jm + 17p60 I I 36 T I JUNE 1994 CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMTNAI E I 2. Transporting, Dewateringand Disposal of DredgedSediment I a. TransportingDredged Matedal to the Handling Faciliw. Three barges would operate at onc€ to transport dredgedmud to the handling facility, which is describedbelow. Each bargewould have a capacityof 2,000cubic I yards. A tug boat would push each filled barge from Howard Terminal to the handling facility at Berth 10,where the barge crane would unload the dredged material. The tug boat would then retum the empty barge to Howard I Terminal to be refilled. An on-site front loader would distribute the material on the site. I b. Constructionand Ooeration of the Handlinp Faciliw. The Port proposesto build a handling facility on sev.enacres of wharf and upland at Berth 10 (Figure 6). The dewateringarea would cover about half of Berth 10. I About half of this area would be on pile-supportedconcrete wharf, and half would be on asphalt-coveredland. The facility would have a capacityof 31,500cubic yards of wet dredgedmaterial (about 50 percentwater), which I would be 21,000cubic yards of dewateredsediments. The Port would build a perimeter berm four feet high' composedof either a I geotextiletube filled with dredgematerial or a three-foot modified concrete K-rail with a l2-inch by 2-inch board attachedto the top. The typ€ of berm I usedwould dependon the preferenceof the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), cost, and easeof operation. I The asphaltwould be sealed,and a pit would be excavatedfor backhoe operation. Storm drains in the dewateringarea would be covered,and low wiers would be built around those near the site. A barge-mountedcrane I would remove dredgematerial from scowsand place it into the drying yard' A tractor would distribute material in the vard. Solidswould be worked T toward the unloadingarea. Two weirs would be built at the low portion of the site. Water would pool behind the weirs, then spill over them and through geotextilescreens. The I water that has passedover and through the wiers would be tested,and treated if necessary,before being dischargedinto the Bay. If the water cannot be adequatelytreated on-site,it will be hauled to a Bay Area wastewater I treatment facility that is permitted for this type of wastewater. I T T 3l t I t T fue*o ffiwe f4rl9711P ,rA4tlr4 P+Ep-(7 &' 6191|1--yac'>fior) (Lov[ p$f ) I (:(f'KZ*FBt"iove. WAbF-N.l I T 4-=1 (- "# I ny .4./ ( )..J-,,' I .-AREA DECANTING Y-:1 I SEA..urtq .- r!? _,1 'f;7'.7f r [-J 9.3- e&lf I ..'/' .,2 T '..,' \ \-6\',. I =- \\-' .\ I ------I NOTTO SCAT I I Sour.e: Porl of Oakl|n4 1994 CharlesP. Howard TerminalExtension FIGURE6 I Ef,VIRO}ITEIITAL ITPACI RTPO8l ProposedUpland Rehandling Port of Oakland Facility for Dewatering DredgedSentimenls t BRADY AND AssocrATEs t JUNE T994 CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E'(TENSION I DRAFT ET{VI RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PROJECT DESCRIPTION I Public Access I Due to safetyconcerns, it is not possibleto providepublic access on Howard Terminal. Therefore,as part of the wharf extensionproject, the Port proposes to provide new and improvedoff-site public accessareas. The new public t accesswould be a publicwalkway around the harborside of Shenanigan's restaurantat Jackhndon Villageconnecting existing public access walkways on both sides.Public access would be improvedalong the existingpath from t Alice Street south to EstuaryPark Educationalexhibits would be placedon the FDR Pier to facilitateviewing of actMtieson HowardTerminat. These improvementsare illustratedand furtherdescribed in ChapterV, SectionM, I PublicAccess and Recreation. I Wharf Removal As an environmentalenhancement, the Port proposesto remove the two long finger piers totalling 33,000 square feet of wharf area at the Pacific Drydock I site, and to remove all the wharf area totalling approximately13,600 square feet ofwharf at the Sherexsite, and about 2,000square feet at the project site that will be removedand not replaced(Figure 5). This action is not required I to mitigate biotic impactsof the proposedproject, as explainedin Chapter V, SectionK of this report. However, it is required to meet permit requirements I of the San FranciscoBay Conservationand DevelopmentDistrict (BCDC) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. T D. Background T The Howard Terminal was extensivelyreconstructed in the 1980sto convert it from a break-bulk terminal (cargo shippedon pallets or as bulk commodities) to a mntainer terminal. At that time, the shoreline of the terminal was I straightenedusing fill material, some structureswere removed to clear a large spacefor a containeryard, the containeryard was paved,and rwo shipping T cranesfor mntainers were installed, There are now four craneson the teminal. The Howard Terminal consistsof three berths: Berths 67 and 68 which have a mmbined wharf length of about 1,640feet and Berth 69 which is I about 560 feet long. Presently,Berths 67 and 68 can accommodatetwo ships. Berth 67 can accommodateone new generationmntainer ship up to 900 feet long and Berth 68 can accommodateone smaller ship up to 600 feet long. I Berth 69 is being used for tugboat mooring. New generationvessels call frequently at the teminal, and when schedulesfor two suchvessels overlap, t the secondvessel stands by in the Bay until the appropriatewharfage is I 39 I CTIARLES P, HOWARD TERMINAL EKTENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT EI{!'IRONMEMTAL IMPACT REPORT I PROJECT DESCRIPIION available. Berths 67 and 68 are currently maintainedat a depth of.42 feet I Mean Lower I-ow Water (MLLW) plus 2 feet of over-dredge. I The transit shed at Howard Terminal was constructed circa 1929 as a "state- of-the-art" break bulk facility with splirlevel floors of offices to housethe newly formed Pon of Oakland Commission. Port offices were relocatedin the I 1960sand the space was never reused as accessis restricted to maintain tenninal security. The containerizationofthe shippingindustry has left the transit shedv,rcant most of the time. The western corner of the shedis used t as a maintenanceshop, and this function will be relocatedas a related project. The building may be eligible for listing on the National Regster of Historic Buildings,as describedin the Historic Resources,Section A of Chapter V. I The shorelineunder the building and betweenthe building and the Franklin Delano RooseveltPier (FDR Pier) at the foot of Clay Street to the east is I made up of a quaywall. The quaywall also providesthe primary support for the front wall of the building structure. The quaywall, a large concrete ?ravity type' retainingwall, extendingeast from Myrtle Street to Clay Street, T has functionedas the land/fuaterinterface sinceit was constructedcirca 1910. Little was known of the condition of the quaywall until explorationsafter the Loma Prieta Earthquakein 1989revealed extensive cracking and settling at I the front wall of the building. I The pilings under the building and wharf aprons east and south of the building were damagedin the Loma Prieta earthquake. The building itself sustainedminor visible damage;however, the piling supportsand the quay I wall have respondedindependently, severely cracking the quay wall and causingthe Port Engineer to designatethe building nunsafe'. The Federal EmergencyManagement Act (FEMA) tunded the pile repair project. The I funding did not provide for an upgradeto modem constructionor seismic standards,but only to suppon the original designload of the wharf of 600 poundsper squarefoot. Sincemarine terminal operationstoday routinely I require a loading capacityof 1,000pounds per squarefoot, work must be undertakento improve all areaswhich would be used for stackingand storage. I t I I I 40 I I I I ChaPterIV t CONTEXT OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL PLANS AND POLICIES I !ll I ,4'-Background Publicpolicy regarding land usein the Port of Oaklandis expressedin adoptedplans and other offtcialdocuments. In this sectionthe proposed T projectt consistencywith a numberof landuse planning policies and regulationsis evaluated.The followingdocuments are discussed: I . Pon of OaHandBusiness and Policy Plan . OaklandComprehensive Policy Plan I . AlamedaCounty Airport LandUse Plan . SanFrancism Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) SanFrancism Bay Plan and Amendments I . BCDCMetropolitanTransportation Commission (MTC) SeaportPlan The proposedproject raises a numberof policyissues; of thesethe most I significantinclude the following: . Bay fill anddredging; I . Visualquality and publicaccess; . Presewationof culturalresources: and I . Consistencywith local and regionalplans, policies and regulations. I B. L,ocaland RegionalPlanning Documents I 1. Port of Oakland Businessand Policy Plan The City of Oakland has operated a public harbor since the City was T incorporated in 1851. Exclusivecontrol and managementofthe Port were delegatedto the Board of Port Commissionersin 1927by an amendmentto I the City Charter, The Board consistsof sevenmembers appointed for four- t 4l T CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMIN{ EXTENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I CONTEXT OF LOCAI AND REGIONAL PI.ANS AND POLICIES year staggeredterms by the City Council upon nomination by the Mayor, as I provided in the Chafter. I Under the Charteq the Port is an independentdepartment ofthe City. The Board has exclusivecontrol and managementof the Port area"all Port facilities and property, real and personal,all inmme and revenuesof the Port, I and proceedsof all bond salesinitiated by it for harbor or airport improvementsor for any other purposes. The Board also has exclusiveland use authority over all lands under Port jurisdiction as shownin Figure 2, The I Charter establishesthe generalland usesappropriate to the Port area. These usesinclude maritimq commercial,and airport uses. Prior to the approvalof any project, the Board reviewsits mnsistencywith the overall provisionsof the I Charter, In addition, the Port reviewsand approvesall mnstruction in the Port area prior to City issuanceof any Building Permit. On land it owns,the Poft further specifiesuses and conditionsin leases. The Port generally I approvesonly usesrelated to aviation and maritime actMties and commercial development,except in its businesspark and certain other commercialareas. I In 1968,a Master DevelopmentPlan commonly referred to as the Shore Plan was preparedfor the Port of Oakland. The plan was not adopted by the Boar( but many of the policieswere reflectedin the Oakland Comprehensive I Plan. The Port publishesand updatesa BusinessPlan, which includesgoals and objectivesand strategiesto achievethose goals. The Pon's 1993-94 BusinessPlan includesa summaryof the Maritime Capital Improvement I Program (CIP) planned projects. The largestcategory is Expansionor New Capacityprojects. Projectsin this categoryexpand the physicalplant ofthe t Port to provide additional cargo capacityor improve existingcargo operations. The Howard Terminal Extensionproject is consistentwith this goal and objective. I 2. Oakland ComprehensivePolicy Plan t The City of Oakland ComprehensivePlan servesas the City's General Plan. It was adopted in 7972 and updatedin 1980when the Land Use Element was adopted. The City is currently in the processof updating the Comprehensive I Plan, including an historic preservationelement, The Oakland Policy Plan, the major componentof the City's Comprehensive I Plan, is the City Council'scomprehensive statement of basicgoals and policies.The Policy Plan expressesthe City Council's intentions and guidesits decisionson specificprojects and actions. It also guidesthe actionsand I programsof City departmentsand agenciesand assistscitizens in participating in the policy-makingprocess. The Policy Plan gatherstogether in a single I A1 t I JUNE 1994 CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL EXTENSION T DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CONTEXT OF LOCAL AND RECIONAL PI-ANS AND POUCIES I documentall the policies containedin the functional elementsof the I ComprehensivePlan. a. Land Use Desisnations. The City ComprehensivePlan includesa land use map that showsdesigrations for allowableuse of all land within the City. T It designatesland in the Howard Terminal and Berth 10 areasfor industrial use, as shownin Figure ?. I b. ComorehensivePlan Policies. ComprehensivePlan policies help set the direction for ComprehensivePlan land use desigrationsand zoning districts, I and for developmentstandards. According to the Plan policies,Comprehensive Plan land use designationsand zoning districts are to accommodateindustry, a variety of housingdensities, I and adequateschools, parks, recreation,transit and shoppingfor residents. Land use designationsare to provide for protection of Bay marshes,and I recreationaluse of the waterfront. The ComprehensivePlan providesguidance for the locationsof land uses. I-and is to be provided for usesrelated to the Port. The plan statesthat the I circulation systemmust provide for the effrcient shippingof goods and that marine terminal capacityshould be developedconsistent with City, regional I and statewidebenefits. The ComprehensivePlan Land Use and Historic PreservationElements I contain newly adoptedpolicies regardingpreservation of older buildings relevant to the proposedproject. The intent is that older structuresshould not be torn down simply becausethey are old. The relevant policies are as T follows: T (1) Land Use Element. Policiesof Urban Design and Preservation. Policy 4: Every effox shonld be made to presentethose older buildings, other physical featurx, siles,and areaswhich have signifrcant histoical architectural, I or other special interesl valxe. The proposedproject would be inconsistentwith this policy becausetbe I project plans include demolition of the transit shedbuilt in 1929. (2\ HistoricPreservationElement. I - Policy 3.6: City-Sponsoredor AssistedPrqjects, To the extent consistentwilh t other OaHand General Plan provisions, City-sponsoredor assistedprojects I 43 T CTIARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL E'(TENSION JUNE T994 DRAFT ENVIRONMENIAL IMPACT REPORT t CON'IEXT OF LOCSI AND REGIONAL PI.ANS AND POLTCTES I involving an aisting or Potential Designated.HLsnric Property,except small-scale projects will: (a) be sebctd and designedto avoid or minimize advase effeas on lheseproperties and to promote their presenation and enhancemmt; (b) I hcotporate presenatian efons basedin pat on the importance of eachproperty; and (c) fu consideredto have no adverseeffects on theseproperties if they conform with the Secretaryof the Intedor's Standardsfor the Treatment of t Historie Propertics. The proposedproject would be inconsistentwith this policy becausethe I project plans include demolition of the transit she4 which has an "A" (Highest Importance) rating with eligibility for the National Register of Historical 'Landmark" Places as a and as a "Heritage Property'. Historic Preservation I for City sponsoredprojects is enmuraged. Although measuresto implement the Historic PreseruationElement policies are in transition, every effort should be made to be mnsistentwith thes€ newly adopted (March 1994) I public policies.! The Port would be required to make Findingsof Overriding Considerations(CEOA, Section 15091)for the proposedproject due to its inconsistencieswith relevant historic preservationpolicies and the lwel "A" I rating of the transit shed. The ComprehensivePlan Land Use Element also includespolicies regarding I bay fill and public accessto the shorelinerelevant to the proposedproject as follows: t (3) PoliciesRelatine to the Natural Settins. t Policy 6: Bay lill should be undenakenonly upon clear and convincing evidence that its benefts will outweigh its resubingenvironmental ond other costs. I The proposedproject is consistentwith this policy. The project includesfilling and dredgingfor the benefit of expandingPort operations,increasing its economicviability, and providingjobs. The Port proposesto offset adverse I environmental effects by uncovering approximately 47,853 square feet of existingwharf and pilings from the Pacific Drydock and Sherexsites. I Policy 7: In the develapmentof shoreline areaE everyreasonable efon should be mad.eto provid,eattractive publia accessto the watercedge. T The proposedprojed would be mnsistent with rhis policy. The Pon is proposingimproved public accessalong the Oakland shoreline. T 1 Christopher Buckley, City of Oakland Planning Department, April 8, 1994. I T 44 I IITIIITIIIII TIIIII w io =====HHHHF t(= HH!qU =!t!JLr! F4 =H lF:;.4 iifa.l r*1 ;i T Fl ,-. r::l I (D-t l Hffiffiffi o-.! aH i]F E 3 dt-,x= o o z2ell $ 93P +5iqg (a rEeit (: JUNE 1994 CTIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL D(TENSION I DRAFT ET.IVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT t CONTEXT OF LOCAL AND REGTONAL PI.ANS AND POLICIES Finally, the ComprehensivePlan Land Use Element includespolicies regardingindustrial use. The policy relevant to the proposedproject is as T follows: I (4) Policies on Industrial Areas. Policy 5: Marine and air-terminal capacityshouU be developedconsMent with I city, regional and state-wde benefrts. The proposed project is mnsistent with this policy. The project would be providing benefits on a local and regional economic level by providing t expanded operations. I 3. Alameda County Airport Land Use Plan The Alameda County Airpoft Land Use Commission(ALUC) adopted the Airport l-and Use Plan in July 1986. The intent of the Airport Land Use Plan I is to assurecompatible uses within the ALUC planning boundaries. Howard Terminal is located on the boundaryof the outer portion of the ALUC Safety Zone for the Alameda Naval Air Station,which is scheduledfor closure. The I industrial use is a compatibleland use under the plan; however,an issueof concem is crane height. The wharf extensionwould require existingcranes to t move further down the wharf and be raised in height within the proposed extensionarea in order to load the larger shipsdocking at Berth 68' The wharf and the cranesappear to be locatedjust outside the safetyzone I boundary and thus, mnsistencywith the ALUC policies is not an issue. The Naval Air Station and the Federal AeronauticsAdministration have approved I the moving and enlargingof the cranes. 4. San FranciscoBay Plan I BCDC's San FranciscoBay Plan'zdesignate.s the Howard Terminal site for Port priority use. One of the major objectivesof BCDC is to ensurethat all filling of the Bay is limited to the six high-priority,water-oriented uses I identified in the McAteer-PetrisAct, one of which is ports. In order to provide sufficient shoreline sites to accommodatethese high-priority useswith the minimum ftll necessary,the San FranciscoBay Plan providesthat I shoreline sites especiallywell-suited for these priority usesbe reservedfor I such uses. I 2 Adopted in January 1969, rcvised aod amended through 199. I 47 T CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL D(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ENVI RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I CONIEXT OF LOCAL AND RECIONAL PLq,NS AND POLICIES The San FranciscoBay Plan includesa map note which statesthat the Outer, I Middle and Inner Harbors within the Oakland-AlamedaPort Area should be redevelopedfor modem marine terminals. The San FranciscoBay Plan I encouragesthe expansionof the Port of Oakland'smaritime, water-related industrial,water-oriented recreation and public acressuses' These uses include deepeningth€ shippingchannel; keeping and reservingland for water- I related industry; providing new shorelineparks, beaches, marinas, fishing piers, scenicdrives and hiHng or biking paths; maintaining and addingwildlife refuges;and enmuragingprivate investmentin shoreline development. I a, Bav Fill Policies. Although the proposedfill is for a water-orienteduse and would be located within a designated priority use area, BCDC law still I requiresthat the fill proposedmeet severaladditional tests. The fill must be "the minimum fill necessary."Further, there must be no altemative upland location for the use proposedon fill and the public benefitsof the fill must I outweighits public detriments. The fill placedmust also be safe from a seismicsafety standpoint. I The project is consistentwith BCDC fill policies. The fill proposedwould be used to squareoff an existingwharf. The project would involve 144,000cubic yards of fill plus 536 cubic yards of piling but would include '13,600cubic I yards of dredgingand 1,200cubic yards of piling removal (Table 3). Thus' the net changeat Howard Terminal would be 102,136cubic yards of fill. This is T the minimum fill necessaryto support the wharf etctension'A pile-supported wharf would lead to differential settlement,causing safety hazards and efficiencyproblems in terminal operations,as discussedin Chapter IV, Project I Altematives. The Port proposesto remove 820 cubicyards of piling at the Sherexand Pacific Drydock sites,for a net changeto the Bay of 101,316cubic yards of fill. In terms of are4 fill would cover 150,300square feet at Howard I Terminal, but 46590 squarefeet of wharf would be removedat Sherexand Pacific Drydock, for a net changeto the Bay of 17,600square feet of fill coverage, I In addition, the Port doesnot control any property at an altemative location to accommodatea new containerberth. Chapter V, SectionG, Geologr, I Seismicityand Soils discussesthe seismicsafety engineering criteria proposed by the Port, I b. Dredsine Policies. On May 27,7992,BCDC amendedthe Bay Plan dredgingpolicies. The amendedpolicies that are relevant to the proposed project are as follows: I I 48 t I 'TERMINAL JUNE 1994 CHARLESP. HOWARD D(TENSION I DRAFT ET{VIRONMENTAL IMPACI REPORT CONTEXT OF LOCAL AND RECIONAL PI-ANSAND POTICIES I Policy 1: Dredging should be authorized when BCDC can find: (a) the applicant has demons'tmtedthat the dredgingis neededto servea w4ter-oientd. use or I other impoftant public purpose, (b) the materials to be dredgd meet the water quality requiremen* of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Boar4 k) important fisheries and.Bay natural resourceswould be protected, and t (d) disposal of dretget materials should.be encouragedin non-tidal areaswhere the materiab can be usd benefrcially,or in the ocean. I Polky 2: Disposal in tidal zreas of the Bay should be authorized when the Commission can find that: (a) the applicant has demonstrated.that non-tidal and ocean disposalb infeasiblebecause there are no altemative silesavailable or I likzly to be ava ablefor we h a reasonableperiod, or the cost of disposal at ahemate sitesis prohibitively qensive; (b) d.isposalwould be at a site designated by the Commi-xian; (c) the quality and.volume of the material to be disposenis I consistentwith the advice of the San Francisco Bay Rqinnal Water Quality Control Board; and (d) the period of dbposal is consistentwith the advice of the I Department of Fish and Game and the National Marine Fisherics Service. Policy 3: Wen the annual amount of dredged.material proposed to be disposed in tidal areasof the Bay eneeds the dbposal volume taryets,BCDC is CuA"n by I all relevantfactors concemingthe proposedprojects, (including the needfor the dredging and the dredgingproject, regional economi.cimpact, environmental impact, and other regional effectsof the project, and the economicfeasibility of I using altemale disposal sites)in determining which projects to authorize. Policy 4: Disposalprojects should maximize use of dredgd material as a resource,such as creathg enhancing or restoringtidal and managedwetlands, I creating and maintaining l*ees and dikes,providing cover and,sealing material for sanitary landfiUs,and filling at approvedconstruction projects. I Poliry 5: Once non-tidal or ocean disposalsites have been securedor designated, the maximum feasibb amount of dretlgedmateial should be d.isposedoI at non- tid.al sitesor in the ocean. Until noniidal upland disposalsiles are securedand. I ocean disposal sitesdesignated, aquatic disposalin the Bay should be authorized at sites designatedby the U.S.Army Corps of Engineersand. BCDC. Dredged mated.alsdispased of aquartcallyin the Bay, part'rculnrlyat the Alcatraz Island. I disposalsitq should be carefully managedto ensurethat the amount and timing of disposaldoes not createnavigational hazards,adversely affect Bay cufients or natural resourcesof the Bay, or foreclose the use of the disposalsite by projects I critical to the economyof the Bay Area. Policy 8: To protect underyroundfresh water aquifun: (a) all proposalsfor I drengingor constructian of work that couWpenetrate the mud. 'cover" should be yaviswed,by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the State Depanment I of Water Resources,and (b) dredgingor constructiotr work should not be I 49 I CTIARLES P, HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT ENVI RONMEI.ITAL IMPACT REPORT OF LOCAL RECTONAL PIANS AND POLICIES CONTEXT AND I permilted that might reasonablybe qected to damagean undergroundwater resemoir. I The proposedproject could be viewed as consistentwith these dredging policies. The project requires dredgingof approximately43,600 cubic yardg where 30,000cubic yards is from dredgingfor the new wharf and 13,600cubic I yards is ftom dredgingat the new berth. This dredgingwould enhancePort operationsand provide efficient sewicesto the shippingindustry along the waterfront. The dredgesediments are proposedto be disposedof at an I authorizedfandfill site, The project also includesdeepening Betths 22, ?3,30 and 67 to two feet below the currently permitted maintenancedepth, to provide Merritt sand fitl for the' project and proide a needed safety margin of I depth at the berths. The current permit on depth is -42 feet plus two feet of overdredge;the project would dredgethese berths to 44 feet plus rwo feet of overdredge. To offset the dredgingand fill effects,the Port proposes I uncoveringa total of approximately46,590 square feet of existingwharf and piling areasfrom the Sherexand Pacific Dry Dock sites. I c. Safetyof Fills Policies. The Bay Plan includespolicies regardingthe placementof fill in mmpliance with specificsafety provisions due to the potential for earthquakes. I Policy 1: The Commissionhas appoinud the Engineeing Criteria ReviewBoard I consistingof geologMs,civil engineercspecializing in soilsengineerhg, structural engineers,and archhectscompetent to and adequatelyempowerd to: (a) establish and revisesafety citeria for Bay fills and structuresthereon; (b) review all extept I minor projectsfor the adequacyof their specifrcsafety provLsions, and makz recommend.ationsconceming these provisions; (c) prescribean inqtection system to assureplacernent of fill accordingto approveddesigns; and (d) gather, and I make available,performance data developedfrom speciftcproiects. These activitics would complementthe functions of local building d.epartmentsand local planning departments,none of which arepresently staffed to provide soils I inspections. The proposedproject would be consistentwith this poliry. The Port proposes I approximately144,000 cubic yards of solid fill, along with on-site and off-site pile removal reducingthe net fill to 101,316cubic yards. The Port will submit plans to BCDC's EngineeringCdteria Review Board to review and approve I the propos€dplacement of fill in the wharf exten$ionarea. I I I 50 I JUNE 1994 CHARLES P, HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION I IMPACI REPORT DRAFT ETWI RONMENTAL PLANS AND POLICIES I CONTEXT OF T-OCAL AND REGIONAL d. Port Policies. The Bay Plan includespolicies regardingports located along the Bay's shoreline. The port policies relevant to the proposedproject I are as follows: Poticy 1: Pott phnning and developmentshouU be governedby the policizs of the I SeaportPlan and other applicabk policies of the Bay Plan The SeaportPIan providesfor: I (a) Eryansillaranitlor redevelopmentof Pon facililies at Alnmeda, Benici4 OaHand, Rdwood City, Richmorul, Szn Francisco, and Selby; I (b) Futher deqming of shtp channelsneeded to accomtnodaleryected growth in ship size and.improve terminal productivily; I (c) The maintenanceof uplo4ate c4,8oforecasts and existingcaryo I handling capability estimatesto Suide the permitting of Port teminals; and (d) Developmentof Pon facilities with the leastpotential adverse environmental impacts while *ill providing for reasonableterminal I development. Policy 2: Filling and dredgingwill be required.to provide for necessaryPox I eryansion, but any permixed fill or dredgingshould be in accord with the Seaport Phn for assuing policy consistency, I Policy i: Port priority use areasshould be protectedfor maine terminals and directlyrelated ancillary activilies such as containerfreight stations, transit sheds ond other lemporary storage,ship repairing supPorttransportation usesincluding I trucking and raihoad yards,freight forwarders,gov*nment offtces related to the Poft activity,chand.len and marine selices Other uses,especially publir access and public and commercinl recreationaldevelopmmt, should also be permissible t usesprovided thq do not signifitantly impai.r the effrcient utilization of the Port areg. t The proposedproject would be consistentwith these Port policies. The Port proposesthe wharf expansionin order to meet the existingand projected t needsof Howard Terminal and also to acmmmodatenew generationship size and provide additional cargo storagearea. I I I )l T CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL EXTENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT ENVIRONMENIAL IMPACT REPORT AND POLICIES CONTEXT OF LOCAI, AND REGTONAL PI.ANS I e. Public AccessPolicies. The Bay Plan also includespolicies regarding public accessto the Bay. The public accesspolicies relevant to the proposed project are as follows: I Policy 1: The maximum feasible accessto and along the waterfront and on any pemined flls shotid be provided in and through everynew developmentin the I Bay or on the shorelinq wheihq it be for housing, industry' poq airporl, public facility, or other usq anpt in caseswhere public accessis clearly hconsistmt wirt the project becauseof public safdy considerationsor signiftrant use conflicts. I In thesecaxg occessat other locations,prcferably nmr the project, shouU be provided whene ve r fe asible. I The proposedproject would be consistentwith this poliry. The Port proposes to provide improved public accessalong the Oakland shorelinenear Alice Street becauseaccess into the operatingterminal is unsafe. I f. Aopearance.Desisn and ScenicView Policies. The Bay Plan also includespolicies regardingappearance, desigr and scenicviews of I developmentaround the Bay. The designpolicies relevant to the proposed project are as follows: I Policy 1: To enhancethe vlsual quality of develapmentaround the Bay and to tal I Under the policies of the SeaportPlan, BCDC and MTC, with the assistance of the SeaportPlanning Advisory Committee,must periodically update the SeaportPlan to reflect new information obtained since the last major review. I In 1988,revisions were drafted by the SeaportPlanning Advisory Committee and referred to both commissionsfor review and adoption. After public hearings,both commissionsadopted the proposedrevisions. BCDC and MTC I are currently in the processof updating the SeaportPlan;3 however, the proposedchanges have not been drafted and are unlikely to impact this I project. The SeaportPlan classifiesproposed projects as either "major' or "minor I marine terminal developments."Major marine terminal developmentsare conversionsof non-containermarine terminals to container marine terminals, sigrificant major additionsto capacityof any marine terminal or port priority t use are4 or developmentsinvolving more than a small amount of Bay fill' Major marine terminal developmentmust occur at those sites classifiedas I near-tenn and active by the Plan. The long-term developmentsites and sites not desigratedin the Plan may be consideredfor developmentonly after all the near-term sites havebeen petmitted for use and those active,non- t container terminals that can be convertedto container terminals have been developedfor mntainer use. I The SeaportPlan found that channeldeepening up to 45 feet is economically feasiblefor the Oakland Inner Harbor (west of the Webster Street Tube). The most cost-effectivedepth would be determinedby the Army Corps of I Engineersdepending on the prevailing operating and market conditionsat the t time of the evaluation. I I I BCDC/MTC Seaport Plan: Prepared 1982; Revised 1988; Approved U4E9 & 3176189. I 53 J CTIARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL EJ(TENSTON JUNE 1994 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I CONTEXT OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL PI.ANS AND POLICIES ^. Marine Terminal Policies. The SeaportPlan includespolicies regarding I marine terminal use. The marine terminal policies that are relevant to the proposed project are as follows: I Policy 1: The needfor a major develnpmentmust be demonstratedin one of the following ways: T . The developmentof new container terminal befths must be consbtent with the baselinedemand esimates using a kad time of sh years measured fum the filing of a BCDC permit application. I ' The needfor developmentof other typesof marine terminal befths must be demonstratedby the prqject proponet t, using the caryoforecasts, thc I demand estimat* and other evidenceas necessary.Lead time for such terminab shall be the time for project construction, I Policy 6: To avoid unnecessaryBay fiA and other adverseenvironmental effects, and to encourageprompt constructian and full use of authorizedfacilities: I . Pofts are encouragedto cooperate,through agreetnentsamong themselves, to avoid facilitics beingproposed that duplicate neededcapocuy. If, however,two or more applirations for marine terminals of the same We I are being consideredat the same time, and the needfor all of them cannot be demonstmted,only thoseprojects with the least ad,verseenvironmental effect on the Bay and that are neededmay be authorized. I . All permits for maine tenninals must contain a schedulethat establishes: (a) a datepior to the commencementof construction by which the proiect q)onsor mu.stdemonstrute the abihry tu finance the project; and. I (b) a reasonabletimetable for project conslruction, including specifrc milestones. I . ll/henever*isTing terminals remain untued.or little usedfor a significant perid of time following adoptiotr of the SeaportPIan and whenever BCDC, in consullation with MTC, has determinedthat this indhates that I a re*aluation of the caryoforecasts and. region's capacityis necessary,no major nan terminal developmentof the same type may be considereduntil the SeaportPIan has beenpromptly rcviewed.and" if necessaryrevised' in a t timely manner to reJlectthe resuks of the reevaluation. Policy 9: To use existingterminab fully and to lessenlhe cost and.adverse I environmental effectsassociated with developmentto meet the growth of watetbome cargoes,the SeapoftPIan statesthat: I I 54 I I JUNE 1994 CI'ARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL D(TENSION I DRAFT ENVIRONMEITAL IMPACT REPORT CONTEXT OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL PI.ANS AND POLICTES I . channelsthat otheruise s,ould limit the productivity of marine terminals should be deepenedwhen economicallyfeasibb and environmentally I acceptable; . local governmentsshouW adopt and implement land usepolicics that t facilitate terminal developmenton exisling dry land; . Inra and terminal operatorsshould acquireproperty that permits necessary I terminal developmenton exMing dry land; . terminal operatorcshould, where economicallyfezsible, increaset*minal productivity; and I . ports and terminal operaton should rehabilitate or mademize *isting container terminab that can be convertedto container use before I devebping netv container terminals. b. Deepwater Channel Policies. The SeaportPlan includespolicies regardingdeepwater channels ofthe Bay. The deepwaterchannel policies I relevant to the proposedproject are as follows: I Policy 10:Deepening or widening of San Francisco Bay Channels,including the San Francisco Bar Channel should proceed only if economicallyjustiftd or if need.edfor national defense,and if sachdeepening or widening conforms to State I and nationzl environmental law and polbies The interior channelsof San Francisco Bay should only be deepenedas consistentwith the depth of the San I Francisco Bar Channel. Polity 11: Dredgingprojec* must also be performed consistentwith BCDC's Bay I Plan policies on dredgingand dredgematerial disposal. The proposedproject would be consistentwith these SeaportPlan policies. The Port proposesthe wharf expansionin order to meet the existingand I projected needsof Howard Terminal and also to accommodatenew generationship size and provide additionat cargo storagearea. The Port will I also submit dredgingand fill plans to BCDC for review and approval. I I I I )) I CHARIES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION tuNE 1994 DRAFT ENVI RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I CONIEXT OF LOC.{L AND RECIONAL PT.ANS AND POLICIES t C Summaryand ConclusionsofPlanc and Policies 1. Summary I According to the CEQA Guidelines','a project will normally have a significantimpad if it would conflict with adopted environmentalplans and I goalsof the communitywhere it is located.' This would include the Pon of Oakland policies,Oakland ComprehensivePlan, Alameda County Airport Land Use Plan, BCDC San Francism Bay Plan, and BCDC/IvITC Seaport I Plan policies and regulations,as discussedabove. a. Pon of Oakland Policies. The proposedproject is mnsistent with the I intent of the Port of Oakland policies and meetsthe BusinessPlan goal to 'maintain the current level of businesswhile existingfacilities are upgraded and additional facilities are constructedfor more efficient, productive and I expandingoperations by existingand new customers.ns b. Oakland ComprehensivePlan Conformitv. The proposedproject would I be consistentwith the curtent industrial land use designationof the site. It would be generallycompatible with relevantgoals and policies in the Plan. Project compatibilitywith other relevantsections of the ComprehensivePlan T is discussedbelow. I (1) Preservationof Historic Structures. Under the Land UseElement Policics of Urban Design and Presemation,Policy 4 and the Hbtoric Presemation Element City-Sponsoredor AssistedProjects, Policy j.6, the City is directed to I make every effort to preserveolder buildings and siteswhich have sigrificant historical value, The demolition of the transit shedbuilding would destroya visible and tangible reminder of the historical developmentof the Port of I Oakland. The first permanentoffices ofthe newly formed Board of Port Commissionerswere locatedwithin the upper floors of this shed and in those portions which were partially demolishedin the early 1980s. In June of 1983, I the remainingportion of the building was studiedby City of Oakland staff and consultantsas part of the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey,at the direction of the State of California ResourcesAgency. As a result of the suruey,the I building was placedon the City of Oakland landmark preservationstudy list (with an '4" rating) becauseof the building's associationwith the economic and industrial past of Oakland, its architecturalsignificance, and its I associationwith local governmentalhistory. I ' CEQA, Appendix G(a), Signifiaant Effecrs. r Port of Oakland. June 1993. Maritine Division Busioess Plan 1993-94,p 6-7. I I <6 I JUNE 1994 CTIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION I DRAFT ENVIRONMEI'ITAL IMPACT REPORT CONTEXT OF LOCAI AND REGIONAL PI-{NS AND POLICIES I The National Historic PreservationAct of 1966,through accountabilityof federal agenciesin granting assistanceto local agencies,and through the I activitiesof the State Historic PreservationOfficer (SHPO), seeksto preserve known historic buildings and places,whether on the national, State or local Ievel. The federal project evaluationprocess (Section 106 ofthe Historic I PreservationAct) will be required and a deterrninationwill be made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. SHPO will still have to rule on the historical statusof the building becauseof its inclusion on the City of Oakland I landmark pre.sewationstudy list, and will provide recommendationsfor mitigations as necessary, I Although the site and buildings are not listed on the National Register of Historic Places,the transit shedbuilding appearsto be eligible for inclusion in the Register. As discussedin Chapter V, SectionA, Historic Resources,the I site and buildings are consideredto be historically significant' If the structure is found to have historical significance,SHPO is responsiblefor assistingthe local agencyin finding and/or adopting feasiblemeasures to eliminate or I mitigate the adverseeffects. SectionA of Chapter V includesrecommended I mitigation measures. (2\ Bav Fill. Under the PolrcriesRelating to the Natural Sating Policy 6, the ComprehensivePlan statesthat'fill should be undertakenonly I upon clear and mnvincing evidencethat its benefitswill outweighits resulting environmentaland other costs.nThe project is consistentwith this policy. The economiccosts and benefitsof the project are describedin Chapter V, I SectionB, Socio-Economics.The environmentalimpacts ofthe proiect and all setting and mitigation measuresare describedthroughout this report. t (3) Public Access. llnder the Policies Relating to the Natural Setting, Policy 7, the City is directed to make neveryteasonable effort to provide attractive public accessto the water-edge."Refer to the BCDC San Francisco I Bay Plan discussionbelow. G\ Ciw. Resional and State-wideBenefits. Under the Policieson I Industrial Areas, Policy 5, the project will provide benefits on a local and regional economiclevel by providing expandedoperations. The emnomic costsand benefitsof the project are describedin detail in SectionB, Socio- I Economics. I c. @ The ProPosedProject's extensionof industrial use is a compatibleland use under the plan; however, an issueof concem is crane heights. The wharf extensionwould require the I existingcrane to move further down the wharf within the proposedextension I 57 I CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT t CONTEXT OF LOCAL AND RECIONAL PIANS AND POLIOES area in order to load ships dockedat Berth 68. The wharf and the cranesare T locatedjust outside the safetyzone boundaryof Alameda Naval Air Station, which is on the baseclosure list. As the cranesmove east,in the direction of I the wharf extension,the distanceto the baseof the heighl restriction increases;thereforq with respectto air clearance,the facility is safer with the cranesfurther east. I d. San FranciscoBay Plan. I (1) Bav Fill Policies. San FranciscoBay Conservationand DevelopmentCommission (BCDC) policies require that the fill proposedbe "the minimum fill necessary.'The Port is consideringthe proposedproject I and one altemative. The proposedproject involvesremoving a wharf area covering80,350 square feet and 1,100pilings. The proposedproject would fill 144,000cubic yards and dredgeapproximately 43,600 cubic yards. The pile- I supportedwharf altemative involvesconstructing the extensionas a pile- supported concrete wharf. I The proposedproject muld be viewed as inmnsistent with BCDC'Spolicy requiring the minimum fill necessarybecause the pile-supportedwharf altemative involvesless fill. However,as discussedin Chapter VI, Project I Alternatives,the pile-supportedwharf altemative presentsseismic safety issues. Any adverseeffects of fill in the Bay would be mitigated by the removal of existingunused or under-utilizedwharf structuresin or over bay I waters. The removal of the old pilings (cutting at mud line) will eliminate a mntinuing sourceof mntamination from the exposedcreosote surfaces of the I piles. The specificimpacts of fill are a r€duction in the volume of water in the Bay, t coveringof benthic (bottom) organisms,and changesin water circulation. The removal of existingunused or under-utilizedwharf structuresin or over bay waters would provide a mitigation for the impact on water volume. The I impact and mitigation regardingbenthic organismsis discussedin Chapter V, SectionK Biologic Resources.The effect on water circulation is describedin Chapter V, SectionJ, Water Quality. I (2) Dredging Policies. Under the proposedproject,43,600 cubic yards of material would be dredged. Dredge material would be placed in an t upland disposalsite. The project is thus consistentwith the dredgingpolicies. One result of dredgingis to increasethe volume of water in the Bay by increasingthe depth of the channel. Other impactsof dredgingand mitigation t are discussedin Chapter V, SectionI, SedimentQuality. t 58 I I JUNE 1994 CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL P(TENSION I DRAFT ENVIRONMEI{TAL IMPACT REPORT CONTEXT OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL PIANS AND POLICIES I (3) Public AccessPolicies. Public accesswould be improved at the end of Alice Street and thus the project is mnsistent with the Bay Plan t policies regarding public access. The provision of public accessat Howard Terminal is not appropriate due to the nature of the heavyequipment in use on the site and the hazardousconditions to the unwaryvisitor that result ftom I normal operationsat a container terminal. Public accessissues are addressed in Chapter V, SectionM, Public Accessand Recreation. I (4) Apoearance.Desipr and ScenicView Policies. The proposed projecr will require review by the BCDC Desigr Review Board (DRB), becatsr, of.Appearance, Design and Scenir Views,Policy 12t In order to achieve a high level d"sg" quality, the Commission'sDesign ReviewBoar4 composed I "f of designand planning professionals,should review, evaluateand advisethe Commbsion on the prolnsed designof develapmentsthat affect the appealance I of the Bay in accordancewith the Bay Phn Find.ingsand Policies on Public Access;Appearance, Design and Scenic Wa+s; the General D*elopment Guide; and the Public AccessDesign Guidelines, Cily, county, regional, state and fed,eral I agenciesshould be guided in their evaluatinn of Bayftont projects by the above guidelines.6The DRB's relationshipto the Commissionis an advisorylevel where the DRB makes recommendationsregarding bayfront projectswithin I BCDC's jurisdiction. In order to achievea high level of designquality, the DRB will review and evaluatethe proposeddesigr of the project in t accordancewith the Bay Plan ftndingsand policies on Public Access;on Appearancg Design, and ScenicViews; and the Public AccessDesign Guidelines. The visual impactsofthe proposedproject are describedin I Chapter V, SectionN, Visual Resources. e. SeaportPlan for the San FranciscoBay Area. The proposedproject is t also consistentwith relevant policies ofthe SeaportPlan. The project involves a minimum amount of fill to create a new container terminal. The need for the terminal is demonstratedby the fact it has been leasedto a terminal t opemtor and it is consistentwith the baselinedemand estimates. I 2. Conclusions The proposedproject is mnsistent with all public policy to the extent possible I with the exceptionof the Historic Preservationpolicies. I I 6 BCDC San Francisco Bay Plan, Policy 1a p 30. I 59 I CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAI EJ I Maritime usesalong the Oakland waterfront have evolvedover the past century,from piers servingbreak-bulk cargo to modern container terminals. The proposedwharf extensionis paft of the mntinuing evolution of Howard I Terminal. a. Historic C-ontextof the Grove Street Pier. The remnant of the Grove I Street Pier cornprisesthe easternend of Howard Terminal. This pier, including the transit shed,was part of a large concretepier built in 1926-28by the Port of Oakland for use as a break-bulkterminal. The Port demolished I portions of the pier and shed in 1980-81when Howard Terminal was mnstructed. t The primary historic context for assessingthe significanceof the Grove Street Pier is the developmentof municipal port facilities in Oakland in the early t 20th century. Secondarycontexts include general shippingand port activities on San FranciscoBay. Oakland'smost intensiveperiods of port development I o@urred betweenthe yearsof 1910and 1941and after 7962. (1) Overviewof Port Developmenton San FranciscoBav. San Francisco'srise as a port beganv/ith the Gold Rush. Major construction I projects included the Ferry Building (1895-1903)and severaldozen piers and transit sheds(1908-1936). The first transcontinentalrailroad line was built into Oakland in 1869. By 1910,Oakland was servedby two transcontinental I lines and a branch line of a transcontinentalline terminating in Richmond. Oaklan4 Richmond and other cities beganport developmentin anticipation ofthe completion ofthe PanamaCanal in 1914. By the 1930s,Oakland was a I cargo port secondonly to San Francism. I T 6l I CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I HISTORIC RESOURCES (2) The Era of Monopoly: 1852-1909.Horace W. Carpentierand I the Carpentierpartnership with CentralPacific Railroad and its successor SouthernPacifig controlled Oakland's early waterfront development. I Carpentieracquired the townsite,and secured legislation in 1852incorporating th€ Townof Oaklandand giving Carpentier the exclusiveright to build wharves,docks and piersin the town. In 1854,Carpentier helped to havethe t town reincorporatedas a city andbecame its first mayor. During the 1850s, Carpentierbuilt wharvesat the foot of Broadway,Webster and Washington Street. I In 1868,Carpentier formed the OaklandWaterfront Company in partnership with the CentralPacific Railroad and transferred his waterfrontland to the I newoompany. Transcontinental rail servicebegan in 1869along Seventh Street. In 1870a freightline openedalong First Streetand the SeventhStreet line wasused for passengers.Central Pacific built the LongWharf in 18'10-11. T With the arrivalof railroads,Oakland began exponing agricultural and timber productsto manyparts of the world. I In the 1870s,federal harbor improvements including jetties and channels were made,and the first city-ownedwharf was built betweenFranklin and Webster Streets.Lumber yards and fuel-feeddepots, many equipped with wharyes, I proliferatedalong the Estuary,lining the waterfrontfrom Market Streetto the Lake Merritt sloughby 1900. t (3) The First Phaseof MunicipalControl: 1910-1925.By 1910, Oaklandwas served by threetranscontinental rail lines(Southern Pacifig I SantaFg andWestern Pacific). The waterfrontunderwent intensive industrializationduring World War I and the 1920sas Oakland became a majorexporter of manufacturedgoods and processed foods. From 1905to t 1931,Oakland undertook an ambitiouspublic improvement program including the beginningsof a municipalport. After the 1906earthquake, many vessels werediverted from SanFrancisco to Oakland.Between 1909 and 1911,the I City took controlof the waterfrontthrough litigation, negotiation, annexation andconveyance. By the mid-1920s,city-owned port facilitiesincluded wharves on the westernwaterfront, and piers,transit sheds and a quaywall on the I Estuary. The first two projectswere the LivingstonStreet Pier, a reinforced-concrete I pier, and a bulkheadwith wharveson the westernwaterfront. The mostcostly projectwas the quaywall (Figure8, Photo1), a concreteseawall/dock on the Estuarywaterfmnt between Filbert and Claystreets. The sedimentsfrom I dredginga shippingchannel were used to createland behind the quaywall, and a transitshed was built alongthe quaywall betweenGrove and Jefferson I 62 I I I I I I I t I 1. View of quaywall (l9lG14) undermnstnrction, looking e3stftom vicinity of Martet Street,c. 1911. I I I I I t I I 2. Aerial view showing eastemend of quay wall and Municipal Dock No. l, c. 1918. The transit shedext€nds between Grove and Jeffersonstreets. This I site was redevelooedin the 1920sas the Grove SEeetPier. I SourceiPort of Oaklahd, CharlesP. Howard TerminalExtension FIGURE 8 EIIVIBOTTSXTAIIIIPACT N EPORI I Port of Oakland QuayWall, l91l and 1918 rtr I Br ADY AND AssocIATEs CTIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E (TENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HISTORIC RESOURCES I Streetsin 1915.This facilitywas known as Municipal Dock No. 1 (Figure8, Photo2). A wharfand transit shed were built at the foot of ClayStreet in 1917-18,and the Market StreetPier with a largetransit shed was built in t lE23-U (Fi$re 9, Photo1). The City leasedMarket StreetPier facilitiesto the V.O. LawrenceCompany I for generalcargo, City Wharf No. 1 to AlbersMilling Company(which becamea Carnationsubsidiary in 1929)for grain distribution,a newwharf and concrete-reinforcedtransit shed to the Parr TerminalCompany for oil tankers, I and a facilityat the foot of Filbert Streetto the HowardCompany for mal andlater generalcargo. Alben built a reinforced-mncretemill buildingwith an attachedwood frame warehouse (Figure 9, Photo2). I (4) The Port of Oakland: 196-1961.The 1920ssaw a doublingof shippingin SanFrancisco, and manyvessels were diverted to portsin the East I Bay. Between1915 and 1925,the numberof vesselsarriving on the Oakland waterfrontincreased fivefold, In ly24 thecity appointeda boardof engineers I to formulat€ a long-rangplan for port development.T'he Repon on port of Oakland,completed in 1925,recommended a long quaywharf with transit shedat the endof FourteenthStreet, two wide pierswith U-shapedtransit I shedsat the foot of Grove[effersonstreets (now part of the presentHoward Terminal)and ClayAMashingtonStreets, and a largepier with a U-shaped transitshed at the foot of Thirteenth/Fourteenthavenues. The reportalso I recommendedthat port managementbe vestedin a boardor commission. The Boardof Pon Commissioners,mmposed of five city businessmen,took I officein 1925and, became permanent under a charteramendment in 1926. The board'sjurisdiction, known as the Pon of Oakland,was an independent alm of the citywith the powerto build, equip,maintain and operate port I facilities.Revenues generated by the Port wereunder the controlof th€ board. I Between1926 and,1931, the Port of Oaklandbuilt mostof the improvements recommendedin the report,along with the Ninrh AvenuePier and transit she4 the OaklandAirport, andother facilities(Figure 10). The whamesand I piershad reinforced-concretedecks with perimeterwood aprons, and were supportedby reinforcedconcrete, concrete-jacketed and crmsoted timber I piles. The transitsheds were steel frame and reinforcedconcrete (exc€pt the InlandWaterways Terminal, which had corrugated iron siding). The transit shedshad digtified,carefully composed fronts closely resembling one another. I For its first 30 years,the Port operatedmost of its cargohandling facilities but leasedout mostof its warehouses.Two suchleases were to a dried fruit I I 64 I r I II III I I I I I II III I I - E F <3 E c;rs9{ (DtD d :- +SE *a =.ao ='- 0eo- 6E 9rg = lE =;' igs. =- z='3 sf I :FE >i, 9 -.> rEt 5 +si =u 4 ?:- cs3 s! sFi P= .6 =lE d" \t d tt) -! g Er F F' !n U> Ed= 3X =d (D ='.i ?= aE3 L= :.s"_ \c} 0e at qo r- 90 E $t' t, Gi'j <3 FEi' 9E t3 g8 .j.= 3.1 (,Q!o r= e3 94 3P sd. ET i.J = a 4= ='= \o {ri g.\ AF FA O i': oc rt I a o !,! = ;. .?U :a It \o ig -t rA' 48. ila E: !. \o Fg iJ It o- \o -i =dp sl e3 P (? f) 0a <\ iE s I - Fn.v \o * X''r ul tD s. B6d ta ;; € a Fl ige 'z o t I I I I I t 1. c. 1967:Sea-I$d's two-cranecontainer terminal wrapsaround I FourteenthStreet Unit on eastand nortr. OaklandArmv Base in background. I I t I I I I Sfi€etUnit hasbe€n totally demolishedfor I expansionof Sea-Iand Terminal; addilional containerfacilities extendto south. Sourel Port of Oakland CharlesP. Howard I TerminalExtension FIGURE10 ETVINOflTENTAIITIACI REPOR' l Port of Oakland FourteenthStreet Unit, OuterHarbor Terminal, BnapY AND AssocIATEs 1967and 1981 C}IARLES P, HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 t DRAFT ENVTRONMEI{TALIMPACT REPORT HISTORICRESOURCES I shipper,Rosenberg Bros. & Co.,and a cannedgoods shipper, Libby, McNeill & Libby. I The Poft of Oaklandreceived an increasingvolume of businessin its early years. The Estuarywas made accessible to largeocean-going steamships by 1928.In lng, the U.S.Treasury Department designated Oakland as a full I port of entryand establishedcustoms servic€. In 1932,a doublefee charged to pilots bringingvessels to Oaklandwas eliminate4 and in 1934Oakland becamea port of call for shipstraveling to and from the Far East. Duringthe I Depression,Port tonnagemore than tripled, During World War II, mostPort facilitieswere taken over by the Military. After the war, tonnagegtew slowly while the Port concentratedon developingJack London Square (dedicated in I 1951),an industrialpark borderingSan Irandro Bay (begunin 1957),and an airport expansion(completed in 1962). I (5) Containerization:1962-1994. The mntainershipping system, in whichsealed steel mntainers are carriedunopened by ship,truck and rail, was I developedin the 1950s.Cranes reduced ship unloading time from up to three weeksto lessthan a day. Between1962 and 7982,the Port of Oakland openedten containerterminals and operatingrevenues grew tenfold. t Containerizationresulted in the demolitionof mostof the break-bulktransit sheds.Other thanpart of the GroveStreet Pier on HowardTerminal, the I facilitiesremaining from 1910-1914are the LivingstonStreet Pier, a fragrnent of the quaywall, and Ninth AvenueTerminal. The LMngstonStreet Pier is tenant-operatedas a commercialfisherman's pier. The remnantof tbe quay I wall,which is just eastof HowardTerminal, serves as a displayberth for the presidentialyacht Potomac. The Ninth AvenueTerminal is lightlyused as a tenant-operatedbreak-bulk facility. I b, Site-SpecificHistory ofthe GroveStreet Pier. (SeeFigures 11, 12 and 13for this section.)The waterfrontin the vicinityof the GroveStreet Pier I hasbeen used for municipalport activitiessince the constructionof the quay wall and municipaldocks in the 1910s.Municipal Dock No. 1, with its large transitsheq adjoinedthe site of the GroveStreet Pier. As earlyas the 1890s, I a lumberyard with wharfoc€upied the shorelinesite betweenJefferson and GroveStreets. In 1888,the areaimmediately inland from the site to Semnd I Streetwas occupied by the gasstorage tanks and power plant of the Oakland Gaslightand Heat Company.By 1912,PG&E had takenover thesefacilities. t The GroveStreet Pier wasthe secondproject undertaken by the Port of Oakland;construction took placein 7W and1928. The Port of Oakland movedits administrativeoffices to the GroveStreet Pier transitshed in 1931. I t 68 I I I I I I I l. Grove SueetPier (HowardTerminal), wesr half of pier 2. Grove Street Pier (Howard Terminal), sructural steel nearingcompletion, east half started.View looking in placefor west transitshed (Section "8"). View I southwest,22 J Dnel927. looking south,7 Oclober19?-7. I I t I I I Grove Street Pier {Howard(Howard Terminal),Terminal)- nearingnearins 4. Grove StreetPier (HowardTerminal), ship moored, I completion.View looking northeast,l6 January1928. railroadtracks under construction. View looking southwest,23 May 1928. t I Sour('e:Port ofOakland CharlesP. Howard TerminalExtension FIGURE11 ETYIAOTIIEIITALIIIPAGT BEPONT T Port of Oakland Grove StreetPier (Howard aat Terminal) 1927- 1928 T Bn D As SOCIATES I I I I I I I I l. Grove StreetPier. interior ofeast tsansitshed (Section 2. Grove StreetPier, meetingroom of Boad of Harbor "A"), showingtypical break-bulkoperations. View looking Commissioners,west transit shed(Section "B"). View south.193k. looking southwestc. 1930s. T I I I I I 3. GroveSreetPier. Aerialview lookingwest, c. 1950. 4. CharlesP. Howard Terminal underconstruction, with (Courtesy of OaklandHistory Room; OaklandPublic remnantof Grove SEeetPier at nearend of new terminal. I Library.) Aerial view looking west, 1982. I Sourc€:Poil ol Orklrn4 erceptwhcre noted. CharlesP. Howard TerminalExtension FICURE 12 I EIIVIROIIXEIITALIIPAGI BEPOFT Port of Oahland Grove StreetPier and Howard raa Terminal, 1930s; 1982 I Bn ADY AND AssocIATEs I IITIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ll Etn da iF v; FE. "s .do 6. E F 0a {t! t-1 otl F 0a v> o\ F 0q q! k I -l .^. s (D'l-J I :> .! - { Fl. =5 H Ft ?l q, iE s \o ah )- . \o I 6 :F; A 0 tD- - (.t) F i5'd ;a * tD ri =F' F& i5 .) JUNE 1994 CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HISTORIC RESOURCES I and they remainedthere until they were moved to Jack I-ondon Squarein 1961. (The Port occupiedits new building in 1990.) As early as 1935,the I Grove Street Pier, Market Street Pier, Clay Street Wharf and quay wall were operatedas a single unit known as the Grove Street Terminal. During World War II when the military took over most of the port, the Grove Street I Terminal was the only facility to remain under Port control. In 1956when the Port beganleasing out its facilities,Howard Terminal beganmanaging the terminal. Howard remainedthere throughout the late 1970s,operating the I terminal in conjunctionwith its terminal at the foot of Myrtle Street immediatelyto the west. I In 1q78the Port purchasedHoward Terminal for a planned expansionof its container facilities. The CharlesP, Howard Terminal entailed the demolition of the historic Howard Terminal complex,the Market Street Pier and most of I the Grove Street Pier, and partial demolition and burial of most of the quay wall. Most of the piers, transit shedsand warehouses,along with the Market Street Pier. were demolishedin 199 and 1980. Most of Grove Street Pier I and two sectionsof the U-shapedtransit shedwere demolishedin 1980-81. The containeryard and a concretewharf were filled in 1981. The 49-acre CharlesP. Howard Terminal was dedicatedin October 1982. The terminal I combinedcontainer and break-bulk operations. A successionof tenantsused the transit shed for break-bulkcargo in the 1980s. It is now lightly used as a I storageand maintenancefacility for container operations. c. Description of the Grove Street Pier. As built in 1926-28,the Grove I Street Pier consistedof a three-berthpier and a U-shapedtransit shed adjoining the quay wall. The deck was of reinforced mncrete, supportedby concretepiles and wood piles with concretejackets. The central portion of I the pier was underlain with dredgedfill held in place by a riprap rock berm. A timber apron wharf supportedby creo$otedwood piles ran around the perimeter of the concretedeck. The demolition of 1980-81left standingthe I northeastportion of the pier adjoining the quaywalli this section now comprisesa portion of the east end of the CharlesP. Howard Terminal. I The original transit shedwas composedof an 536-foorlong east shed,a 561- footlong west shed and a 60-foot-long connecting wing. Each shed had a high central bay with shallow-pitchgable roof, flanked by lower sectionswith shed t roofs. The height to the eaveswas about 30 feet, and to the center about,l4 feet. The shore endsofthe east and west shedcontained an upper story for offices. The transit shedwas a reinforced-concrete(except the front portion I of each shedwhich was entirely mncrete) and steel-framestructure with I concretefoundation, exterior walls and office floors. Exterior walls were I IJ I CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL D(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I HISTORIC RESOURCES finished in cement stucco,and windowswere wire-glassand multi-panedwith I steel sash, I The partial demolition of 19E0-81resulted in the removal of the west she4 the tranwerse win& the roofed-over central are4 and five structural bays trom the south end of the east shed. The remnant of the east shed is 448 feet long I on its east side and 313 feet long on its west side, comprisingabout 70 percent of the original east shed. I d. Designersof the Grove Street Pier. The Grove Street Pjer was desigred by Poft of Oakland staff engineers,particularly JosephG, Bastow, under the direction of Port Manager/ChiefEngineer GustaveB. Hegardt and I AssistantPon Manger Arthur H. Abel. Hegardt and Abel carried out the Port's first major phaseof constructionbetween 1926 and 1931,and Abel oversaw developments between 7932 and 1952. I GustaveB. Hegardt (1859-1942)was a native of Swedenwho came to the United Statesas a young boy and graduatedfrom various technicaland I engineeringcolleges. He beganhis career with the U.S. Army Engneering Corps,where he oversawthe constructionof locks on the Illinois and Columbia rivers. He entered private practice in Portland, Oregon at the tum t of the century and was appointedchief engineerof the Port of Portland in 1910. He was one of the authorsof the 1925Repox of Poti of OaHand, and I was hired as the first managerand chief engineerof the Port. Upon his death,Pacifu Marine Revicwdescribed him as one of the West's most outstandingport engineers. I Arthur H. Abel (1882-1961)was bom in Washingtonand receiveda cMl engineeringdegree from WashingtonState College. After working as a I surveyorfor railroads,he enteredprivate practicewith Hegardt in Ponland. He servedas Hegardt'sassistant at the ports of Portland and Oaklan4 and succeededHegardt as chief engineerofthe Port of Oakland. In 1950he I serveda term as presidentof the American Associationof Poft Authorities. JosephG. Bastow (1892-1960),a natlve of Utah, receiveda degreein civil I engineeringfrom the University of California in 1923. The Port of Oakland hired him as a structural designerin 1926, He was assistantport manager from 1935until his retirement in 1959. When he retire4 the Oakland Tribune I credited him with supervisingthe designof many of the piers and warehouses of the Port, specificallythe Fourteenth Street and Ninth Avenue Piers. I e. Berth 10. No historic resourcesare located on Berth 10. I I 1i I JUNE 1994 CTIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E (TENSION I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HISTORIC RESOURCES I 2. Registerand Landmark Status I a. National Resister Eligibilitv Criteria. The criteria for listing a structure on the National Regster of Historic Placesare found in 36 CFR Section60.4, I as follows: The quality of significancein American hLstory,architecture, archaeologyr, and culture is present in disticLs, sites,buildings, structures,and objeas that possess I intqrity of locatinn, design,sening materials, worlananship,feeling, and asseiation, and that I (a) are associatd with eventsthat have made a signifrcant contribution to the broadpattems of our history; or I (b) that are associatedwith the lives of perconsignificant in our past; or (c) that embodythe distinctive charactericticsof a type,period, or method I oI constructian or lhat possesshigh artistic valaes,or that rcpresenta signifrcantdiainguishable entity whosecomponents may lack individ,ual I distinction: or (d) that haveyielded or may be likely to yield information imponant in I history or prehistory. b. California Resister of Historical Resources. Propertieslisted in the T National Register of Historic Places,State Historic Landmarks,and State Points of Historical Interest are automaticallylisted in the California Register of Historical Resources. Many other categoriesof California properties are I potentially eligible for listing including properties that have been inventoried in local surveysand nted as eligible for the National Register. The Grove I Street Pier is thus eligible for listing in the California Register. c. State Historic Landmark. A State Historic Landmark must meet the criteria of the National Registerof Historic Placesat the state level of I significance. The Grove Street Pier appearsto be eligible for the National Register only at the local level, and thus does not appear to qualiry as a State I Historic Landmark. d, Oakland City Landmark. The designationof an Oakland City I I-andmark is a three-tieredprocess invoMng the LandmarksPreservation Advisory Board (LPAB), the Planning Commission,and the City Council. If the Planning Commissionaccepts the recommendationof the LPAB, the I recommendationis passedon to the City Council for final action. The LPAB I 75 I CITARLESP- HOWARD'TERMINAL E (TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT EMr'IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I HISTORIC RESOURCES has not recommendedCity Landmark desigration,and no such action is I pending. t e. Cultural Resourcesin the Area of Potential Effect (APE). An APE has not been designatedfor this project. If necessary,this could occur during the Army Corps of Engineers'permitting process. T 3. Impacts and Mitigation Measures I The Port proposesto demolishthe Grove Street Pier in order to expandits wharf and teminal yard. The impactsof that action are discussedbelow. I ^. SignificanceCriteria. The Califomia Environmental Quality Acl (CEaA) mandatesthat all action necessarybe taken to protect the state's historic and cultural resources.CEQA Guidelinesstate that a project will I normally have a "significanteffect" on the environmentif it witl: . Disrupt or adverselyaffect a prehistoric or historic archaeologicalsite I or a property of historjc or cultural significanceto a community or ethnic or social group. I When a significanteffect is identified, project altemativesand mitigation measuresmust be consideredto decreasethe effect to a lessthan sigrificant level. I The criteria used to evaluatewhether the project or the altemativeswill have a significantimpact on the Grove Street Pier are tbe 1983Seuetary of the T Interiols Standardsfor Rehabilitation and Guidelinesfor Rehabilitating Hisnric Buildings, The intent of the Standardsis the preservationof historic and cultural resourcesthrough the preservationof historic materials and features. I Ttte Standardsapply to the exterior and interior of buildings;related landscapefeatures and sites;and related new construction. I In order to determine if the project will violate the Secretaryof Interior's Stand.ards,and thus will have a sigrificant effect, one must first identi$ the I character-deftningfeatures of the historic or cultural resource,and then determine if the project will have a significanteffect on these features, I b. Eligibilitv for National Register. The Grove Street Pief appearsto be eligible for National Register under criterion A becauseit servedas the Pon's headquartersfor nearly 30 years,and under criterion C, becauseit embodies t the distinctivearchitecture of the period. The building's character-defining featuresapply to both criteria; that is, they form an integral whole. The I T /o I JUNE 1994 CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E} t embellishedfront facade,for example,makes sense as an exampleof civic 'beautification' only in relationto the utilitarianside elevations. Similarly, the building'sdual functionas a transitshed and officebuilding is conveyedby the T entiretyof the interior,with its spaciouswarehouse section and officefloor. The significanceof the structurelies both in its useas a transitshed and office I andin its architecturalimportance, Because its significancederives not only from its stylebut alsofrom its associationswith port history partial demolition- leavinga portionof the buildingstanding" in situ or on a new I site- wouldviolate the Standards. and thereforewould not mitigateimpacts to historic resources. I The GroveStreet Pier is a compositestructure mnsisting of three separatebut relatedelernents: quay wall, pier, and transitshed. The characterof the transitshed is definedby the followingfeatures: I . the exteriorofthe building(excluding the reconstructedsouth end) I . the interior ofthe building(excluding the reconsrructedsouth end). The followingfeatures are not consideredcharacter-defining: the reconstructedsouth end of the buildin&the loadingdock/canopy at the I building'snorthwest front corner,the remnantof the originalpier (platform and piles)under and aroundthe building and the remnantof the quaywau underthe building. (Thevisible remnant of the quaywall whichextends t betweenthe GroveStreet Pier andthe FDR Pier is simificantbut oursidethe project area.) T c. Evaluation.In evaluatingthe eligibilityofthe GroveStreet Pier for the NationalRegister, the mostdifficult issueis that of integrity. On the one I hand,it couldbe saidthat the GroveSrreet Pier haslost its integritysince a majorityof the structurehas been demolished. On the other hand,it muld be arguedthat the remnantis a self-mntainedwhole incorporating in diminished I form the essentialfeatures of the original,and viewed as such, that it possessessufficient integrity of location,design, setting materials, workmanship,feeling and association.The transitshed and pier, asthey I standtoday, comprise less than half the original;yet the transitshed is comparablein sizeand appearanceto other transitsheds of the pedod, e.g.,Transit Shed No. 1 at the FourteenthStreet Unit, the originalNinth I AvenuePier, and the InlandWaterways Terminal. It is the opinionof the consultantthat the survivingremnant of the Grove I StreetPier possessessufficient integrity to warrantinclusion on the National I Registerof HistoricPlaces on the locallevel of significanceunder criteria A I '77 I CTIARLESP, HOWARD TERMINAL E{TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT EIWIRONMENTAI IMPACT REPORT I HISTORICRESOURCES and C, The historiccontext is the developmentof municipalport facilitiesin I the CityofOakland 1910-1941. I Under criterionA for its historicalassociations, the structureis significantas the oldestsuwiving municipal port buildingon the Oaklandwaterfront. It is one of two majorPort buildingsfrom the prewarperiod - the transitshed at t Ninth AvenueTerminal is the other - to havesurvived the intensive convenionfrom break-bulkto mntainercargo handling in the 1970sand 1980s.As such,the GroveStreet Pier is a locallyrare exampleofa rapidly I disappearingbuilding type, the break-bulktransit shed. The structurederives furthersigrificance from its associationwith Port administration(as an offtc€ building)over a 30-yearperiod. The remnantof the quaywall underand I adjoiningthe site addsfurther importance within the historiccontext. So considere4the GroveStreet Pier wouldappear to be eligiblefor the National Registerunder criterion A at the locallevel of significance. t Under criterionC, asa work of architecture,the GroveStreet Pier possesses lessimportance than it doesfor its historicalassociations. Its methodof I construction(reinforced concrete and steelframe) was typical for its time. The fint reinforced-mncretepier and transitshed on the Baywere built in 1908by the Port of SanFrancisco, where such structures were standard in the I 1910s,190s, and 1930s.On the Oaklandwaterfront, the first reinforced- concretepier wasthe LivingstonStreet Pier of 1910-12(extant); the first reinforced-concretetransit shed was the Parr Terminalof 79L9-20 I (demolished).Virtually all transitsheds constructed by the Port of Oakland betweenthe 190s and the 1950sutilized reinforced concrete and steel I framing. The GroveStreet Pier is Oakland'soldest surviving transit shed built of thesematerials. There are older examplesin SanFrancisco. T As for qualityof designunder criterion C, the monumentalfacade is notewonhyas an exampleof the "beautification'of a utilitarian/industrial structure- a designpractice widespread in the first four decadesof the 20th I centuryfor both publicand private buildings (such as the "beautiful" substationsand powerplants erected by the PacificGas & ElectricCo. throughoutnorthern California). The region'soutstanding examples of I "beautiful"port buildingsare foundon the SanFrancism waterfront, where severaldozen transit sheds were erected between 1908 and 1936with Neoclassical,Mission Revival, and Tudor Revivalfacades, many of which I survive(Figure 14). In Oakland,diverse examples include a PG&E substation (1910sto 1920s)adjoining the projectsite, and the PoseyTube Portal Building (1928)several blocks to the east. Oakland'sonly other port-relatedbuilding I with a "beautiful"facade is the Nnth AvenueTerminal transit shed (1930), whichclosely resembles the GroveStreet Pier (Figure14). Altboughnot I '78 I T I I I t I I t I T l. Mnth AvenuePier, 1929-30. View lookingnorthwest, 1930s. I I I I I 2, Pier 5 BulkheadBuilding, Port of SanFrancisco, 1920. A Einforced-concretestructure with I nmclassicalfacade, typical of many such structuresbuilt by the Boardof SrateHarbor Commissionersat the Port of SanFrancisco between the l9l0s and 1930s. (Coutesy I Foundationfor SanFrancisco's Architectural Heriuge.) Source:Poft oaOrklen4 ex.ept whereDoled. CharlesP. Howard I TerminalExtension FICURE14 EXVTnOIXEltT^tITPACT REPOnT Port of Oakland Other ExtantBay Area I Port Buildings from the 1920s I Br D AssocIATEs CTIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL EKTENSION JUNE 1994 t DRAFT ENVIRONMENIAL IMPACT REPORT HISTORIC R,ESOURCES I particularlysignificant in the regionalcontext, on the local level,the Grove StreetPier appearsto be eligiblefor the NationalRegister under criterion C. I d. PreviousEvaluations and Actions. In 1983,the GroveStreet pier receiveda ratingof "A" ("HighestImportance") in the OaklandCultural HeritageSurvey (OCHS), the City of Oakland'sofficial suweyof architectural I and historicalresources, According to OCHSguidelines, the "A" ratingis nthe appliedto mostoutstanding properties, considered clearly eligible for the NationalRegistei and City landmarkdesignation." The StareHistoric I ResourccsInventory Form preparcdby OCHSstaff in 1983states that the "GroveStreet Pier appearseligible for individuallisting on the National Registerof HistoricPlaces." In its evaluation,the OCHStreated the Grove I StreetPier as a self-containedwhole retaining a highdegree of integrityrather than asa remnantofa muchlarger structure. (The historicname given the propertyby the OCHS- "GroveStreet Pier Section'A'" - reflectsthis I judgement.)This interpretationproduced a higherrating than would have resultedhad the structurebeen considered the remnantof a largerwhole. I In 1993,the FederalEmergency Management Agency (FEMA) reviewedthe GroveStreet Pier with referenceto Section106 of the NationalHistoric 7 PreservationAct anddetermined that the propeftyis "potentiallyeligible for inclusionon the NationalRegister of HistoricPlaces." In its detenninationof eligibility,FEMA presumablyconcurred with OCHS'sinterpretation of I integrity. The City of OaklandLandmark PreservationAdvisory Board (LPAB) has I maintainedan interestin preservingthe GroveStreet Pier and in havingthe Port pursueoptions for its preservation.In 1991,the LPAB placedthe buildingon the Cityt PreservationStudy List, a regulatorymechanism within I the City'szoning laws that candelay issuance of a demolitionpermit for a maximumperiod of 60 days. The LPAB hasnot recommendedCity landmark desigrationfor the GroveStreet Pier, and no suchaction is pending, I ImpactHIST-I: The proposedproject would requirethe demolitionof the I GroveStreet Pier. No portionof the buildingwould remain standing. AII character-definingfeatures would be destroyed.Demolition would mnstitute a significantunavoidable impact. (S) I MitiqationMeasure HIST-I: Prior to demolition,IIABS documentationof the GroveStreet Pier shouldbe completedat an I appropriatelevel, to be determinedin consultationwith the Advisory Councilon HistoricPreservation, the Army Corpsof Engineers,the StateHistoric Preservation Office, and the Port of Oakland andset I I 80 I JUNE 1994 C}TARLESP, HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION I DRAFT EI.IVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HISTORIC RESOURCES I forth in a Memorandumof Agreement.Copies of the IIABS documentationshould be madeavailable to the OaklandPublic Library. I In addition,the Port of Oaklandshould assemble an archiveof Port materialsand publisha bookJength,illustrated history of the Port. Demolitionof the GroveStfeet Pier is a sigrificantunavoidable impact; I thesemitigation measures would not reducethe effectto a less-than- significantlevel. I I t ! I I I I I I I I T I 81 t CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E Table5 showsthe effectof the Port'sshipping operations on revenuesand I employmentin the BayArea. Tolsl economicimpact, or businessrevenue, for maritimeindustries is I generatedby the movementof cargothrough Oakland's seaport. Maritime activityin 1993earned $860 million in revenuefor Bayarea companies. I Portionsof this revenuedirectly benefit the Bay areaeconomy, including incornepaid to employeesand taxespaid to Stateand local govemment I agencies. Directand inducedjobs are dependenton the Port of OaHand'spresence as a seapoft;without the Pon, thesejobs would not existin the Oaklandarea. The l numberof directjobs fluctuateswith changesin the amountand characteristicsofthe cargomoving through the Port. In 1993,about 6,900 directjobs were due to maritimeactivity, encompassing businesses such as t tenninaloperators, shipping lines, freight forwarders, warehouses, container I repairand leasing,government, railroads and trucking aswell as I 83 I C}IARLES P. HOWAR,D TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE T994 DRAFT ENVI RONMENTAL I IMPACT REPORT soclGEcoNoMtcs I Table 5 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF PORT OF OAKI,AND MARITIME OPERATIONS. 1993 I Tota.lEcoDoDic Impact (businessrevenue) $86Omillion Irchds: Payroll $515 I State/lo€altares $45 Dir€cled and Induced Jobs 10,100 Itrcfuda: Dir€ct 69m t Induced 32m Related Jobs (with companies tbat ship or 188,6m rcceive goods through Oakland) I t longshoremen.Induced (indircct) jobs are generatedby the "ripple effect" of ,l direct job-holdersspending their salarieson goodsand services(housing social services,retail purchases,food, transportation,etc.). Port of Oakland maritime activity in 1993accounted for 3,200induced jobs in the Bay Area. I Relatedjobs are with companiesthat ship or receivegoods through the Pon of Oakland. Although thesejobs would likely exist if the Port were not I available,inclusion of their economicimpacts demonstrates the extent of the Port's role in the regional economy. In 1993,about 188,600retated jobs were associatedwith, but not generatedby, Port of oakland maritime actMties. I b. Shiooingin the Pacific Rirn. Most of the goodsflowing through the Port are being shippedto or from Pacific Rim locations,as shownin Table 6. I T$o-thirds of the containerizedtrade to and from the Port of Oakland is from Asiar. Other West Coast ports suchas Long Beachll,osAngeles, Seattle and I Portland oompetewith Bay Area ports for trans-Pacjficshipping. During the 1980s,these parts added more facilities for container ships than did the Port of Oakland. Becauselarge trans-Pacificships are very capital-intensive,they I must adhere to preciseschedules. If ships must stand by in the bay awaitinga berth, they can be thrown off schedule. I T t Joumal of CoBmerce Piers Data aod Port of Oakland, Port of OalilaDd Containerized Trade Share by Geographic Region, Fiscal yeat 19921!993. I I 84 I Jt NE 1994 CTIARLESP, HOWARDTERMINAL E(TENSION t DRAFT ET{VIRONMENIAL TMPACTREPORT SOCIG,ECONOMICS I Table 6 OAKI,AND LINER FOREIGN TRADE I JTJLY1992. JTJNE1993 Inports Exports Tot!l l Dollars x Pcrcent of Douar$x Percentof Dollars x Percent of Country l.tn0 Toaal 1,000 Total 1,000 Total Japan 5318,106 359% 35775M 37.9Vo 8995.612 .7lo I China 2,o17,847 73.6% 28L743 299o 229459O 9.47o Taiwan 1J35,003 70.4% 69L782 7.lVo 2227J85 9.r% I Hong Kong 991.783 6.7% 796J6 82Vo fi87f,92 Korea 636,099 43/o 7'16,705 a.o% 7,472844 5.8% t Singaporc 639,303 4.3% 751.718 78Vo 1391.m1 5.79o Malalsia 530,176 3.6% 207.2.fi 2.7Vo 737.426 3.O9o Thailand 376,80 2.s% 299,6fi 3.7Vo 676,63 2A% I West Germanv ?f,,6,579 t.9% 372.907 3.2Vo 599.480 2.4% Australia 345,2L9 't 10/^ 138,845 1.4% ,f84,064 2.O% t Indonesia 28\s8s l.9Vo r81,021 1.9Vo ,163,606 1,98o Philippines \fi5n 0.8Vo 250.361 2.67o 36'1,934 t5% I Netherlalds 108J13 O.7Vo 252782 2.6Vo 361.095 1.59o United Kinpdom 723pm O.\Vo 222,662 2.3Vo 346,652 1.4% France 791461 L.3Vo 76,629 O.LVo 270,@O t.7% I Italy 144,693 L.O9o 38.812 O.4Vo 183,505 o3% 't5,ol2 India 99324 O.77o o.a% 174.3fi O.7Vo I Bangladesh 744.714 1,O90 r53,476 o.6% Sri I-aoka 15,085 O.89o 133,978 o5% t Belgium 46,87't o9% 127.310 0.55 Spain 69M2 0.5% Canada 58;12'l o.6% I S*'eden 41.930 o.4% Total Top 20 14p79J 95.0?o 922\428 95.19o 23,183,t8 94.6Vo Countrie,s I '147356 Other Countries 5.OVo 47L,114 4.9Vo 1336,101 5.4% I Total 74827,N2 rffi.o% 9,692,142 tm.o% 24579,224 tw.o% Source; Bureau of Census and Port of Oakland, I T 85 I CTIARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION ,UNE 1994 DRAFT EWIRONMENIAL IMPACTREPORT I soclGEcoNoMlcs I c. @. C.ontainerizedshipping has been increasingsince the 1960s.The Port of Oaklandopened ten container terminalsbetween 1962 and 1982,including Howard Terminal. Although thereis still a sigrificantdemand for newsprintand dry-bulkterminals, I containerizedshipping represents the largesteconomic portion of deep-draft shippingand is still growing.The MetropolitanTransportation Commission i predictsthat mntainercargo will quadruplethe 1988volume by the year2070 (MTC, BCDC 1e8e). I 2. Costsand Benefitsofthe ProposedPmject a. ThroughoutCapacity. For this report,Moffatt & Mchol mnducteda I preliminaryanalysis of the 'throughputcapacity" (maximum amount of cargo that canbe processed)at HowardTerminal using existing data and the methodolos/recommended in the Port Handbook.2The throughputcapacity t wasdetermined based on the followingcomponents affecting annual throughput: . Numberof shipcalls per year I . Numberof cranes I . Yard storagearea . Gateprocessing capability I Throughputestimates were based on the assumptionthat 80 percentof the containersare forty feet long and20 percentare twentyfeet long. Other assumptionsused in throughputanalysis were related to the yard utilization t capacity(assumed as 50 percent),and dwell time for a mntainer(assumed as 8 days). I The existingfrequency of shipcalls at HowardTerminal is approximately threevessels per week. Additionofthe newshipping line wouldresult in 1 approximatelyone morevessel call per weekat the terminal. This resultsin an increaseof approximately33 percent,in termsof expectedcargo transfer at the befth. The plannedincrease in cranehandling capacity and an increasein I yard areaand equipmentare neededto accommodatethe additionalcargo transferexpected at the berth. The southwestcorner of the transitshed obstructsthe proposedalignment ofthe cranerails. Removalofthe shed I yard wouldaccommodate the newrail extensionand provide additional area. I ' Pon HMdbook for Ettimatbg Madne Tetminal Caryo Handling Capability, Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers, Preparedfor US, DepartBent of Transportation,Maritime Administretion, November 1986. I 86 l I JUNE 1994 C}IARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION I DRA.FT E}WIRONMENTAT IMPACT REPORT socloEcoNoMlcs I Moffatt & Nichol determinedthat the maximumthroughput capacity under existingconditions at HowardTerminal is limited by the yardcapacity and the existinggate system. Since the gatesystem is scheduledto be upgraded(to 12 I lanes),the yardcapacity is expectedto be the only "bottleneck"in terminal I operationsfor the shortterm. Existingstorage capacity at the terminalconsists of approximately2,300 twenty-footequivalent unit (TELI) spaces.Discussions with the terminal I operatorsindicated that import containerswere stacked about two to three unitshigh, on average.Export mntainers, which have to be closerto the berth,are stackedabout three to four high. Emptymntainers are stacked t about4 unitshigh. With the existingdesigtations of import,export and emptycontainer locations, the yardcapacity with stackingis approximately 8,330TEUS. The annualthroughput capabilities of the terminalis about I 106,000containers. Extendingthe wharfand demolishingthe transitshed would result in an I additionalstorage capacity with stackingof 1,170TEUs (approximately14 percentincrease in storagecapacity). This correspondsto an annual I throughputof about119,000 mntainers. The increaseof about14 percent in yard storagecapacity would compensate for the additionalcargo transfer expected at the berth due to increasedship I calls. I An increasein the Sateprocessing capability is alsorequired to meetthe projectedincrease in throughputcapacity. Construction of a new l?-lane pte layoutis scheduledfor completionby mid-1994.Preliminary analysis indicates I that evenwith the proposed12 lanes, the gatewould have to processin excess of Z) transactionsper hour per laneto eliminateoff-site queues at peak periods.This is higherthan the existingrate, which is approximately12 i transactionsper hour per lane. For the longterm, it is anticipatedthat additionalnoverflown exits would be requiredat peakperiods. The planned 7}-lanegate configuration would be increasedby usingJefferson Street as an I overflowexit. Outboundtrucks would queue at the edgeof the wharf,where the transitshed currently exists. I b. PreliminarvYard EfficiencvEstimates. The proposedyard layout wouldalso result in improvedtraffic circulationwithin the terminal. A site visit wasconducted to identi! the existingtraffic circulationpattern. Existing I opefationsuse a "merry-go-round"scheme. Gantry cranes transfer incoming mntainers(imports) from the shipto yard tractorsat a rate of about20-25 I containersper hour, The yard tractorstravel from eastto westat the apron: t 87 I CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ENVI RONMENTAL I IMPACT REPORT socloEcoNoMIcs I they come down from the mid-spanof the yard to the crane, pick up a container,go to Lane 2 where a vehicle known as the "top pick" unloadsand stacksthe container,and go back to the apron maintaininga clocloviseflow of traffic. Approximately s-yard tractors are assignedto each crane during I loading and unloadingoperations. Transtainersor top picks subsequently transfer the containersto truck. The trucks follow a similar cloclouise t pattem, from the gate complexto the appropriatelane, and back to the gate complex. Outgoing mntainers (exports)are loaded onto the ship in a similar manner,maintaining the sameclochdse flow of traffic. I Loading and unloadingoperations for a vesselat Berth 68 involve the maneuveringofyard equipmentaround the transit shedwhich slow$down the I cycletime p€r containermovement. Extendingthe wharf and demolishingthe building would result in a shorter rycle time, making the loading and unloadingoperations more efficient, T c, Effect on Employment. Construction,dredging and dredgedsediment handling and disposalwould employ25 to 55 workers over the nine-month I constructionperiod. Once completed,the wharf extensionwould allow two new generationships to be berthed at the sametime. Thus, Howard Terminal could employ 122 people when two vesselsare calling comparedto the 82 it I employswhen one vesselis calling. This would be a 49 percent increasein peak employmentat the terminal. This in turn would have a physicalchange on the environmentfrom the effectsof increasedtraffic from both transpon I trucks and employeevehicles. However,the traffic would not be a substantial increaseand would not have a significanteffect on local streets. For I additional detailed discussion,please refer to SectionD, Transportation. 3. Impacts and Mitigation Measures I a. SignificanceCriteria. CEQA Section15131 (a) and (b) statesthat economicor social effectsof a project shal[ not be treated as sigrificant 1 effectson the environment. However,economic or social effectsof a project may be usedto determine the significanceof physicalchanges caused by the project. For example,the constructionof the wharf extensionwould increase I employmentand cargo storagearea, thus resultingin a physicalchange to traffic on local streets. This impact is addressedin SectionD, Transportation. I The proposedactions would havea beneficialimpact on overall port operationsand the local economy. No significantadverse impacts to socio- economicconditions were identified. I I T 88 I JUNE 1994 CHARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL E (TENSION I DRAFT ENr'IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I soclo.EcoNoMlcs Impact ECON-I: The proposedproject would increasethe capacityofthe Port of Oakland by one new-generationcontainer vessel per week. This would I increasepeak direct employmenton the terminal by 40 people. The increase in cargo handlingwould lead to an increasein businessrevenueq direct (pon- dependent)employment, induced (indirect) employmentand related I employmentin Oakland and the Bay Area. (B) t No mitigation measuresare necessary. l I I I I l I I t I I t t 89 I C}IARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E (TENSION DRAFT E}WIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT soctoEcoNoMtcs JUNE 1994 CTIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION I DRAFT EN!'I RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I I-AND USE I I C. [.and Use lll I Setting a. Pon of Oakland. The Port of Oakland (Port) occupies19 miles of I waterfront on the eastemmainland shore of San Francism Bay with more than 550 acresof marine terminal facilities and active support areas, The developmentof a Port beganin 1855when the City of Oakland dredgeda bar l at the mouth ofthe Oakland Estuary. In 1874,Congress appropriated funds for the constructionof adequatejetties at the Estuary entranceand the following year the dredgingof the Inner Harbor Channelwas undeftaken. A I quaywall along the shorelinebetween Market and Clay Street was constructed in 1910. The Port of Oakland was createdby the City of Oakland,by Charter, as an independentdepartment in 1910. The Board of Port Commissionershas I exclusivecontrol and managementof the Port area, including all Port facilities and properties. I The Port's marine facilities include nine container terminals,two break-bulk terminals, and one heavylift berth. These facilities are organizedinto four I main terminal areas: the Outer Harbor Terminal Area, the SeventhStreet Terminal Are4 the Middle Harbor Terminal Areq and the Inner Harbor t Terminal Area, Three main railroads - the SouthernPacific Transportation Company;the Union Pacific Railroad; and Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad - and I a major highwaynetwork convergeat and servethe Pon. The Southern Pacific Transportation Companyand Union Pacific Railroad, terminate in Oakland and have their major Northem California intermodal rail yards less I than two miles from the Port of Oakland'smadne terminals. The SantaFe Railroad servesOakland from its major rail yards in nearby Richmond, California, located approximate$ 11 miles to the north. All of these railroads t have reciprocalswitching agreements and have direct connectionsto the 19 miles of docksiderails at the Port's marine terminal facilities. Switching operationsin the Outer Harbor area are performed by the SouthernPaciftc I TransportationCompany and by Oakland Terminal Railway, a belt line owned jointly by the Union Pacific Railroad and SantaFe Railroad. The SantaFe I Railroad offers direct serviceto Chicagoand Midwest points as well as to the I 91 I CHARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL D In 1981,Howard Terminal was mnverted into a multi-purposefacility capable I of acmmmodatingfull mntainerships,combination, roll-on/roll-off (RO-RO) cargo,and conventionalvessels. The terminalis currentlysupported by four containercranes. This terminalexperienced a largeincrease in volumeduring t 1992due to the DsR"/SenatorLine and Cho YangLine movementof operationsto HowardTerminal from the Outer Harbor area. I d. AdiacentLand Uses. Land usesin the vicinityof Harbor Terminal includea mix of maritime,maritime support, military, industrial, utilities, mmmercial,office, recreation, public (government/schools), and residential I uses(see Figure 15). Maritimesupport services in the areainclude export packing,fumigation, mld storageand chill facilities,truck services, I l 92 I ffi#-% ffi io X -t ct, e3g=ds !ffiHffiTEffi=Ez q iB s g g oe oa ! -rr f-E * F e = 5" i 3i3; 6 e =X:c 3=Eb' a:s. <.? tJl a 3t 7-t rE *a E5 d3 ah G o JUNE 1994 CHARLESP. HOWARD TERMTNAL EKTENSION I DRAFT EI.IVIRONMENIAL IMPACT REPORT t I-AND USE transloadingsericesr warehousing/distributionservices, shippet's agent and freight consolidationservices backed up by U.S. Customsand other federal I inspectionservices. The SchnitzerSteel Terminal, a privately-owned33-acre facility used for I exportingbreak-bulk scrap metal, is located immediatelyto the west of Howard Terminal. Scrapauto bodies are brought to SchnitzerSteel where the autos are shreddedinto pellersize pieces. The shreddedmetal and debris I materials are then segregatedand processedby machine. Shreddedmetal scrap is then stockpiledon-site and eventuallyshipped overseas through Schnitzer'smarine facilities. SchnitzerSteel also processes"heavy metal" scrap t on its premises. Heary metal is a steel and iron scrap operation that calls for cutting up large heavymetal structuressuch as ships,machines, and boilers. T Railroad tracks within the Embarcaderoroadway are immediately north of Howard Terminal. Industrial buildings are located on the north side of Embarcaderoopposite Howard Terminal. Some of the former industrial sites I in the area east of Howard Terminal have recentlybeen convertedinto retail and restaurantuses. Commercialretail storessuch as Cost Plus and the Bed & Bath mmplex havebeen constructedone block northeastof Howard t Terminal. A new Amtrak Station is planned east of the site, between I Harrison Street and Alice Street. PG&E property also lies to the north betweenHoward Terminal and the Embarcaderobetween Martin Luther King Jr. Way and JeffersonStreets. I The facility is still active for peak power generationand/or standbypower generation. The PG&E property formerly housedsteam turbine-generator units that were retired in 1969. PG&E s three natural gasstorage tanks, I erectedin 1908,1922 and 1929,respectively, were demolishedfor Howard Terminal project. t Jack London Square,a l2-block area along the Port of Oakland waterfront, is located approximately400 feet east of Howard Terminal. Jack I-ondon Squarehas been developingover the past 50 years from a maritime/industrial I area into a commercial/officeand recreation/entertainmentcenter. A mix of usesincluding restaurants;a 145-roomwaterfront plaza hotel/boatel;retail and office space;the Port Administration Building; a fire station; and public access I areasare located at Jack I-ondon Square. Additional developmentis planned within Jack London Square,including a hotel expansionor a new hotel on the I temporary lawn adjacentto the FDR pier. t I 95 I CHARLES P, HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JI.JNE 1994 I DRAFT E}'IVIRONMEMTAI IMPACT REPORT I.AND USE I e. Berth 10. The Port proposesto use most of Berth 10 as a handling facility for dewateringdredged sediments prior to disposal. Berth 10 is Iocatednear the Bay Bridge, betweenSea-Iand and the ArmI Terminal. Sea- I Iand currently usesBerth 10 for overflow container storage, That function would be relocate{ as required, to Berth 9. The Oakland General Plan designatesthe site and the suffounding area for heavyindustrial uses. I Impacts and Mitigation Measures I a. Simificance Criteria. The impact of the project on existingland usesis evaluatedin this section,in part, by the sigrrificancecriteria as defined by the CEg4 6ur"^"t 1which evaluatesif a project will normally have a I significanteffect on the environment. The significantcriteria relevant to land use and the project are as follows: I . Conflict with adoptedenvironmental plans and goalsof the community where it is located (existingor planned adjacentland uses); . Induce substantialgrowth; I . Disrupt or divide the physicalarrangement of an established community; t . Conflict with establishedrecreational land usesof the area. New Iand usescan also constitutea significanteffect on the environmentin T indirect ways. Visual impacts,demands fot public services,generation of additional traffic and noise,and other changescan be causedby proposednew land uses,thereby generatingenvironmental effects, These effectsare further I analyzedand evaluatedin the relevantsections of this EIR. I b. CEOA Compliance. The wharf extension,removal of the transit shed building dredgedsediment handling at Berth 10, and wharf removal at Sherex site and Pacific Dry Dock would not conflict with CEQA s significanteffects I criteria. This would be considereda less-than-signilicantimpact. (IS) The proposedwharf extensionis mnsistent with CEQA criteria and I compatiblewith surroundingland uses,because it expandsand improvesan existingmaritime usewithin the Port jurisdiction. The dredgedsediment handling at Berth 10 is consistentwith the industrial usesin the area. The I proposedproject is consistentwith plans and goalsof the community,it does not induce growth, it would not divide the arrangementof a community,and I I Colifomia Enirownental Quality Act Guidelines, Appenda G, Significant Effects. I T 96 I JUNE 1994 C}IARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL D(TENSION I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I I-AND USE would not conflict with establishedrecreational use areassuch as the FDR I Pier. The site is also buffered by water, structuresand distance. No mitigation measuresare necessary. I c. Adopted Land Use Plans and Goals. The proposedproject is consistentwith curent land use designations,planning policy documents,and would be compatibleand not conflict with existingand proposedneighboring I maritime (land and water) uses,maritime supporr,military industrial, utilities, commercial,office, and residentialland uses. This would be considercda less l than significant impact. (IS) The proposedwharf extensionis generallymmpatible with surroundingland uses,because it expandsan existingmaritime use within the port jurisdiction, t and the site is buffered by water, structuresand distance. The demolition of the transit shedbuilding would alter the aestheticsof the surroundingarea; however,it will also provide open views of the terminal operation, maritime I activity, existingstructures and land uses,and the San Franciscoskyline from the prominent viewing areassuch as the FDR public accesspier. In addition, I the incrementalincrease in maritime actMty at the terminal would increase the levelsof noise, traffic and activity around the site thereby affecting adjacentland usesand sensitivereceptors (see SectionD, Transportationand I SectionE, Noise). The views ftom the public accesspaths and a park on the norrh end ofJack I London's waterftont would be changed(see SectionM, public Accessand Recreation and SectionN, Visual Resources). The proposedpier extension and new container ship berth would be located approximately400 feet west of I the FDR fishing pier. Incremental increasesin noise from mntainer loading and unloadingactMties and nighttime light glare from the pier extension would have minor impactsprimarily on the usersof the pier and public access t areas.However, the lighting could create a safer level of illumination for pier usersand adjacentland uses. I The incrementalincreases in truck traffic and related traffic noise would also have impactson surroundingland uses(see SectionD, Transportation,and SectionE, Noise). However, sincethere are few residencesin the vicinity of I the terminal, these impactswould be consideredminor and incidental. The increasedtraffic and noise levelswould not adverselyimpact nearbymilitary I maritime support,or industrial or utility areas. However, there could be minor inconveniencesfor nearby retail, restaurantand office usesduring the constructionphase where incrementallylarger traffic delaysand increased I noise levelscould result. t 97 I CHARIES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E'(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ET{VI RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I-AND USE Finally,one more shipper weekwould call at HowardTerminal and thus therecould be impactson recreationalboaters and ferry traffic in the Bay. However,with the implementationof CoastGuard boating and safety regulationsand the insigrrificantamount of increasedship traffig this would not be consid€redan adverseimpact. No mitiption measuresare necessary, JtrNE 1994 CTIARIIS P. HOWARD TERMINAL E The proposedproject muld increasethe sizeand frequencyof shipsloading I andunloading at the Port of Oakland.It is likely that one additionalvessel call per weekwould be madeon average,and the sizeof the shipswould be larger,resulting in increasedloading and unloadingactivity levels while ships l are in berth. The numberof containershandled in a givenperiod of time wouldincrease, as would the associatedtruck and rail actMties. I The OaklandHarbor Deep-Draft Navigation Improvements Supplemental EIR/EIS for the 42-footdredging project covers the transportationimpacts of the disposalof dredgematerial removed from the channelin order to T accommodatelarger ships in the channelopposite the extendedwharf and T berth at HowardTerminal. l. Setting I The terminal is located along the Embarcadero,between Market Street and JeffersonStreet. Terminal gatesare located at the foot of Market Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Way. The major surfacestreet accessroutes include I Market Street,Brush Street,Martin Luther King Jr. Way, and Jefferson Street. The terminal has excellentfreeway access to two interstate highways (880 and 980),which in turn connectto the San Francisco-OaklandBay I Bridge (I-80). Permitted container truck routes include Third Street,which connectsto other container routes. These routes are desigrrated(signed) routes for use by heaviertrucks than are normally allowed on public streets I and state highways. I I 99 I CTTARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL EXTENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT REPORT I TRANSPORTATION I Middle Harbor Road is a continuationof Adeline Street servingthe Port, the Naval SupplyCenter, the Union Pacific Ferro Street intermodal facility, and the SouthernPacific Railroad. From Third Street to the American President t Lines terminal, Middle Harbor Road is four lanes. Its mid-sectionis a narrow two-lane road (known as S.P.Road), and it bemmes four lanesagain south of ?th Street,where it is known as Maritime Street. The Port has plans to 7 improve the west end of Middle Harbor Road, from Adeline Street to the ?th Streettth Street Extensioninters€ction. This will involvewidening the two- lane sectionto a four-lane road vith a 16-foot median left turn lane. The T anticipatedmmpletion date is September7994, and will be used as temporary construction detour during construction of the Clpress Replacement project. 2 The Embarcaderois a twolane road with Southem Pacific rail tracks in the center for much of its length. Portions of the Embarcaderoare currently being repaved. Recent constructionhas extendedthe Embarcaderoas a two- I lane truck haul roa4 from Martin Luther King, Jr. Way, to Adeline Street. JeffersonStreet is two lanes (one in each direaion) with parking on both sides. Martin Luther Kin& Jr. Way is four laneswith parking, and showssigns I of unevenpavement settling in somelocations. Third Street is a wide two- Iane street with parking on both sidesand Union Paciftc railroad track in the t middle; there are many signsof pavementdistress due to the railroad tracks. a. Traffic Counts/DataCollection. For the purposesof this EIR, four T intersectionswere countedand analyzedin the vicinity of the project. These intersectionswere selectedbecause they are near the proposedentrances to the improved Howard Terminal and thus would be the most directly impacted I by the project, and becausethey provided a mmplete count of trucks entering and leaving the current Howard Terminal during normal hours of operations, All four intersectionsare currently controlled by Stop signs. The intersections I were countedon December2, 13, and 15,1993,from 7:00 to 10:00a.m. The time period of the munt was selectedto coincidewith the normally high activity levelsof the terminal. The intersectionsand the associatedcount date I are shoq'n below: . JeffersonStreet and the Embarcadero(12113193) t . Martin Luther Kin& Jr, Way and the Embarcadero(l2ll3l93) . Market Street and the Embarcadero(12/15/93) I . Third Street and Market.Street 02f2193) The countsincluded total traffic volumesby turning movement,and classified I by type of vehicle (e.g.,auto (including pickupsand vans); two-axletruck, three-ade truck, four-axletruck, five+ axle truck). The count also included I t 100 I JUNE 1994 CTIARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAI E I train movementsalong the Embarcadero.The peakhour of trafficvaried dependingupon the intenectionstudied, from 7:00-8:00a.m. to 9:00-10:00 I a.m. The heaviesttruck volumes typically occurred between 9:00-10:00 a'm. At the Market Streetgate to the terminal,the compositionof the trucks enteringthe sitewas: 34 five (or more)axle semi trucks; 10 three-adetrucks; I and2 two-axletrucks, for a total of46 inboundtrucks. The compositionof the truck exitingthe sitewas 38 five (or more)ade trucks; 17three-ade trucks; and2 two-axletrucks, for a total of 57 outboundtrucks. The I Market/Embarcaderointersection had, by far, the highestnumber and percentageof trucksof anyof the intersectionsstudied. The resultsof the l AM peakhour vehiclecounts are shownin Figure16. The City of Oaklandconducted a traffic countat the intersectionof Market andThird streetsin 1991.This countis shownat the beginningof Appendix I C. Dowling's1994 munts for 7:30AM to 8:30AM are similarto the City's 1991counts. The overallvolume through the intersectionwas 4 percent higherin 1994;this muld be statistlcalvariation. The numberof southbound T vehiclestuming left from Market Streetonto Third Streetwas 25 percent higherin 1994;this muld representa shift in traffic patterns.The total volumeof the threemovements toward Howard Terminal increased 12 I percent,indicating that averageAM peakvolume toward Howard Terminal at this intersectionmay have increased 8 to 16 percentbetween 1991 and 19%. I b. ExistinsIntersection Level of Service.Traffic lwel of service(LOS) is a conceptused to qualitativelyevaluate the performanceof an intersection T duringthe peakperiod of highesttraffic volumes (usually one hour). Availableinfomation indicatesthat mostintersections in the Pon areaare generallyperforming satisfactorily. There are six levelsof service,from A I (best)to F (poorest),as indicatedin Table7. During the momingpeak hour of traffic (duringthe 7:00-10:00a.m. period counted), all four study intersectionsoperate at LOS "A", whichis the bestof the six categorizations l of intersectionoperation. (For unsignalizedintersections, the "measureof effectivenessnis reservecapactty, which indicateshow much unusedcapacity existsduring an hour at the intersection.For this reason,the descriptionsof l the expecteddelay in Table7 are necessarilyqualitative.) Generally,urban intersections operating at LOS "D" or betterare mnsidered I to haveacceptable delays. The existingintersection levels of serviceare t shownin Table8. Existjngtraffic volumes are shownin Figure17. t T 101 I LEGEND o Study lntersecrions (?:00AM) nme Ar Which Peak 60 - Minute Interval Started Gates to Hortord Teminal @ (existing) (7:30AM) ^ (8:(X)AM) t- - 25 2 225 25 5s 229 I I 1-l7l +o | | | rt I + \(- | u-J 1tt 64_, .]""") | ll ro--J I 1 r s 6 i5 0 -'---! 0 ? o t. 3rd Street 461 3 lll*'t .' ., (-r s-J11v 2nd Street ------' ttl 4 5 s6 z The Embartadero 2 3 4 t_r: Jll'.-' (- 8 o-J 6 ------+ (7:00AM) r-1 Sonrce: Brrdy and Arssociores,1994 CharlesP. Howard TerminalExtension FIGURE16 EivlioxIE{ltL tlPlcr REPonl Port of Oakland AM Peak Hour TFalfic Counts aaa B n,r o Y A N D A s s o c r AT E s I I l_- t, -c) &= I -..o> , I F A 0n t ah x l t F (J N I EE$B 3E!"sl :'5 i IJ H-- I ra 3 E; b- z a E6 L I vF=frb= n- I t t I ,-V\\"fS..,") I I I I C}IARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E {TENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT ENVIRONMET{TAL IMPACT REPORT TRANSPORTATION I Table 7 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (ONE OR TWO-WAY STOP) t Irvd of ResetaeC.Fciq, Senice Expecled Delay (VehicleVHour) I Little or no delay >400 B Short trafric delay 3m - 399 t c Average traffic delays 2ffi - 299 D Irng tramcdelays lm - 199 I E Very long traffrc delays 0-99 F ExtreEe delays potentiauy alfecting otber traflic <0 Dovemeots in the intersection I Sanrq€; Ifighway CapacityMawal, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board WashingtooD.c', 1985. Table 8 I EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE AM PEAK HOUR T Jeffersoo Street and The Embarcadelo Madb Irrher King Jr. Way and The Embarcaderc* I Market Strcet and Tbe Embarcadero' Third Street and Msrket Street I Source: Dowling Associates,based on December 1993 counts. All intersections are pa ially Stop sign contmlled, except a ' indicate$ the fuitersection is an all-way Stop. I I ! I t, I 104 I JUNE 1994 CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAI E(TENSTON I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I TRANSPORTATION c. Reeional Highway Facilities. Figure 18 showsa map of regional highwayfacilities. The Port is located near the hub of the Bay Area fteeway I system. A descriptionofthe systemis provided in Table 9. Important regional streetssewing Port traffic and circulation include: Maritime Street, Middle Harbor Road, and 7th Street. The West Grand Avenue structure I providesa connectionfrom the Port and downtownOakland to Interstates80 and 580. It is an elevatedstructure from Mandela parkway to rhe Bay Bridge toll plaza,with on and off ramps provided at Maritime Street, Improvements I are currently planned for severalnearby freeways,as describedbelow (1) Interstate 80. Widening with a high occupancyvehicle (HOV) l lane from Route 4 (Pinole) will occur in a phasedconstruction progrirm over the next four years. One phaseincludes reconfiguration ofthe I-80/5g0 (Albany) interchange,where the existingleft exit going toward Richmond will I be replacedwith a safer right-handexit. A secondphase will provide direct accessto Cutting Boulevard from the HOV lane. I The third phaseis a proposedelevated ramp to the Bay Bridge Tolt plaza for HOV'S. Although the projecteddate of mmpletion is late 1996,the project I has not yet receivedthe approvalof the regulatoryagencies. (2) Interstate 580. The existingdistribution structurewill be I modified as pan of Clpress Structure replacementproject. (3) Interstate 880, The Clpress Strucrure(collapsed during Inma t Prieta earthquake)will be replacedfrom about one mile northwestof I-9g0 to the 80/580/880distribution srructure. The new alignmentwill crossover the BART tracks near the Oakland West station,then generallyfollow the existing t SouthernPacific Railroad track alignment, It will be a six-lanefreeway, panly elevatedand partly at-grade. A connectionto/from the Bay Bridge will be provided at the West Grand Avenue connector,as well as ramps to and from I I-80 east. HOV laneswill be provided. A full (i.e, all direction) split- diamond interchangewill be provided at AdelineflJnion Streets,for acc€ssto and from the Outer Harbor, the Middle Harbor. and downtown. Accesswill I also be provided at 7th Street,which is to be connectedby a frontage road. The Clpress replacementstructure will split north of the West Grand Avenue Connectorwith one connectorproviding accessto the Bay Bridge and the I other headingtoward Berkeley. The I-880/ClpressReplacement project should be completedby the end of 1997or early 1998. The approximate I alignment is shownin Figure 18. T T lu5 I I t - >, '15 f,, (|L iiE -:sbo= Y =.8 t .=< a I t T it ii E.EF D.t ;3: € ;i I 9s: ,q ;r'..i1i a-. ::i I 6 8; b- za aE6 6F; L :: T oj jl t t ! E I a I iefr I JUNE 19% CHARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION I DRAFT EI"VIRONMENIAL IMPACT REPORT I TRANSPORTATION Table 9 REGIONAL HIGHWAY FACILITIES t No. Route Lrnes RaEpylnterchang€ Ne.rest Number Clotrl) Port of Oakland De6tinations Served I 24 6{ No ramp6 directly serving. Central Contra Co6ta Countf Solano County and points east (joins I-80) I 80 8-10 Wesl GraDd Avenue interchange San Francisco/West Bay CootrectioDsto Mandela Parkway West Contra Costa County (fome y q?ress Street) near SacrarDentoand points north & I 32nd SL easl 580 8 West Grand Aveoue/8o rarDps Northem Alameda County Mandela Parkway connections Liveimore-Pleasantoo I neaf 32nd Street Stockton and I-5 Corridor south E80 8 Mardela Parkwaytth Street West (industdal) Alameda interchange CouDty I Market Street raops Soutbbayand southem OaMackson Street ramp6 Peninsula San Jose I 980 6.10 12th StrEet RaDDs Downtorn and West Oakland Source: Dowling Associates, based on infonnation supplied by Caltrans' Public Infonration I Office. I I (4) Potential Tunnel or Bridse to Alameda. In 1966the State proposeda roadwayconnection from Oakland to Alameda Naval Air Station, which would be an extensionof I-980. One option was a tunnel projecting I from Brush and Castro Streetsunder what is now Howard Terminal. The proposalwas dropped in the 1970s,but the City of Alameda is now investigatingoptions for a connectionto the Naval Air Station. The piles I supportingthe crane rail portion of the existingHoward Terminal typically extendto 126 feet below sea level. These piles would precludeconstruction of I a tunnel under Howard Terminal. t l I 107 I CIIARLES P. HOWARD 1ERMINAL E'ITENSTON JUNE T994 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I TRANSPORTATION I (1) AM Peak. Bottlenecksoccur on I-80 westtroundin the AM peak at two locations: demand exceedscapacity at the divergenc€ of 80 and 580 (distribution structure),and at the foot of the Bay Bridge, where the nine T lanes that feed the Bay Bridge narros, to five on the Bridge structure. On 580, slowingoccurs regularly in both directionsbetween 80 and 980 due to the re-routing of all traffic from the mllapsed Clpress structure (in the westbound I direction, it is mostly the outer lanesheaded for 80 eastboundthat are affected). I-980 is also mngestedfor the same reasonfor much of its short length (generallysouthbound from the 12th Street off-ramps to I-580). Part I of the purpose of the C.lpressReplacement project is to divert traffic tolfrom San Francisooand Berkeley/Richmondfrom this congesredarea. Slate Route 24 is generallynot congestedon a regular basisin this are4 although I traffic will sometimesback up from I-580 onto State Route Z. Conditionson surfacestreets are generallywithin acceptablelevels of service,although on some streetsvolumes are high. I (2) PM Peak. Congestionoccurs in both directionson I-80 from the distribution structure to Albany, and sometimesbeyond. Moderate westbound I delay occursat peak times at the Bridge toll plaza,and sometimesbackups reach past the Oakland Army Baseovercrossing. I-80 is sometimescongested in the eastbounddirection of travel approachingthe distribution structure. I The most severemngestion on I-580 in the PM peak is in the westbound direction, betweenthe ramp to I-80 eastboundand the 241980interchange. t State Route Z is congestedin the eastbounddirection becausethe Caldemtt Tunnels are a bottleneck. Although some slowingoccurs, I-880 is generally not severelycongested in the area within the Oakland City limits; the main T problem areasare from Hegenberger Road to WashingtonStreet (in San kandro), and in Hayward (especiallyWashington to A Street,and Tennyson to Lewelling).2 I-980 mngestion occursdue to a bottleneckat the ?A1580 I interchangq and can back up in the northbound direction for much of I-980s length. I Where feasible,trucking firms often scheduletheir work in the early moming and mid-day hours in order to avoid congestionin the aboveareas. The percentageof trucks in the PM peak (4-6 PM) traffic is generallyless than I that found during other hours of the day, Congestionaffects truck as well as other traffic, perhapseven more so, sincemngestion has a direct monetary cost (in wages,delivery delays,and direct vehicle operatingcosts) to trucking I firms. I 2 Alamedo County Dtuft 1993 CongestionManagenent Progmn, Page 23, prepared by tbe Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, March 15, 1993. ,T 108 I t JUNE 1994 CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TE}'ISTON I REPORT DRAFT EIWI RONMENTAL IMPAST t TRANSPORTATION e. Railroad Transportation. The Poft is servedby four railroads: the SouthernPacific TransportationCompany (SP), the Atchison' Topeka"and t SantaFe Railway (ATSF, or SantaFe), the Union Pacific Railroad (UP), and the Oakland Terminal Railway. The first three railroads have national route systems;the Oakland Terminal Raitway provideslocal switchingservices I betweenrailroads and shippers. The SP servesthe Port by both a southem and a central route. Its network goesfrom New Orleans acrossthe southern and central tier of statesand as far north as Portlan4 Oregon, The SantaFe I covers the central tier of the United States ftom Chicago west. The UP also coversthe mid-sectionofthe United States,including southem California' and has major interchangepoints with other railroads in Omaha and St. louis. I The SantaFe also providesservice to the Gulf/Southeart. (1) Phrsical Facilities and Yards. All three major railroads have Bay I Area intermodal yards. The SP has the largestyard facilities adjacentto the Middle Harbor area east of the Naval SupplyCenter Oakland (as shownon Figure 19). The UP has a long, narrow combinationintermodal and I classificatiodstorage yard, as well as automobile terminal, located at the western end of the Middle Harbor area, southwestof the Naval SupplyCenter I and directly adjacentto the Port's marine terminals. The SantaFe's principal intermodal yards are located in west Richmond,near the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. The SantaFe has a small yard servingthe Port of Oaklan4 I located north of West Grand Avenue near the Bay Bridge distribution structure,and usestrackage rights over the SP to its Richmond intermodal I facilities. The UP tine on Third Street and SP havebegun to consolidateon the SP tine along the Embarcadero, The consolidationremoves the at-gradecrossing on I Third Street and speedsup movementin and out of both rail yards by removing the conflict near Adeline Street,where the UP tracks crossthe SP tracks. Improvementswill be made to the SP tracks to allow for the ! consolidationand to accommodatea new AMTRAK Oakland station on Alice Street at Semnd Street,near Jack London Square. The consolidationshould ! occur by 1995. (21 Schedulesand Operations. Train schedulesare driven by shipper and Port needs,and so changefrequently due to variations in demand. I Additional trains are added when demandwarrants, and conversely,are annulled (i.e., suspendedfor the day) when there is insufficient rail traffic. T There are also local switchingtrains that may operate around the Port without a fxed schedule. Some general statementsare provided below basedupon t schedulesin effect in 1994. t 109 I CTIARLESP, HOWARD TERMINAL D The SantaFe intermodal facility is located in Richmond, The SantaFe typically has eight trains a day into and out of the Port of Oakland to points t south and east,including one train a day to shuttle cars betweenthe Port of Oakland and the Richmond yards. Arrivals and departuresoccur throughout the day, and many trains operate during the late night and early moming t hours. The SP schedulesthe number and timing of trains on an 'as needed"basis. I There are eight AMTRAK passengertrains per day using the SP line along the Embarcadero(four in each direction): the "CoastStarlight" (Ils Angeles Seattle,one in each direction); and the tbree "Capjtols"(San Jose- T Sacramento). Cunently, there is substantialunused capacity for intermodal containersbeing I shipped(outbound) from the Port. This is becauserailroads are oriented toward carryingheavy manufactured goods, and the predominant flow of such I goodsis from the manufacturingbelts of the midwestand northeastto California. This substantialunused capacity (known as "emptybackhaul') is in the eastbounddirection. Additional capacityof an incrementalnature would I most likely be added by lengtheningexisting trains, rather than running new trains. I (3) Railroad/HighwayGrade Crossinss. Public rail/highwayat-grade crossingsoccur at severallocations around the Port. The SP mainline travels in the center of the Embarcadero,from Webster Street to Clay Street. West I of Clay, the mainline is in its own exclusiveright of way, but there are perpendiculargrade crossingsat most crossstreets. The UP mainline is in the center of 3rd Street.between Oak Street and Filbert Street,but is in the I processof being abandoned,/consolidatedin favor of the SP line (see descriptionabove under Railroad Facilities). Additional grade crossingsoccur on the SP line at Middle Harbor, just south of 7th Street/7thStreet Extension, I and at Maritime Street south of 7th Street. Numerous other at-grade crossingsoccur for sidingsand spur tracks. I I I 110 I JUNE 1994 CTTARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL D(TENSION I DRAFT ENVIRONMEI.TTAL IMPACT REPORT I TRANSPORTATION f. Existing Truck Traffic. Truck volumes on state highwaysare shownin Table 10 and taken from Caltrans' I verageAnnual Daily Truck TraIfu on the I Califomia State Highway Sysrarn. The table shows that truck volumes vary from about three percent to almost 14 percent of total traffic volumes (one location was under three percent,but was counted prior to the 1989 I eafthquakeand is probablynot valid today). The mmposition of the trucks by number of axles is also shown (the row percentagesof the right-most four I columns add up to 100 percent,representing all trucks). Table 10 showsthat two-axletrucks predominatein most locations,except on I-880 (Nimitz Freeway),where five- or more axle trucks make up 63 percent I of all truck at this location, and on I-80 betweenPowell Street and Ashby Avenue (State Route 13), The total vehicularvolumes on the routes shownin I this table are shownin Figure 17. Data were collected at the major entranceto Howard Terminal to establish the current volume of trucks and other vehicles. The Dowling Associates I counts indicate that AM peak truck volumesvary from a low ofjust 5-10 percent along the Embarcadero,to as high as 43 percent along Market Street betweenthe Embarcaderoand Third Street (this area is immediately adjacent I to Howard Terminal gates). I g. Distribution of Truck Traffic. A 1991survey by the Port of Oaklands indicatesthat almost one{hird of the garagelocations of trucks working at the Port were reported as being in the City of Oakland. Almost 44 percent of the I truck trips originate in Alameda County,with 33.5 percent of those trips originating in Oakland and 10.5percent from the balanceof Alameda County. I Over 40 percent of the truck trips were destinedfor a place in Alameda County,with 30 percentwithin the City of Oakland and 10 percent to remaining locations. About 27 percent ofthe truck trips were on local streets I (i.e., did not use any freeway)to reach the Port terminal areas. This includes both inboundand outboundtrips. I 2. Impacts and Mitigations In order to addressproject impacts,a threshold of significanceis first defined. I Then the assumptionsfor trip generationand trip distribution used for the I impact analysisare described. Detailed printouts are shownin Appendix C. 3 Memo to John Glove!, Pon of Oakland, from I-ouise Engel, Port of Oakland, "Oakland I Truck Traffic aDd Port Marine Terminals," October 30, 1991. I 111 I CHARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL D(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ENVTRONMET{TALIMPACT REPORT I TRANSPORTATION Table 10 I ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRUCK PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL TRAFEC I Route/I-aation Trucks' 2-sxles 3-ados 4-sxles 5+ oxle6 sR 24 at Junction580/980 3.4% 54.6% 9.9% 2,5Vo $.oqk I I{O between Pos'ell and 73 33.6% lo,4% 53.7% sR 13 I I-8Oat Bay BddgeToll 4.4% $a l!.2Vo 2.1% 32.9% Aaza I-580 between 24880 7A% 63'4% 2r.9% 3.5% 1l.2Vo I Junction and San Pablo Avenueb I-880 south of Oak Streetb 73.6Vo 2.A,9Vo L8% 63.O% I I-880 Dorth of Hegenberger Road 9.6% 31.870 14.6% 8.69o 39.O% I I-980 at l4th Street 9.9% 38;7% fi,o% r0.6% 35.9% ' Truck volurne as a percent of total traffic (all vehicles). o I Indicates most recent count (sbo$l) was taken prior to Irma Prieta earthquake of October 1989. Source; C-altrans,November 1992. I a. Simificance Criteria. The Ievel of significancefor traffic is basedon I CEQA requirementsin that a project will normally have a significanteffect on the environmentif it will: . Causean increasein traffic which is substantialin relation to the I existingtraffic load and capacityof the street system. The threshold of significanceused in this documentis determinedby the level I of additional traffic that would be perceptibleby the motoring public. While there is no absolutestandard for this level, a change(increase) in the ratio of I traffic volume to highwaycapacity (V/C) greater than 3 percent (0.03) has been used to define a significantimpact. For example,an eightJane freeway has a capacityof 8,000vehicles per hour (VPH) in each direction, so an I impact of 240 or more vehicleswould be considered"significant' (8,000x 0.03). Each truck is consideredto be equivalentto two passengercars for the purposeof this analysis,so in the aboveexample, 120 or more trucks per hour I T I 111 I JUNE 1994 CIiARLfS P. HOWARD TERMTNAL E(TENSION I DRAFT ET.IVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TRANSPORTATION I would be considered'significant."a For intersections,any changein level of servicethat resultsin LOS "D' or worse operation during peak hours is t consideredsignifi cant. b, Proiect Trip Generation. The proposedproject would generatea net T changeof 19 additional peak hour truck trips and 18 additional peak hour employeetrips. I (1) Truck Trio Generation. The project would increasethe number of trucks entering and leavingthe terminal becauseof the increasednumber of vesselcalls, an incrementof about one per week. The terminal will have I 12 lanes: eight for inbound truck, two for outbound trucks, and two reversible lanes (servingeither inbound or outbound trucks, dependingon demand). A reasonablepeak hour would include 120 transactionsper hour, or I 65 outbound and 55 inbound truck trips. For shon periods,the volume could exceedthis! but the 120 transactionsper hour representsa reasonable assumption. The additional truck trip generationdue to the wharf extension I is shownin the right hand column of Table 11. (2) EmploveeTrip Generation. In addition to the 19 additional I peak hour truck trips shownin this table, the project would result in trips due to additional employmentat Howard Terminal. The number of employeeson I site is expectedto be 82 when one ship is at the terminal, and 122 when two ships are present, The differenceof 40 workers representsthe increasein peak employmentat the terminal. The Institute of Transportation Engineers' I [fE) Tnp Generatian,5thedition (1991)was used to estimatethe employee trip generationrate for light industrial (ITE land use #110) use,which is 0.44 trip per ernployeein the AM peak. The directional split of trips is 83 percent t inbound and 17 percent outbound in the AM peak. With 82 workers on the terminal, there are 30 employeevehicle trips inbound to the site during the AM peak, and 6 trips outboun4 for a total of 36 AM peak trips. If 122 I employeeswere on site, as would occur after the wharf extensionis complete{ the AM peak vehicle trip geneftrtionwould be 54 vehicles: 45 inbound and 9 outbound. Thus, 18 new trips would occur fiom the additional l employeesat the terminal becauseof the project. These trips would not have I a significantimpact on local or regional traffic. t ' Based on Tables 3-4 and 9-5 in lhe Highwoy Capacity Marual Transportation Research I Board Sp€cial Report 209, Washirigton, D.C, 1985. I 113 I CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMTNAL E (TENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT ENVI RONMEMTAI IMPACT REPORT TRANSPORTATION I Table 1l ADDITIONAL PEAK HOIJR TRUCK TRIPS (one-waytdps, annual average)' I Edsting Peak w'rth Direction Hour Count Project Nct Change T Inbound (to ltoject) x )) +19 Outbound (frqtr Project) 65 65 0 I Total 101 t20 +19 ' The peak day ir estimated to be double the annual average daily container loading. For I example, there would be 24Oone-way truck trips on the peak day n'itb the project. Source: Based on Dowling Associates' counts and information from the Port of Oakland, I (3) Truck Trio Distribution. Truck trips can be separatedinto local truck t p'sand intermodal truck movements,I-ocal truck trips are those made I by trucks within the Port's hinterland,which is a distanceof approrimately 150-200niles from Oakland. Local serviceusually goes no further because other ports would be more convenientto those locations(e.9., Port of Long I Beach/I-osAngeles for Southem California). The intermodal truck movementsare trips made to transport a container from a ship to a rail I facility, or vice vena- The Port has no facilities for the direct loading or unloadingof rail-borne containersto/from ships,so these are primarily short distancetrucks operatingfrom a ship berth to a rail yard. Although these I movementswould be mostly within the Port are4 as noted elsewhere, movementsto the SantaFe Railwaywould be carried to the Richmond area by freeway,where its intermodal rail facility is located. I The actMty levelsat the Port vary dramaticallyaccording to seasonaland daily fluctuations. Typically the peak months for shipping activity are I Septemberthrough November,while Wednesdaythrough Saturdayare typically the highestdays ofthe week. Truck activity is not exactlya function ofcrane actMty, becausethe peak hourly activity level is constrainedby the I ability of equipmentto load and unload containers,and by the lanesto processtrucks into and out of the site. I c. Proiect Trip Distribution. The additional traffic generatedby the proposedproject would result in an unnoticeabledistribution. This would be considereda lessthan signilicant impact. (IS) No mitigation measuresare I necessarv. I I 114 I JSNE 1994 CTTARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION t DRAFT EI{VI RONMEI{TAL IMPACT REPORT I TRANSPORTATION Trip distribution refers to the locationsof the origins and destinationsof trucks sewing the Port. This will, in turn, affect the routes used by truck. I The project trip distribution has been developedfrom a survet' done in July 1991. The surveyincluded over 1,200trucls. Table 12 showsthe origin and destinationlocations of truck trips from the suwey. As part of the 1991 I survey,truck drivers were also askedfor the routes used for their trips. These results are shownin Table 13. I d. Traffic Level of ServiceResults. The project would have no significant impact on the level of serviceat the study intersectiongsince all of the intersectionswould operate at LOS "C" or better. The impactson regional l highwaysare also lessthan significant;this is discussedalong with Cumulative Impacts and the No Project sections. This would be considereda lessthan I significant impact. (I5) No mitigation measuresare necessary, Based on the trip generationand distribution factors describedabove, the TRAFFIX 6.6 traffic impact analysismodel was run to analyzethe I intersectionimpacts of the project. These resultsare shown in Table 14. I Table 14 showsthat there are no significantimpacts due to the project itself, although delayswould increasevery slightly due to the presenceof additional l trucks at theseintersections. e. Rail Imoacts. It is assumedthat railroad operatorswould handle the changesin container cargovolume by double-stackingcontainer rail cars, I thereby not effectingthe length of trains or number of train trips to and from the Port. This would be considereda less than signilicant impact. (IS) No t mitigation measuresare necessary. Changesin the containervolumes handled at Howard Terminal would also affect rail traffic into and out ofthe Port. The estimateshave been based I upon information suppliedby the Port on the annual changein the number of container units.6 For both the No Project and Project Altemative, the actual number of trains operatingis not likely to change;demand would be satisfied I first by double-stackingcontainers where single-stackingis now used,and then I 5 I Memo from Iouise Engel, Port of Oakland, to John Glover, Port of Oakland, "OaklaDd Truck Trafric and Port Marine Terruinals," dated October 30, 1991. 6 Fax from Jody Zaitlin, Port of Oakland, to Steve ColmaD, Dowling Associates, Marsb 11, I 1993. I 115 I CTIARLES P. HOWARD TERMIN{ D(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I TRANSPORTATION t Table 12 COMBINED ORIGIN/DESTINATION I,OCATIONS OF TRUCK TRIPS Drayage to/from other PoIt Terminals 6% I Oakland Other Alameda County 5% I Contra C-ostaCouoty 89o San Francisco,6an Mateo CouDties 70% I Santa Clara County 5Vo North Bay Counties 4% I C€ntral Valley 5% Other Califomia L7% I Out of Staterunknoq,n L4EO Souree: Pon of Oakland survey, 1991, conducted by Caltrsns. I Table 13 I ROUTES USED BY TRUCKS TRAVELLING TO/FROM THE PORT OF OAKI"AND l Route Used Inbound Percent Outbound Perccnt BayBridge (I{0 wesD 11' I I.80 Eastbound tL2 I-880 36.9 36.0 1a I I-980 1.1 Surfac€ streets only u.L 29,4 Otber frcaway 03 0.0 I Note: The \.lnknolrn' (i.e., missing) responsesfrom the original tables have been factored out of this table so that the totals add to 1000%. I Source: Port of Oakland suwey, Merao from l-ouise Engel, Port of Oakland, to John Glover, Port of Oakland, "Oakland Tnrck Traffic and Port Matine T€ntriDa,s,' dated October 30, 1991, I I I I 116 T I JUNE 1994 C}IARLES P, HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION DRAFT EI'{VI RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I TRANSPORTANON Table 14 I INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Existing Existing + Project I Jefferon Strpet and The Ernbarcadero Madin lrther King Jr. Way and The Ernbarcadero A T Market Strcet aDd The Enbarcadero Third Street and Matket Stteet l Source: Dovling Associate,s,based oD Decamber 1993 counts. I by lengtheningexisting trains (if needed)to accommodatethe changein demand. It is not anticipatedthat the terminal improvementswill generate t enough demand to add new trains. The significanceof the additional rail crossingdelay dependsupon whether I additional railcars are added,the number of railcars,and the time of day that the trains are scheduled. For example,an additional train at 3:00 or 4:00 a.m. would not have a sigrificant impact on delaysto traffic (and pedestrians). It I is not possibleto predict exactlywhat these numberswill be' but it is likely that the impactswill be lessthan sigrificant, becauseof the use of existing empty backhaulcapacity, and becauseany new trains are most likely to run in T the late eveningor early moming hours before the AM peak or after the PM I peak. f. ConstructionPeriod and Uoland DisposalTraffic Imoacts. The principal constructionactivities (from a transportationstandpoint) would l consistof demolition of an existingtransit shed and wharf area, removal of piles, excavation,placement of new fill and piles, and disposalof dewatered sedimentsat one or more of the following landfills: Vasco Road, Keller I Canyon,Redwood, or Forward. The anticipatedduration of constructionof the wharf extensionis I approximately eight to nine months. During the first one to two months the existingbuilding would be demolished,piles would be removed,dredging would begin,and piles would be driven. During the next four to five months I the activity would include dredgingand 6ll, and the constructionof the t concretewharf, For purposesof this analysis,the dredge and fill operations I 117 I CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT I EIWIRONMENIAT IMPACT REPORT TRANSPORTATION I are expectedto take six months. This providesapproximately 130 normal working daysto accomplishthe truck transportation. I Construction activity would typically occur between 7;00 a.m. and 3:30 p,m., Monday through Friday,but may occur during other hours if it becomes necessaryto meet the constructionschedule. During constructionthere would I be between20 and 50 constructionworkers on the site. Workers would enter the site between6:30 and 7:00 a.m. and leavethe site between3:30 and 4:00 p.m.. Sincethese worker trips occur earlier than the normal peak periods I (7:00-9:00a.m. and 4:00-6:00p.m.), thesetrips are not expectedto have a sigrificant impact on the traffic levelsof serviceon surroundingstreets, nor on regional highways. I Dredged mud would be transportedby barge from Howard Terminal to an upland handling facility at Berth 10, the Bay Bridge Terminal, at the north I end of Maritime Street. The facility would be usedto dewaterthe dredge material prior to transportingit to one or more landfill sites for disposal. The same processwould be followed in the subsequentfour years,as the site is t used to processdredge material from other projects, I Vehicular a@essto Berth 10 is from ChungkingStreet and Bataan Avenue, which are located off Maritime Street (seeFigures 2 and 6). Bataan Avenue is located approximatelyone-quarter mile southwestof the West Grand I Avenue connectorramps, which provide direct accessto I-80 (Bay Bridge and eastboundEastshore Freeway), along with I-580. Maritime Street is a four- lane afterial with a center,two-way left turn lane. It is heavilyused by trucks I (and other traffic) accessingthe Outer Harbor containerterminals and the Oakland Army Base,among other uses. Peak period traffic volumes (1991) were obtained from availableCaltrans data, and from traffic countsdone t specificallyfor the 42-foot Dredging Project SupplementalEIR/EIS in January-February1993 at Maritime Street,south of the West Grand Avenue ramps. Thesecounts, conducted very near the project entrance,indicate a I total of 19,000ADT on Maritime Street,which is considereda moderate volume sustainablewith relatively short delays. t E Truckinq Sedimentsto Landfills. Trucks would haul the dewatered sedimentto one or more landfills for disposal. Each truck can carry about 12.5cubic yards of dewateredsediments; therefore, the proposedproject I would produceapproximately 3,488 truckloads over a period of eight to nine months, Trucks would make 8 to 20 trips per day. If trucks operate over a t 24-hour period, this would be lessthan one truck per hour; if they operate over a lO-hour period, it would be up to two truck trips per hour. A similar I I 118 I I ,UNE 1994 CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION DRAFT EIWIRONMENT/4L IMPACT REPORT I TRANSPORTATION or lower level of truck trips would continue for the four years the facility is in I use after the Howard Terminal wharf extensionis completed. Dredged sedimentsthat meet the criteria for a ClassIII landfill would be taken to either Vasco Road or Redwood landfill, Materials with contaminant T concentrationsthat exc€edthe limits for ClassIII landfill disposalwould be taken to Keller Canyonor Forward landfill. Keller Canyonand Forward landfills are ClassII facilities. At Vasco Road landfill, a Title D cell is I expecledto be in placeby August of 1994, This cell will be able to take Class II material that doesnot mntain hazardouswaste. Redwood landfill can acceptsome ClassII wastes. Dredged sedimentsthat meet the landfills' I engineeringcriteria will be used for daily cover. I-andfill disposalis discussed further in Chapter V, SectionI, SedimentQuality. I The addition of 8 to 20 truck trips per day from Berth 10 would be a volume increment of lessthan one percent,so is not expectedto have a s@ificant T impact on nearbystreets. Sincetrucks would be able to accessthe regional freewaysystem with very little surfacestreet travel, impactson surrounding surfacestreets would also be minimal or virtually non-existent. Therefore,the I rehandling facility would not havea significant effect on local or regional trafric. t Each of the four disposalsites is discussedbelow (see Figure 19 for locations). (1) RedwoodLandfill. This site is located in Marin County, near I the Marin/SonomaCounty line immediately adjacentto Highway 101.7Most of US 101 is a freewaywith full accesscontrol, exceptthat betweenNovato and south Petalum4 it is a divided expresswaywith a median guardrail. I BetweenAtherton Avenue (Novato) and the South PetalumaBoulevard ramps,US 101 is classifiedas an expressway,with some accesscontrol. US 101 providesthe regional accessroute to the RedwoodLandfill site, and is l located at approximatelypost mile 25.4,^bo\t two miles south of the Marin/SonomaCounty line. The postedspeed limit is 55 miles per hour. I SanitaryLandfill Road carries all traffic into and from the RedwoodLandfill, and is a two-lane road. The intersectionwith US 101 is a 'T' intersection, t with a stop sign on SanitaryLandfill Road and no mntrol for the US 101 traffic. On 101 southbound,a left turn decelerationIane is provided for I traffic turning into the landfill, and an accelerationlane is provided for traffic t For funber reference, se Redwood Landfilt Solid Waste Facilitia Pemit Erysnrion Prciecl, preparcd for the County of Marin, February 1994i and SupplementqlEIRIEIS Oawzad I Haftu DeeyDrelt Navigation Imptovetnents, prcpared for the Port of Oakland, January 1994. I 119 T I 7U) ii i= i= I I I I T I F I {J E, z,=EE B I 9s? .e € rr-:fii E g;t I 3 b- z ' FE5 fi_b= L .JF; e I A. I I I I I I I 6 z U) I E cr I I I JUNE 1994 CTIARLES P, HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION DRAFT E}WI RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I TRANSPORTATION turning ftom the landfill into 101 southbound. From 101 northboun{ traffic turning right into the landfill is provided with a wide apron that minimizesthe I delay to through traffic, althoughno separateright-tum decelerationlane is provided. I The Redwood Landfill site is directly adjac€nt to the tracks of the Califomia Nonhem Railroad (fomerly the Southem Pacific Railroad, SP).8 The rait line follows Route 37 and US 101; an all-direction Y is provided near the I junction of Highways37 and 101. This is a single track line, with pasing tracks (sidings)provided at strategicpoints. The Igracio siding is near the Y; the Novato siding is just south of downtownNovato; and the Burdell siding is I located about three miles north of Novato adjacentto Mount Burdell. I The existingannual averagedaily trafficeon US 101 are as follows: Highway37 to Rowland Avenue 97,000 Rowland Avenue to Del-ong Avenue 83,000 t Del-ong Avenue to Atherton Ave.-SanMarin Dr. 70,000 Atherton Avenue to South PetalumaBlvd. interchange 68,000 I Peak month volumes are approximately11 to 16 percent higher than this, dependingon the locations,due to seasonal(mostly recreationally-related) traffic. The capacityof US 101 has been estimatedat about 75,000vehicles I per day at an acceptablelevel of servicein the four-lane sections!0(i.e., just north of Atherton Avenue to South PetalumaBoulevard), and 113,000 vehiclesper day in the sixlane section (most of the area south of the I Atherton Avenue interchange). The peakingpattern is the classictwice-a-day peak, occurringbetween I 7:00-8:00a.m. and 4:00-6:00p.m., due to commute traffic. The heaviest westboundmovement occurs from 7:00-8.00a.m. (about 2,100VPH), and the l heaviesteastbound traffic occurs4:00-6:00 p.m. (about 1,700VPH). I 3 Fomrerly the Northwestem Pacific Railmad. ID late 1992, the NWPRR was absorbed ioto I the Southem Pacific Railroad, losing its separatecoryorate identity. The line has subsequently been sold to tbe Califomia Northem. e This value is the equivalentof awraging traflic oter 365 days oftbe year. Cons€quently, I 'weekday volumes will (in mo6t cas€s) be somewbat higher than lhe value noted, but probably by no more thzn 15%1. I r0Abrams Associates estimate, based on the 1985Highway Capacity Manual I 121 I CHARLES P, HOWARD TERMINAL E From Berth 10, ttucks would head south on I-880, east on I-238 to I-580, and east on I-580 to the Vasco Road exit. From there it is approximately2.5 I rr see Abrams Associates report, cited above. I 12 Counted 2,E3 apprqimately one-half mile north of I-580, as rePorted by Mr. David Maraji of the City of Uvermore. I t L22 I I JUNE 1994 CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E Traffic countsand analysiswere performed by DKS Associatesas par of the I environmentalclearanc€ for the Vasm Road landfill expansion. They indicate that 90 percent of the daily traffic on Vasco Road is autos and pickups,with the balancebeing trucks. Almost half of the daily truck volume is attributable t to landfill trucks. The landfill curreritly generatesabout 1,000daily, and 130 peak hour, vehicle trips. t DKS conductedturning movementcounts at six nearbyintersections during peak hours in November 1990. Thesecounts indicate that level of serviceis generally'D' or better, exceptat three intersectionsduring the PM peak hour: I CrestmontAvenue approachat Vasco Road; ScenicAvenue approachesat Vasco Road; and Northfront Road approachesat Vasm Road. The operations on Vasco Road itself are acceptable.All freewayramps at l-580firascoRoad I operate acceptably,except for the I-580 westboundonloop, which currently operatesat LOS "F (V/C of 1,03), This ramp would not be affectedby T project traffic, however,since it sewesvehicles travelling northbound from south of I-580. I (3) Fonrard Landfill. This landfill is located at 9999 South Austin Road, in SanJoaquin County,approximately seven miles southeastof Stockton,r3and 1.5 miles east of SR 99. There is no rail accessimmediately I adjacentto the site. A Final EIR prepared for the expansionof this facility notes that all intersectionlevels of servicein the immediate vicinity are (and will continue to be) 'A". Regional impactsand accessare similar to the Vasco I Road site (discussedabove), except that trucks would mntinue on I-580 eastboundover the Altamont passto Interstate 205. From the junction of 205 and State Route (SR) 120,some truck are likely to proceednorth on I-5 and I use I-athrop Road to crossover to SR 99, while others may use SR 120 to reach SR 99, Trucks would then exit SR 99 at the French Camp Road, which is a fufl (all direction) interchange. SR 99 and l-205 arc four-lane freeways, I SR 120 is a two- to three-lanedivided highway,and Lathrop Road is a two- lane road. I Caltrans (1993) indicatesthat congestioncurrently existsin the westbound I direction on I-580 near the iunction of I-680 between7:00-9:00 a.m., and on b For further information, *e Fi.nal Endronmental Impa.t Repn for the Fuward ltlc. Landlill User Petmit Modificatiots," March 2, 1993, prepared for the San Joaquin County t Community Development Department. I 123 I CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMTNAL D(TENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT ENVI RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TRANSPORTATION T SR 238 between6:30-9:00 a.m. This congestionwould affect truck travel from either the Forward or Vasco landfills. In addition, there is AM peak mngestion in the westbounddirection on I-205 in the westbounddirection for I much of its length, due to the heavycommuting into the Bay Area from the Central Valley. One way driving time to this site is between70-100 minutes, dependingon traffic conditions. I (4) Keller CanyonLandfill. This site is located at 901 Baitey Road in Pittsburg. This landfill would be reachedfrom Berth l0 via I-580 (see I discussionof Redwoodlandfill for accessroutes to I-580), SR 24, I-680, SR Vl2, and SR 4. Trucks would exit the freewayat rhe Bailey Avenue exit. Caltrans (1993) indicatesthat traffic congestionextends over a considerable I Iength of this route, primarily in the westbounddirection. The duration ofthe congestionis generally6:00-8:30 a.m., although in one location (I-680 through Walnut Creek), congestionpersists to 9:30 a.m. The congestedareas include I SR 4 from Willow Passto Pittsburg(this shouldbe somewhatallwiated by the lowering ofthe gradeover Willow Pass,which recentlyopened); the t SR Z2A-680 junction, I-680 through Walnut Creek through the I-680124 interchange(now under re-construction); SR 24 from Lafayette to tho CaldecottTunnels; and I-580 from 24 to the Oakland Army Base. SR 4 and t ?A2 are fow-lane freeways, and SR 24 is an eight-lane freeway. Although use of I-80 to SR 4 is an altemative route, congestionis also severein this mrridor and may not improve travel times,which are likely to be 45-90 I minutes (one way), dependingon traffic conditions. There is no rail access immediately adjacentto the site. I A previoustraffic studyby Abrams Associatesindicates that Bailey Road currently carriesabout 13,000average daily trips betweenHighway 4 and Leland Road and 5,300average daily trips south of the landfill accessroad. I The four nearbyintersections (two ramp junctionswith Highway 4, the intersectionof Bailey Road/LelandRoa4 and Bailey Road/Willow PassRoad) all operate a LOS 'A" during the AM and PM peak hours, Truck volumes on I Bailey Road are currently fairly low; during a four-hour AM peak period they mnstituted only 1.4 percent ofthe vehicleson Bailey Road. In tbe sectionof Bailey Road betweenSR 4 and Leland Road, trucks made up 5 percent of the I vehicles,partly due to constructionactivity nearby. Steepgrades (in excessof 6 percent)exist for a short distanceon Bailey Road to the south of the Keller CanyonLandfill, but the approachfrom the south was not expectedto be I permitted at the time the Draft EIR was written. I The Draft EIR also studiedthe accidenthistory in the area to see if nearby roads have any specialsafety problems. During the period from 1984-1989, the Bailey Road,{LelandRoad intersectionhad a total of 24 reported I I 7U I JUNE 1994 C}IARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E'(TENSION t DRAFT ENVI RONMENTAL TMPACTREPORT TRANSPORTATION I accidents.A largenumber ofthe accidentsinvolved vehicles turning left to and from LelandRoad. A wideningproject at the intersectionand newtraffic t signalwere reported to haveimproved the accidentrate. The Draft EIR notesno specialaccident problems nor unusuallyhigh accident rates in the I afea. (5) ConstructionPeriod Truck Trip Generation.The projectwould requireremoval of 43,600cubic yards of dredgematerial, and importingof t roughly 1t14,000cubic yards of fill.r+ An averageof 12.5cubic yards per truck hasbeen used for this analysis,which is consistentwith the truck capacityused in otherPort environmentalstudies. This equatesto 3,488truck I trips for dredgeremoval from Berth 10,and 11,520trips to bring fill into HowardTerminal. Assuminga six monthduration of dredgingand fill, and that the truck trips are spreadevenly throughout this period,the projectis I expectedto requireapproximately 771 daily trucks (roundtrips), or 21 inbound and 21 outboundtrucks per hour (rounded).To constitutea threepercent increasein trafftcon regionalfacilities (counting one truck asequal to two I pixisengercars), a freewaywould have to be carryingless than 1,500vehicles per hour in total,which for a BayArea freewayis an extremelylow volume, evenduring off peakperiods. The impactof constructionvehicles on local I streetsand intersections is likely to be aroundthe immediatevicinity of the project,and asnoted earlier, since these intersections currently operate at T LOS 'A' duringthe AM peak,there is substantialreserve (i.e., unused) capacityat theseintersections during the mid-dayperiod. The construction schedule(ending work by 3:30PM) actsas a mitigationto reducetraffic I impacts,since in someareas (particularly the localstreet system) traffic volumesare heavierduring the AM than the PM peak. Therefore,the I constructiontruck impactrepresents a lessthan significant impact. h. CumulativeImpacts. Cumulative impacts include the impactsftom the projectas well asan increasein the WestCoast market share of intermodal l c{rrgoeast of the Mississippiand Texas with the completionof the ship channeldredging and other longterm projects.The increasein intermodal I marketshare is reflectedby the additionalvessel per week. The cumulative(with project)traffic forecastswere based on year2000 projectionsmade by the AlamedaCounty Travel Model. This modelprojects I peakhour traffic forecastsusing the EMMEP travelforecasting softivare. The modelincludes transit services as well as highways;and hasa t sophisticatedcongestion diversion (route choice) procedure. The travel I r' Estimates prepared by Moffat and Nichol, April ld 1994. I t/) I CHARIES P. HOWARD TERMINAL EXTENSION JUNE T994 RONMET.ITAL I DRAFT ET.IVI IMPACT REPORT TRANSPORTATION I forecastsinclude the variousland use plans of the citiesand uninmrporated areasin AlamedaCounty. These land uses were developed as pan of a planningprocess undertaken by the Alameda CountyTransportation t Authority. The County'sCongestion Management Agency provided the model resultsto Dowling Associates. I In the vicinityof HowardTerminal, the growthin traffic to the year2000 alongThird Streetwas used to factorall trafficvolumes at the four study intersections.This growthfactor includes new trips generatedby the re-useof I a portionofthe NavalSupply Center property. This assumptionreflects a worst-cas€analysis, since it is likelythat someintersection movements would growat a slowerrate thanthat indicatedby the model(land use forecasts are I alsobased on pre-recessionestimates that nowappear to be too high). Cumulativetraffic impactsare shownin Table15. I Table 15 YEAR 2OOOCUMIJI,ATIVE TRAFFIC LEVEL OF SERVICE AT NEARBY INTERSESTIONS.WITHOUT MITIGATIONS I Exi6ting Existing + Project Cumulative I Jefferson Street and The Erubarcadero Madin Irther King, Jr. Way and The t Ernbarcadero Market Street aod The Erobarcadero I Third Street and Market Street A F Source: Dowling Associates. I The cumulativeimpact of traffic at the four study intersectionswould be less than significant,except at the intersectionof Market Street and Third Street. I With cumulativetraffic (whichwould occur for more reasons,including not only new Port traffic, but increasedactivity around Jack London Square,and I downtown development),in the future this intersectionwould operatewith long delays(LOS "F, Table 15) to the stopped(Market Street) approaches, potentially delalng trucla and other vehiclesinto and out of Howard I Terminal, This is a cumulativeimpact that would occur regardlessof whether the project is built. The principal causeof delaysis the heavyright turn movementfrom Market Street southboundinto Third Street. I I I 126 I JUNE 1994 C}IARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAI E (TENSION I DRAFT E}WI RONMENTAI IMPACT REPORT TRANSPORTATION I Imoact TRAN-I: The heavyright turn movementftom the intersectionof Market Street southboundinto Third Street would causethis intersectionto I operate with long delays(LOS 'F") to the stoppedMarket Street approache.s, potentially delayingtrucks and other vehiclesinto and out of Howard Terminal. This is a cumulativeimpact that would occur regardlessof whether I the project is built, assumingthat traffic volumes do increaseto the projected levelsby the year 2000. However,if the Union Pacific Railroad abandonsthe use of Third Street,another lane muld be create{ possiblyresulting in an I acceptablelevel of sewice. (S) Mitigation MeasureTRAN-I: If the railroad ttack on Third Street is I not abandonedby the time the expandedwharf is occupie4 a traffic signal muld be warranted at Third and Market Streets,both to provide for safe movementof vehiclesand to reduce delays. With a signal,this I intersectionwould operate at level of service'B' (volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.61),rswhich is a less-than-significantimpact. The sigral should be interconnectedwith appropriate adjacentintersections along I Market Street (such as sthMarket) to provide a smooth progtessionof traffic. However, the need for this improvement is not createdby the I Howard Terminal project. I I I t I I T ! The volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio was calculated using the Transportatio R€search Circalat 212 plannitrg method; the corresponding delay using the 1985 Highwal Capaciay Maaaa, operations method is 13 seconds average delay per vehicle, which also corresponds to I LOS "8". I ln I CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL EKTENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ENVIRONMENI{ IMPACT REPORT TRANSPORTATION JI'NE 1994 CTIARLESP, HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION I DRAFT EIWI RONMENTAL IMPAST REPORT NOISE I I I F- Noise lll I The noiseimpacts created by the proposedproject are likely to be limitedto the mnstructionphase, Sensitive reoeptors in the are4 includingthe I Waterfront PlazaHotel, sweral shops,and occupantsof the 530 Water Street building would all be potentiallyaffe4ted to varyingdegrees by the constructionnoise. This sectionestablishes existing baseline conditions in the I area,sets out th€ applicableregulations and criteriaof sigrificance,and assessesimpacts and recommendsmeasures to mitigatesigrificant noise I impacts. Setting I a. FundamentalConcepts of EnvironmentalAcoustics. Noise is defined as unwantedsound. Airbome soundis a rapid fluctuation of air pressureabove and below atmosphericpressure. Sound levelsare usuallymeasured and I expressedin decibels(dB) with 0 dB correspondingroughly to the threshold of hearing. Decibelsand other technicalterms are defined in Table 16. I Most of the soundswhich we hear in the environmentdo not consistof a single frequenry,but rather a broad band of frequencies,with each frequency I differing in sound level. The intensities of each frequency add together to generatea sound. The method commonlyused to quanti$ environmental soundsconsists of evaluatingall of the frequenciesof a sound in accordance I with a weightingthat reflectsthe facts that human hearing is lesssensitive at low frequenciesand extremehigh frequenciesthan in the frequencymid- range. This is called "A" weighting and the decibel level so measuredis called I the A-weighted sound level (dBA). In practice,the level of a sound sourceis convenientlymeasured using a sound level meter that includesan electrical filter correspondingto the A-weightingcurve. Typical A-levels measuredin I the environmentand in industry are shownin Table 17 for different typesof noise. I I I 129 I CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT ENVI RONMET'IIAI IMPAST REPORT NOISE I Table 16 DEFINITIONS OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS I Tern Definitions Decibel, dB A unit de.scribirg the aEplitude of sound, equal to 20 tisres tbe logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of I tbe souDd measured to the r€ferenge pressure, which is 2O micropascals(2.O micronewlons per squar€meter). Frequeocy, tlz The number of complete prcssure fluctuations per second I above and b€low atmospheric pre.ssure. A-Weighted Souod lJvel, The sound pressure level in decibels as measlred on a sound dBA level meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A- I veigbting 0lt€r de-emphasizesthe very low and very high frequency componeots of the sound in a maDDersimilar to the frequency rcspoose of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reaction$ to noise. All sound lerels in this I report arc A-weighted, r"r, L, r,r" Io The A-weigbted noise f€vels that ate exceeded lqo, LoVo, 5O%, and,gO of the time during the measurement period. I F4uivalent Noise IJvel, The averageA-weighled noise level during the [reasurcmeDt t. Derioil. I Community Nois€ The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, Fnuivalent lfvel. CNEL obtaioed after addition of 5 decibelsin the eveningfrom 7:00 p.m. to 10:m p,m. and after addition of 10 decibelsto sound levels io the night between 10OOp.m. and 7:00 a"m. I DayNight Noire kvel, The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, f.d obtained after addition of 10 decibels to levels measurcd in tbe night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.rrl. I Lr- L.t The maximum and minimum A.weighted noise level duritrg the measurementDeriod. I Ambient Noise l-evel The composite of noise frorn all sources near and far. The nortral or existing level of environmental noisc at a giveo location, I Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above tbe existi|lg ambient noise at a given location. The relative intnrsiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequenry, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as I well as the prevailingambient noise level. I t I I 130 I JUNE 1994 CTIARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL D(TENSION I DRAFT ETWIRONMENTALIMPA T REPORT I NOISE Table 17 TTPICAL SOIJND LE\IELS I MEASURED IN THE E}IVIRONMENT AND INDUSTRY A.Weighted At . Givsn DlsttrEe Sorud l*vel Subjective I From Noice Sourcc in Decibels Noise Environmentc hnpression 14t) I Civil Defense Siren 130 (i00 feet) t Jet Takeafr(200 fcet) t20 Pain Threshold 110 Rock Music Concert l Pile Driver (50 feet) 1m Very l-oud Ambulanc€ SireD (100 feet) T 90 Boiler Room Freight Cals (50 feeo Printins Press Plant PDeumaticDrill (50 feet) 80 In Kitcben With Garbage I Disposal Running Freeway (1m feet) I 70 ModeratelyIrud Vacuum Cleaner (10 feet) 60 Data Processins CJDter I DeDartment Store Ligbt Trafiic (100 feet) 50 PrivateBusiness omce I I-arge Transforner (200 feet) I 4.O Quiet Soft Whisper (5 feet) 30 Quiet Bedroom 20 ReaordingStudio I 10 Threshold of I Hearing I I I 131 I CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL n(TENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT ENVTRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOISE I Although the A-weightednoise level may adequatelyindicate the level of environmentalnoise at any instant in time, mmmunity noise levelsvary continuously. Most environmentalnoise includesa conglomerationof noise I ftom distant sourceswhich create a relatively steady background noise in which no panicular sourceis identifiable. To describethe time-varying characterof environmentalnoise, the statisticalnoise descriptors,L,o' Lo, and I I-, are commonlyused' They are the A-weightednoise levels equaledor exceededduring 10 percent,50 percent,and 90 percent of a stated time period, A single number descriptorcalled the L.q is now also widely used' I The L." is the averageA-weighted noise tevel during a statedperiod of time' In determiningthe daily level of environmentalnoise, it is important to I ac@unt for the differencein responseof people to daytime and nighttime noises. During the nighttime, exterior backgroundnoises are generallylower than the daytime levels. However,most householdnoise also decreasesat T night and exterior noisebecomes very noticeable' Further, most people sleep at night and are very sensitiveto noise intrusion. To accountfor human sensitivityto nighttime noise levels,a descriptor,L- (day/nightaverage sound I level), was developed. The l* dividesthe 24-hour day into the daytime of 7:@ a.m. to 10:00p.m, and the nighttime of 10:00p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The I nighttime noise level is weighted10 dB higber than the daytime noise level' The CommunityNoise EquivalentLwel (CNEL) is another 24-hour average which includesboth an eveningand nighttime weighting. I The effectsof noise on people can be listed in three general categories: . subjective effects of annoyance,nuisance, dissatisfaction; I . interferencewith activitiessuch as speech,sleep, Iearning; . physiologicaleffects such as startling,hearing loss' I The levels associatedwith environmentalnoise, in almost every case'produce effectsonly in the 6rst two categories.Workers in industrial plants can I experiencenoise in the last category. Unfortunately,there is as yet no completelysatisfactory way to measurethe subjectiveeffects of noise,or of the correspondingreactions of annoyanceand dissatisfaction.This is primarily I becauseof the wide variation in individual thresholdsof annoyance,and habituation to noiseover differing individual past experienceswith noise' I Thus, an important way of determininga person'ssubjective reaction to a new noise is the comparisonof the existingenvironment to which one has adapted: I the so-called'ambient". I I 132 I JUNE 199{ CI{ARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL D(TENSION I EIWI RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT DRAFT NOISE I In general,the more a newnoise exceeds the previouslyexisting ambient noise I level,the lessacceptable the newnoise will be judgedby the hearers. Witb regardto increasesin A-weightednoise level, knowledge of the following relationshipswill be helpfulin understandingthis report. I . Exceptin carefullymntrolled laboratory experiments, a changeof I dB cannotbe perceived. I . Outsideofthe laboratorya 3 dB changeis considereda just' perceivabledifference. . A changein lerel of at least 5 dB is requiredbefore any noticeable I changein communityresponse would be expected. . A 10dB changeis subjectivelyheard as approximately a doublingin I loudness,and would almost certainly cause an adversechange in communityresponse. T b. RezulatowBacksround (l) Federaland State Resulations. There are no federalor state I noiseregulations directly appticable to this project. The Stateof California'in AppendixG to the CEQA Guidelines,does establish general criteria of sigrificanceby statingthat a projectwill normallyhave a sigttificantadverse t effectif it causesna substantial increase in the ambientnoise level in areas sensitiveto noiseadjacent to the projectsite." Significancecriteria are t presentedin the ImpactSection to addressthis directive. (2) Citv of Oakland.The City of Oaklandhas adopted a Noise I Elementas a part of its ComprehensivePlan (1974).The NoiseElement does not set forth specificguidelines for noiseand landuse planning. U.S. Housing andUrban DevelopmentAgenry Guidelines are presentedin the noise I element.These guidelines are reproducedin Figure20. The guidelinesare generallyapplicable to the sitingof newnoise sensitive land usesin noisy areas.This projectis a noise-generatingproject which could potentially affect I existingnoise sensitive land usesin the area. The guidelinesdo, however, providea basisfor judgingthe acceptabilityof existingand futurenoise I environments. (3) Ciw of Alameda.The City of Alamedahas adopted a quantitativeordinance in Section11 of the City'sMunicipal Code' The noise I ordinanceestablishes noise level standards based on the typeof land use receivingthe noise. The applicableportion of the ordinancelimits A-weighted I noiselevels at commercialproperties and is in Table18. I IJJ I t I COMMUNITYNOISE EXPOSURE I LANDUSE CATEGORY L. ORCNEL. dA 55 60 65 l0 t5 A0 RESIDENTIAL. LOW OENSIW T SINGLEFAMILY, DUPLEX, MOBIL€ HOMES ...; tt I ultt I RESIOENTIAL.MULII FAMILY I TRANSIENTLODGING . MOTELS,HOTELS I SCHOOLS.LIERARIES. CHURCHES.HOSPIIALS. NURSINGHOMES t AUDITONIUMS.coNCERT HALLS,AMPHTTHEATRES I SPORTSARENA. OUTD@R SPECTATORSPORTS ry I PLAYGROUNDS. NEIGHEOURHOOOPARKS re E GOLFCOURSES. RIOING I STAELES,WATER RECREATION.CEMETARIES tr OFFICEBUILDINGS. EUSINESS. I COMMERCI,ALAIJD f/t a PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL.MANUFACTURING UTILITIES.AGRICULTURE I I{OFIAIIY I@EPIAELE t, sc.di.d |]rd !- b.ali.fti.rcr. br-d rFn tr 8trr9ti.n dEt rr hidic. -!$15 Sooire: U.s. Houslng and Urbm Devdopmert Agen€t CharlesP. Howard TerminalExtension FIGURE20 I EIIVIFOXTEIIIALIIIICT iEPORT Port of Oakland NoiseGuidelines rta I BrlpY AND AssoclATEs I I JUNE 1994 CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION DRAFT ETWIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT T NOISE Table 18 I CITY OF AI"AMEDA NOISE LEI'ELS FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES Cutrdatlve numbcr of mhuteg Dalime NighttiBe ln sny l-hour aime period (7 e.t!t. - l0 p,Dr.) (10p.m.-7a.rr) I 30 65 60 15 70 65 I 5 75 70 80 '15 I 0 85 80 I The noise level standardsare to be adjustedupward to reflect higher measuredambient noise levels and downwardby 5 dBA if offending noises I include simple tones,speech or music,or recurring impulsive noises. c. Existing Noise Environment. Howard Terminal is located along the Embarcaderobetween Market Street and JeffersonStreet. Four gantry cranes I are located on the terminal for loading/unloadingcontainer ships. The proposedexpansion is at the southem edge of the terminal where Jefferson Street intersectsThe Embarcaderoat the north and west of Jack London I Square. Sensitivereceptors in the area include the 530 Water Street office building, the' Oakland Fire Department Station No. 2, small shopsalong Water Street,the Waterfront Plaza Hotel located at the end of Washington I Street,Franklin D. RooseveltPier, and the Ferry Terminal Pier (Figure 21). The project area was visited in order to establishthe qualitative and I quantitativedescription of the noise environmentat sensitivereceptors near the project site. The noise environmentresults from existingmarine terminal activities,including container operations,maintenance actMties, and ship I traffic in the middle harbor, vehicular traffic on the street network, jet aircraft I overflights,and railroad trains on EmbarcaderoStreet. Noise levelswere monitored outside the Waterfront Plaza Hotel, the fire station, at the foot of WashingtonSrreet, and inside the 530 Water Street I building during the afternoonof January4, 1994. The data are summarizedin Table 19. Outside the Waterfront Plaza hotel next to the small boat marina, typical afternoon noise levelsranged from 50 to 65 dBA. During the I measurement,jet aircraft overflightsgenerated the highestnoise lwels, reaching65 dBA, with small boat traffic generating55 to 60 dBA. There was I no actMty at Berth 6? and 68 at Howard Terminal. Distant noise from the I 135 I \A? \t 1\ 0\ Waterfront 530Water Plaza Street Hotel Offices Franklin D. $ Roosevelt $ Pier & Ferry $ Terminal I $ t $ Source:Brady and A$diales. 1994 CharlesP. Howard TerminalExtension FIGURE2I ElvtiotIEtrAL tt?AcTnEPoal r Port of Oakland Noise Sensitive Receptors o' 250' 500' J000' tla BreoY AND AssocrATEs JUNE 1994 CTIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION t REPORT DRAFT ET.IVIRONMENTAL IMPACT I NOISE Table 19 I AMBIENTNOISE MEASUREMENT DATA JANUARY4,1993 Location fime L' f.ort Lt"' Lso' L" 1) Waterfront Plaza L2.45pm t Hotel - 1:00pm )) 58 55 51 2\ Oakland Fire Dept. 1:05pm Station rf2 - 1:20pm 67 74 & 55 5l I (includes tugboat) 3) Washington SL @ 154 pm I Water St. - 2:09 pm ffi 80 63 58 56 (includes train hom) I L = ttr" average A-weighted noise level during lhe measurertrent period. Lt, L., f*, lo = The A'weighted noise levels rhat are exceeded duriog the I measurcmeot period 01, 10, 50, and 90 percent of the time, res?ectively. port's other terminals was audible in the area. Vehicular traffic on Water Street and WashingtonStreet was also audible during the measurementbut I did not significantlycontribute to measurednoise levels. I The noise environmentoutside the Oakland Fire Station No. 2 was similar to the environmentat the Waterfront PlazaHotel. During the measurement, however,a loud tug boat generateda m (imum level of75 dBA as it passed I through the middle harbor, resulting in the higher averageand maximum noise levels reported in Table 19. I The measurementat the intersectionof Water Street and WashingtonStreet was affectedmore by vehicular traffic on the roadways. During this measurement,a train passedthrough the area on the Embarcaderoand I generatedrepeated blasts of its waming whistle, ranging in noise level from ?4 dBA to 87 dBA at the monitoring site, accountingfor the very high noise lwels reported in Table 19. Without the influence ofthe train, the average I noise level would be about 58 dBA, typical of the entire plaza arca south of the project site. It can be seenfrom the measurementsthat noise levels fluctuate from moment to moment, hour to hour, and probably day to day I basedon the type and amount of activity in the area due to the wide variety t of different noise sourcesand land uses. Noise levelswere monitored on the secondfloor and the seventhfloor of the 530 Water Street office building. The averagenoise level in the corner office t of the semnd floor (#1562) facing the project site was 45 dBA. The I 137 I CTIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT ENVI RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOISE I backgroundnoise level in the office is steadyand resultsfrom the heatin& ventilating,and air conditioningsystems. Other office-generatednoise levels, including typing and conversations,result in some fluctuation of the noise I level. Noise levelswere similar in the seventhfloor office's. They typically ranged from 40 ro 42 dBA. A train enginepassing on the Embarcadero resulted in a noise level of 45 dBA in the 7th floor corner office overlooking I Embarcadero. The personsconsulted in the Port's offices on the secondand fourth floon, and the private law firm on the seventhfloor, indicated the of6cqs are typicaUyused between 7:00 a'm. and 6:00 p.m. I 2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures I a. SignificanceCriteria. The U.S. Housing and Urban Development Noise Acceptabilityranges which are containedin the City of oakland's Noise Element (Figure 21) are usedto help assessthe significanceof long-term t noise impacts. Project noise impactswould be significant: ' if they raisedexisting (ambient) noise levels from below to abovethe I applicablecriteria; ' if noise resultingfrom the project increasedaverage ambient lwels I which are alreadyabove the applicablecriteria by more than 3 dB; or ' if project generatednoise resulted in a 5 dB increase,even if the resultinglevel remainedbelow the maximum considerednormally I acceptable. These criteria for sigtificanceremgnize: (1) the threshold lwels of t acceptabilityestablished by governmentalagencies; (2) that once the threshold level has been passedany noticeablechange above that level (a 3 dB increase) results in a further degradationof the noise environment;and (3) a clearly I noticeablechange (a 5 dB increase)in the noise environment,even though the acceptabilitythreshold has not been reached,is also a sigtificant impact becausepeople will respondto suchchanges in noise levelsregardless of the I absolutelevel of the nolse. I The City of Alameda has adoptedquantitative noise ordinancelimits describedin the RegulatoryBackground subsection of this section. If projected operationalnoise levelsexceed the City of Alameda noise level I standardsat land usesin Alameda, then this would be considereda sigtificant noise impact. I Noise resulting from constructionis assessedsomewhat differently. The constructionphase does not create a long-term increasein noise levels' The I I 138 I I JUNE 1994 C}IARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAI E(TENSION DRAFT EIWIRONMEMAT IMPACT REPORT I NOISE long-termgoals of the locat jutisdiction are not appropriatecriteria for determiningthe significanceof the noiseimpact upon sensitive receptors I duringthe constructionphase. The potentialfor speechinterference during the daytimeor sleepdisturbance at nightare the mostappropriate criteria for the purposeof assessingconstruction noise impacts. Sensitive receptors in the t vicinity of the project site includeoffice workers and patrons and workers in smallbusinesses along Water Street, occupants of the WaterfrontPlaza Hotel and patronsof the RustyPelican Restaurant located about 1/4 mile southof I the site in Alameda.Persons staying in roomsof the Hotel wouldbe the nearestnighttime sensitive rec€ptors in the area. Peopleusing the FranklinD. Rooseveltpier wouldbe the nearestoutdoor sensitive receptors. To minimize t speechinterferenc€ outdoors, the hourly averagenoise level shouldnot exceed 60 dBA. To minimizespeech interference indoors, hourly average noise levels shouldnot exceed45 dBA. Assumingstandard building construction, I approximately25 dBA of noisereduction would be providedby the of6ce building'sand hotel'sfacades. Therefore, average construction noise levels exceeding70 dBA at the buildings'facades would be consideredto causea I significantnoise impact. To minimizesleep disturbance in the hotel,hourly averagenoise lwels shouldnot exceed35 dBA inside.Hourly average I constructionnoise levels should therefore not exceed60 dBA outsideof the hotel duringthe nighttimein order to minimizesleep disturbance. I Pile drMng wouldoccur during the constructionof the proposedproject. The maximuminstantaneous noise level resulting from tbe pile driver shouldnot exceed55 dBA insideoffices or 40 dBA insidethe hotel duringsleeping hours t (10 p.m.- 7 a.m.)in order to minimizeannoyance, speech interference, and sleepdisturbance due to pile drMng. I Noise from constnrctionactivities are exemptfrom the City of Alamedanoise ordinanceprovided construction is limited to daltime hours. I b. Methodoloqv.The methodologlused to preparethe assessment consistsof the followingsteps: (1) noisemeasurements were conducted at the nearestsensitive receptors to the projectto defineexisting baseline I conditions;(2) operationaland construction noise levels were projected for eachof theselocations based on measurementsof similaractivity or published information;(3) the resultingnoise levels were compared to existingnoise I levelsand with applicablelocal criteria to evaluateimpacts; (4) where significantimpacts were identified mitigation measures were evaluated that T couldreduce the impactto a lessthan significant level. I I 139 I CHARLES P. HOWARD'I€RMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT ENVIRONMET.ITAL TMPACT REPORT NOISE I c. &$!rug!en NqjE. The proposedproject consistsof the extensionof the wharf. The Port would demolishthe existingtransit shed,remove existing piles and build a new dike and fill behind it to support the wharf extension. I The wharf extensionwould be on fill, exceptfor a 100-footwide strip of pile suppoftedwharf for the crane rails. A pile supportedwharf altemative is discussedin the Altemative sectionto this report. I Noise impactsresulting from constructiondepend upon the noise generatedby the various piecesof constructionequipment, the timing and lengh of time of I noise generatingactivitieq the distancebetween the noise generatingactivities and the nearbysensitive receptors, and the time of day or night that the constructionactivities occur. Constructionactivities are typically carried out I in stages. During eachstage of construction,a different mix of mnstruction equipmentis operating. Constructionnoise lwels, therefore,vary by stageof mnstruction and vary within eachstage depending upon the numbersand T typesof equipmentoperating. The mnstruction of the wharf extensionis anticipatedto take a total of I approximatelyeight to nine months. It is anticipatedthat the setup and demolition would take eight weefts,dredging two weeksand filling four week. The dredgingwould inrolve a barge crane,tug boat, dozer, compactor,grader I and truck. An upland rehandlingfacility would be built on sevenacres of wharf at Berth 10. Dredged mud would be transportedto the upland I handling facility where it would be dewatered. Trucks would haul the dewateredsediment to one or more landfills for disposal. The pile driving would then last up to three to five weels. Piles would be driven with a I 160,000-footpound diesel hammer. Pile drMng would typically occur between 7:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, but muld operate during other hours if it becomesn€cessary to meet the constructionschedule. No I pile driving would take place during nighttime hours, between10 p.m. and 7 a.m. During the next three months the activity would include imponing fill and constructionmaterials and mnstructing the concretewharf. Concrete I pumper trucks would be used extensivelyduring this phase. Projectednoise levelsduring the pile driving and the other phasesof I constructionat eachof the representativesensitive receptor locationsare shownin Table 20. The interior noise levelswere estimatedassuming 25 dBA of exterior to interior noise reduction for the nearbybuildings. The projected I interior levelsonly apply to tbose rooms of the buildingswhjch have a direct line-of-sightto the constructionactivities, typicatly the north and west facades of the buildings. I I I 140 I JUNE 1994 CTIARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION t DRAFT ETWIRONMENTALIMPACT REPORT NOISE I Table 20 ESTIMATED RANGE OF CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS I Construction Noise Levcl (dBA)' Distrnce frou Site Pile Drivlng I Sensitive Receptor hrrd Use (ft) (LrJ Other (1.-) '1G79 1) OaklandFirc Muoicipaw. 450 - outside 80{5 StationNo. 2 sleeping 80(| inside 5540 45-54 I 2) Fraatlin D. Park 300 - 84€8 7t:75 Roosevelt Pier 60(r 3) 530Water St. Offic€6 600 - outside 79-82 txt- r l I 90(|| inside 54-57 4t-45 4) Water Sr. @ OIAce/ 80tf - outside 77S0 6447 WashingtonSt. Commercial 1100' inside 52.55 3942 I 5) Waterfront Plaza Hotel 850 - outside ?6-79 Hotel tzffi' inside 51.54 3841 ' Other constructionactivities include demolition, dredging filling, concretework, and I paving. I Imoact NOISEI: The short-termnoise impactsfrom pile driving would be I sufficiently high to causespeech interference and annoyance. (S) A comparisonof the projected noise levels during pile drMng with the single- event maximum noise level criteria indicatesthat pile driving noisewould be I sufficiently high to causespeech interference and annoyanceinside the fire station and the 530 Water Street Building when pile driving is occurring I nearestto the building. Exterior noise levelsat the Franklin D. Roosevelt Pier would be sufficientlyhigh to causespeech interference during both pile driving and other activitiesduring the constructionof the wharf extension. I The balanceof the constructionactivities would not result in sigtificant impacts inside nearby buildings during the daytime. I Mitigation Measure NOISE-I: The following measuresare recommended to mitigate constructionnoise impacts I and 2 upon sensitivereceptors in the area: I (1) Constructionusing equipment poweredby internal combustion engine should occur betweenthe hours of ? a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday I through Friday (non-holidays),unless unforseen delays require Saturday work or work until 10:00p.m. to maintain the schedule. If it is necessary I to opente such equipment (other than pile drivers) between 10:00p.m. I l4l t CIiARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I NOISE and7:00 a.m., the Port shouldrent the roomson the sideof the t WaterfrontPlaza Hotel facingthe constructionfor thosenights. (2) Bestavailable control technolog5r should be usedduring the pile I drivingphase. All availabletechniques to minimizethe numberof blows requiredto seateach pile shouldbe utilized. I (3) Pile drivingshould be scheduledto havethe leastimpact on sensitive receptorsin the area- Pile drMng actMtiesshould be restrictedto the daytimehours. Iate afternoon,evening and weekendpile driving would I minimizeimpacts to adjacentoffice buildings, shops and some hotel funclions,but woulddisturb sleep in manyhotel rooms. (4) All internalcombustion engine driven equipment utilized in the I demolition,dredging filling andconcrete construction activities should be ftttedwith mufllerswhich are in goodcondition. I (5) A disturbancecoordinator responsible for respondingto noise complaintsshould be designated,whose name and telephonenumber wouldbe clearlyposted at the constructionsite. This personwould I determinethe causeand implementmeirsures to mitigatethe noise impact. Examplesinclude enforcing the allowablehours of construction, identiffingpoorly muffled equipment and requiringits repairor I replacement,and recommendingtemporary construction noise barriers. ImoactNOISE-2: Constructionnoise at night,if work occurredthen, would I exceedthe sleepdisturbance criterion of35 dBA. (S) MitieationNOISE-2: Sameas Miligation Measure NOISE-I. I If constructionoccurs at night,the interior noiselevel criteria for sleep disturbancewould exceed 35 dBA insidethe roomsof the WaterfrontPlaza I Hotel nearestto andfacing the constructionsite. Noise-generating constructionactMties would therefore result in significantshort-term noise I impactsduring pile drivinginside the nearestsensitive buildings, throughout the durationof the constructionphase at the FranklinD. RooseveltPier, and insideof the WaterfrontPlaza Hotel at night. t d. Short-TermConstruction Truck Traffic. The shon-termconstruction truck trafficwould make an imperceptiblechange to noiselwels in the area I becauseof existinghigh truck volumes on the roadwaysserving the wharf. This wouldbe considereda lessthan significantimpact. (IS) I I I 142 t I JUNE 1994 CTIARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL E'(TENSION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTALTMPACT REPORT I NOISE Duringthe constructionphase there would be constructiontruck traffic on the roadwaysserving the site. Thereare projectedto be 171daily truck trips I generatedduring the constructionphase. The truckswould be distributedon the local roadwaynetwork. The truck traffic wouldbe distributedfairly evenly duringthe 8-hourwork-shift. Project-generated construction truck traffic I wouldtherefore not resultin anysignificant noise impacts at sensitive receptorsalong the streetnetwork, Constructiondebris would be disposedof at VascoRoad ForwardKeller Canyon,or RedwoodLandfill. Dredge I sedimentswould be truckedto the landfill sites. Thesematerials would be shippedprimarily via the freewaysystem. There would be no perceptibleor significantincreases in noiselevels along the freewaysystem or nearthese I landfillsas a resultof the proposedproject. I No mitigationmeasures are necessary. e. UplandRehandling Facility. The barging,unloading and on-shore actMtiesassociated with the UplandRehandling Facility would not resultin a I substantialnoise level increase at anysensitive receptors in the area. This I wouldbe considereda lessthan signiftcantimpact. (IS) A dewateringfacility would be built on sevenacres ofwharf at Berth 10. The adjacentland uses are Sea-Iandand the Army Terminal. Noisegenerating I activitiesassociated with the UplandRehandling Facility include a tugboat usedto pushbarges from HowardTerminal to Berth 10,a bargecrane used to unloaddredged sediments, a front-loaderused to distributethe barge I sedimentsat Berth 10,and truckswhich would move the dry sediments. Therewould be approximatelyeight barge trips requiredin eachof the three phasesto fill the Berth 10site. Thesetugboat movements within the port I areawould not resultin a substantialincrease in noiselevels along the wateffront. Thereare no knownnoise sensitive receptors in the vicinityof Berth 10. The unloadingand on shoreactMties would therefore not resultin I significantnoise impacts. The truck traffic wasassessed in the previous sub-sectionand foundnot to resultin anysignificant noise impacts, I No mitigationmeasures are necessary, f. OperationalNoise. The smallincremental increase in the amountof I onshoreactMty would not resultin a changein the noiselevels at sensitive receptorsin the areaof morethan 3 dBA. This wouldbe considereda less I than significantimpact. (I5) The proposedproject muld increasethe sizeof shipsloading and unloadingat t the Port of Oakland.It is likely that one additionalvessel call per week I l4J I CTIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL DfENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT ENT'I RONMENTAL IMPACI REPORT NOISE I would be made (on average)and the size of the shipswould be larger, resulting in increasedloading and unloadingactivity levelswhile shipsare in berth. The numbet of mntainers handled in a given period of time would I increaseas would the associatedtruck and rail activities. The noise lwels generatedduring operation of the pier would not change I substantially as a result of the proposed project, becausethere would be no changein the numbersor typesof piecesof onshoreequipment that would be utilized to handle the cargo. There woul4 howwer, be a slight increasein the I duration of time that onshoreactivities would be occurring. The projected increasein wharf generatednoise on a daily averagebasis is calculatedto be lessthan 1 dBA as a result of the increasedonshore activity. This is an I insignificantchange in the noise levels at sensitivereceptors in the area and would not result in any significantnoise impacts. I The removal of the transit shedwould not have a significanteffect on operational noise levelsat sensitivereceptors near the terminal. Although the building providessome shielding it is too small relative to the size of the I terminal and the size and distanceof sensitivereceptors to have a noticeable effect on levelsat the sensitivebuildings. I Incremental increasesin truck traffic on the road networkswere anallzed in the transportationsection of this EIR. Truck traffic along tbe roadways I sewing the site, including the Embarcaderoand other surfacestreets, would make an imperceptiblechange to the noise levelsin the area. Project- generatedtraffic would not result in any sigrrificantnoise impactsat sensitive I receptorsalong the street network, No mitigation measureEare necessary. I I I I I I I 744 t JUNE 1994 CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION I DRAFT ENVIRONMET.IIAL IMPACT REPORT t AIR QUALITY t I F. Air Quality tll I Setting I a. Climate. The project site is located in the San FranciscoBay Area" a large, shallow air basin ringed by hills, with a number of shelteredvalleys around the perimeter. Ttvo primary seaJevelgaps in the hills exist: the I Golden Gate and the CarquinezStraits. These two gapsare important sourcesof ventilation for the Bay Area. I Summersare warm and relatively dry while winters are mild and wet. Most of the rainfall is associatedwith Pacific storms that occur betweenthe months of I November and April. Oakland, being located almost directly acrossfrom the Golden Gate, generally has good ventilation, particularly in the spring and summer months, During I the viinter monthswinds are generallylighter and more variable. The Bay Area is subjectto inversionconditions when verticat mixing of potlutantsis severelydiminished. Rapid build up of pollutant concentrationsis possibte I during periods of calm winds and inversionconditions, I b. Air Qualit,vStandards. The applicableair quality standardsfor the Bay Area are the State of California Ambient Air Quality Standards(CAAOS) and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards(NAAOS). These two sets I of standardsare shownin Table 21. The standardshave been developedto prote{t the public (with an adequatemargin of safety) from various known I undesirableeffects upon health, vegetationand property. c. Charactefisticsof Pollutants, The major air quality problems in the Bay Area are ozone,PM-10 and carbon monoxide. The following is a discussion I of the characteristicsof theseimportant pollutants. T I I 145 I CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL EXTENSION JUNE T994 I DRAFT ENVIRONMENIAL IMPACT REPORT AIR QUALITY I Table 2l AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS I Federal Prim&ry Pollulant Averaging Time Standard State Strndard Ozone 1-Hour 0.12PPM O.O9PPM t Carbon Monoxide 8-Hour 9.0 PPM 9.0 PPM 1.Hour 35.0 PPM 2O.OPPM I Nitrogen Dicide Annual O.O5PPM 025 PPM 1-Hour Sulfur Dcmide Annual O.O3PPM I 2+Hour O.I4PPM O.O5PPM 1-Hour OJ PPM Particulat€s AGM fl ugrn- I Annud Mean )u ugm- ,.i 24-Hour L50ugimr JU UgnD- I-ead 30-DayAvg. 15 ugrtnt I lMonth Avg. 1.5 ugilnr Hydrogen Sulhde 1-Hour O.O3PPM Vinyl Cbloride 24-Hour O.O1PPM I ug/rr' = microgramsper cubic meter PPlyt = parts per million I I (1) Ozone, Ozone is the most prevalentofa classof photochemical oxidants formed in the urban atmosphere,often referred to as photochemical smog. The creation of ozoneis a fesult of complexchemical reactions I betweenhydrocarbons and oxidesof nitrogen in the presenceof sunshine. Unlike other pollutants,ozone is not releaseddirectly into the atmosphere from any sources. I The major sourcesof oxidesof nitrogen and reactivehydrocarbons, knovun as ozone precursors,are combustionsources such as factoriesand vehicles,and I evaporationof solventsand fuels. Ozone near the ground is an air pollutant. The samechemical in the I stratosphere,about 10 miles abovethe earth's surface,plays an beneficial role in protectingus from excessiveultraviolet radiation. Surfaceozone and T stratosphericozone are independentphenomena. I t 146 I JUNE 1994 CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E'(TENSION t DRAFT ET.IVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AIR OUALIfi t The knownhealth effects of ozoneare eyeirritation and damageto lung I tissues. (2\ CarbonMonoride. Carbonmonoxide is an odorless,mlorle'ss gasthat is higNytoxic. It is formedby the incompletecombustion of fuelg I and its mainsource in the BayArea is vehicles. Carbonmonoxide's health effectsare related to its affinity for hemoglobinin I the blood. At highconc€ntrations, carbon monoxide reduces the amountof orygenin the bloo4 causingheart difficulties in peoplewith chronicdiseases, I reducedlung capacity and impaired mental abilities. (3) SuspendedParticulate Matter (PM-10). Suspendedparticulate matterconsists of solidand liquid particlesof dust,soot, aerosols and other I matterwhich are smallenough to remainsuspended in the air for a long periodof time. A portionofthe suspendedparticulate matter in the air is due to naturalsources such as wind blowndust and pollen. Man-made I sourcesinclude mmbustion, vehicle exhausts, field butning factoryemissions and travelon both pavedand unpavedroads. A portionofthe particulate I matterin urbanatmospheres is alsoa resultof photochemicalprocesses. The ambientair qualitystandards are for suspendedparticulate matter less I than 10 micronsin diameter,desigrated PM-10. Particulatesof this sizeare smallenough to be inhaled.The knowneffects of highconcentmtions on humansinclude aggfavation of chronicdisease and heartlungdisease t symptoms.Non-health effects include reduced visibility and soilingof surfaces. I d. AttainmentStatus. Both the FederalClean Air Act and the California CleanAir Act requiredthe CaliforniaAir ResourcesBoard to designateareas of the state as attainment,nonattainment or unclassifiedfor Federal and State I standar4 respectively. Under the FederalClean Air Act the entireBay Area is mnsidered I nonattainmentfor ozone,while the "urbanizedareas" of the BayArea are considerednonattainment for carbonmonoide. The BayArea is either I attainmentor unclassifiedfor other federalstandards.r I ' State of Califomia Air Resources Board, Areq Detignatiorrs for State otd Nationd I Amfient Ab Quality Stsndar&, November 1989. I t47 I CHARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAfT EI.IVIRONMENTAL IMPASI REPORT I AIR QUALITT I Under the California Clean Air Act the entire Bay Area is mnsidered nonattainmentfor omne and PM-10 (ParticulateMatter, ten microns). Alameda County is consideredattainment for carbon monoxjde,while the t entire Bay Area is attainment for other pollutanrs. e. Ambient Air Ouality. The Bay Area Air Quality ManagementDistrict t (BAAOMD) monitors omne and carbon monoxidein Oakland. Table 22 summarizesexceedances of State and Federal standardsfor tbe five most rec€nt years. However,measured levels of ozone and carbon monoxidein the I San FranciscoBay Air Basin have declined to the point that BAAQMD has requesteda redesigrationof the Bay Area as an attainment area for the pollutants.2 t Table 22 showsthat the State and Federal carbon monoxidestandards are generallymet in the project area. Ozone concentrationsdid not exc€edthe t Federal standardduring the period 1988-1992in Oakland. The more stringent Stateozone standardwas exceededon one day during this sametime period. I Table 22 I EXCEEDANCESOF AIR POLLUTANT STANDARDS AT OAKLAND. 1988.1992' I Days ExceedingStandard Duing: Pollut nt Stand&rd I9EE r9B9 19q) l99l t9y2 I Qzolle Fed. l-Hour 0 0 0 0 Ozone State 1-Hour I 0 0 0 I Carbon Moncxide State8-Hour 0 0 0 0 0 State of Califomia Air R€sources B{,aId, Dara, I Califomia Ab QuaAry Atnutl Swnnwry, Vols. XX-XIV. 1989-1993. I f. Regional Air Qualitv Planning. Attempts to combat air quality problemsbegan at the federal level with the enactmentof the Clean Air Act I of 1967. Initial efforts were the establishmentof national ambient standards. t 2 Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist'!,ct, Druft lg94 Cafton Monuide Redzsigation Rquqt qad MaintenancePIan ar,dAmendrnezts, June 1994, San Francism. I I 148 I JTJNE1994 CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL EJ(TENSION t DRAFT EI.IVI RONMENTAI IMPACT REPORT AIR QUALITY I desigpationof local air pollution mntrol districts and creation of an air quality I monitoring network. State and local agencieshave over the last 20 years adopted regulationsfor a multitude of air pollutant sources. After obviousand major sourcesof t pollution were controlled (factories, automobiles), controls were implemented on smaller sources(gasoline vending solvent-basedpaints for example). I While the state ambient air quality standardshave existedfor many years,no legislativeattainment requirementsexisted until 1988,when the California I Clean Air Act was enacted. (1) Federal Proeram. The U.S. Clean Ajr Act Amendmentsof 1977 required that eachstate identiff areaswithin its borders that did not meet I federal primary standardsas non-attainmentareas, The stateswere required to prepare a StateImplementation Plan (SIP) to show how the federal standardswere to be attained by 1987. Despite considerableimprovement in I air quality, the Bay Area did not meet the 1987deadline for attainment of the federal air quality standards. I The federal Clean Air Act Amendment of 1990mandates a fresh attempt at attaining the national standards,requiring that nonattainmentareas develop I plans and strategiesthat will reducepollutants by 15 percent during the first 6 years,then three percent annually thereafter until the standardsare met. The schedulefor attainment is different for different pollutants and dependson T the severityof the problem. Failure to meet the requirementsof the federal Clean Air Acts could result in the imposition of sanctions(e.9. withholding of I highway project fu nding). (2\ State and I-ocal Programs. The California Clean Air Act of 1988 empowersregional air quality managementdistricts with new authority to T design,adopt, implement, and enforce mmprehensiveplans for attaining and maintainingboth the federal and the more stringent state air quality standards by the earliest practical date, Among its provisions,the California Clean Air t Act prcvides districtswith the authority to establishnew controls on mobile sourcesof pollution. I The area-wideplan required by the California Clean Air Act was adopted in October 1991.3The Plan proposesthe imposition of controls on stationary I sources(factories, power plants, industrial sources,etc.) and Transportation I I Bay Area Air Quality ManagemeoaDistid', Bay Ares 91 Clean Air Plan, 1991. I 749 I CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ENVIRONMEI{TAL IMPACT REPORT I ATR QUAL TY I Control Measures(ICMs) desigted to reduceemissions from automobiles, including indirect sources. I One of the first TCIvtsto be implementedwas the adoption of a Trip Reduction Ordinancerequirement by BAAQMD. Regulation 13, Rule 1 of the BAAQMD Rules and Regulationsrequires that large employers(those I with 100 employeesor more at a singlework site) conductemployee transportation sun'reysand prepare an employer trip reduction program. Regulation 13 includesspecific performance objectives for different parts of I the Bay Area. Performance objectives are expressedin terms of average vehicle ridership (AVR) and vehicle employeeratio (VER). The objectives becomemore stringentover time. The Port of Oakland is located in an area I that has an AVR objectiveof 1,10and a VER objectiveof0.87 in 1994. By 1999,the AVR objectivewill be 1.05and the VER objectivewill be 0.74. I Tlte BayArea 9I CleanAir Plan containsforecasts which indicate continued improvementin regional air quality. An analysisof carbon monoxidetrends showsattainment of the standardsthroughout the Bay Area by the mid-1990s. I However, implementationof the Plan would not provide for attainment of the State ozone standardeven by the year 2000. t 2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures t a, Simificance Criteria. CEA. Guidelines,Appendix G, establishesthat a projea will normally have a sigrificant impact on air quality if it will: . Violate any air quality standard,contribute substantiallyto an existing I or projectedair quality violation, or exposesensitive receptors to substantialpollutant concentrations. I For the purposesof this study a significantimpact on local air quality is defined as a predictedviolation of the carbon monoxideambient air quality standardsdue to project traffic on the local street network. For regional air t quality a significantimpact is defined as an increasein emissionsof an omne precursor,sulfur dioxide or PM-10 exceedingthe Bay Area Air Quality I ManagementDistrict's recommendedthresholds of significance.The District considersincreases in emissionsof a regional pollutant of 150 poundsper day to representa sigrificant adverseimpactl t T 'Bay 4r"" Air Quality Management District,,4i' Quality and IJrban Developnat, November 1985. I I 150 I JtrNE 1994 CHARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL D(TENSION I DRAFT E}{vI RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AIR QUALITY t b. TerminalConstruction Impacts. Construction on the projectsite would resultin shortterm emissionsof air pollutantsfrom a varietyof sources. I Sourcesof pollutantswould be exhaustsfrom mnstructionequipment and vehicles;the evaporationof hydrocarbonsfrom curingasphalt, drying paint, solventsand adhesives;and fugitivedust. This wouldbe considereda I signilicantimpact. (S) O) ResionalEmissions. The regionalemissions would be primarily I ftom truckshauling fill materialto the site,exhaust from dredgingand the unloadingof dredgedmaterial, and exhaust from tugboatstransporting dredgedmaterial to the de-wateringsite. Estimatedemissions over the entire I periodof constructionare shownin Table23. Exhaustemissions would be spreadout over a largearea and over a periodof eightto nine months,and I thuswould not havea significanteffect on eitherlocal or regionalair quality. Table 2!t I CONSTRUCTION.REI"ATEDREGIONAL EMISSIONS (Total during construction period, in pounds) I Reactivc Particulaagi organic Nitrogen Sulfur Under 10 ActiYlty Hydrocsrlro|rs Oxides Dioxides Microns I Dredgirg and 'r11 unloading 322 1 88 E2 I Tugboats 724 3932 583 '190 Constructioo trucks 567 299O 742 Dredge Eaterial I traDs?ort trucks 3531 18524 4,624 4920 I Iotsl 5,148 26,773 5,076 6375 Sourc€: Donald Ballanti. t @ Local Emissions. Fugitive dust is the most significantlocal emissionand has the greatestnuisance potential. Fugitive dust (PM-10) is t emitted both during demolition, clearing and other constructionactivity and as a result of wind erosion over exposedearth surfaces. Demolition, clearing and excavationactivities comprise the major potential sourceof constructiondust I emissions,but traffic on and off paved areasand general disturbanceof the soil can also generatesignificant dust emissions. I I 151 T CTIARLESP, HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ET{!'I RONMENTAL IMPACI REPORT t A]R QUAIITT I Dust generationis not constantbut highly variable. The amount of dust generatedon a given day is highly dependanton the typesand amount of constructionactivity and the meteorologicaland soil mnditions. The highest t potential for dust generationoccurs during the summer monthswhen winds are higheston averageand soil moisture is lowest. t The effectsof constructionactMties would be increaseddustfall and locally elevatedlevels of total suspendedparticulates. Constructiondust would be canied by the prevailings'.ind east and south ofthe site. Construction I activitiescould create a temporarynuisance downwind of the site, although there are no sensitivereceptors near the project site. Sensitivereceptors include land useswith a high proportion of children, elderly or infirm persons, t or persons engagingin strenuous work or exercise. Project construction impactsare mnsidered to be potentially significanton a temporary and localizedbasis. The sectionon mitigation below suggestscontrol strategies I that would lower this impact to a level that is lessthan significant. c. Dewateringand Transoortationto Landfills. Dredged mud would be T transportedby barge from Howard Terminal to a dewateringsite at Berth 10 (Bay Bridge Terminal, north end of Maritime Street). The barge handling I dredgedmaterials would generatesmall amountsof exhaustpollutants. The actual dredgedmaterial would be wet and would not generatedust emissions. During dewateringdredged materials would be a minor potential sourceof I odors. The proposeddewatering location is, however,located within an industrial area and quite distant from any sensitivereceptors, so no odor impacts would occur. I Loading of dried dredgedmaterials onto trucks for transport to landfills could create fugitive dust if the material has dried to the point that it could blow I away. The potential for fugitive dust is dependenton lhe moisture mntent of the material and the strengthof the wind. T Trucks hauling dried dredgematerial to landfills would generateexhaust emissionsover the Bay Area transportationnetwork. Project truck traffic would representvery small portion of total traffic at any location within the I roadwaynetwork, so project constructiontruck traffic would have an insigriftcant effect on local air quality along streetsand roads usedby construction trucks. I Total emissionsassociated with the hauling of dried dredgematerial to t landfills has been estimatedbased on a trip length, 89.5miles, that is the averageround trip distanceto the four candidatelandfills. These additional I I 152 I I JUNE 1994 CHARLESP. HOWARDTERMINAL E(TENSION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT REPORT I AIR QUAI-ITY emissionswould not have a significantimpact on regional air quality over the I period of construction. d. I-andfill Impacts, Disposalof dredgedsediments at landfills would contribute incrementallyto the impactsthat landfills have on air quality. I These impactshave been describedin EIRs for the landfills, but are summarizedbriefly below. I Typical sourcesof pollutants at landfills are exhaustemissions from vehicles and equipment,fugitive dust from earthmovingand bulldozing,and landfill gasgenerated by mvered materials,mnsisting of methane and other organic I gases. Landfill gas is mntrolled at all potential disposalsites. e. Permanentl-ocal-Scale Impacts. The project muld affect local air I quality by changingtraffic patterns. Emissionsof local pollutants, such as carbon monoxide,would be modified along streetsproviding accessto the site. I This would be considereda less than significant impact. (I5) Carbon monoxideconcentrations under worst-casemeteorological conditions I have been predicted for four intersectionsnear the project site. Typically,the highestconcentrations of carbon monoxideare found near congested intersections,where vehicle idling accelerationand decelerationresult in the I highest rate of emissions.These four intersectionswere selectedas havingthe highestvolume changesdue to the project. I A.M, peak traffic volumeswere applied to the CALINE*4 dispersionmodel to predict maximum l-and S-hourconcentrations near these intersections. The model was run for existingtraffic conditions,with the addition of project I traffic and with cumulativetraffic increases.Appendix D providesa descriptionof the CALINE-4 model and a discussionof the methodologr and I assumptionsused in the analysis. Table M showsthe resultsof the intersectionanalysis for the peak hour traffic period and the 8-hour peak traffic period. Thesevalues can be compared T to the federal l-hour standardof 35 PPM and the state standardof 20 PPIvL I and the 8-hour standard(federal and state) of 9.0 PPM. I I I 153 I CTIARLES P, HO\fARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT I EI{\4 RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AIR QUALITY t Table2/ PREDICTED WORST-CASE CARBON MONO)ilDE CONCENTRATIONS I ExistinS + Cumulsaivc+ Existing ProJect Project (2000) T Intcr$ecdon l.Hr 8.Hr 1-Hr E-Hr 1-Hr E-Hr Market/Third Street 6.2 4.0 o.J 4.! 6.2 4.0 I Mar*etlEnbarcaderc 5.1 .''-' 5.1 33 4.4 ,a EDbarcadero/Madin Inther 3.1 4;l 3,1 3.E 25 Kinc I Frnbarsaderollefferson 4J 3.r 3.9 I Existing concentrationsat the four intersectionsanalrzed do not exceedthe state and federal standards. Project and cumulativeltaffic increaseswould caus,ean incrementalincrease in @ncentrations,but concentrationswould I remain below the state and federal standards, I The carbon monoxideconcentrations shown in Table 25 are expectedto be the highestoccurring in the vicinity ofthe project. Concentrationsaway from these intersectionswould be considerablylower. Concentrationsat any I sensitivereceptors near the project site would be below those shownin Table 23 and would meet the applicablestate and federal standards. The projecttsimpact on local air quality would be lessthan significanl t f. PermanentRegional-Scale Imnacts. The proposedproject would result in increasedbusiness activity in Oakland and the Bay Area. Increasedport I activity would result in an increasein emissionsfrom the following sourccs: . automobilesdriven by new employees I . shipsand tugboats . trucks I The terminal extensionwould changerail traffic into and out of the Port by a very small amount. No new trains would be added,but trains leavingthe Port I muld be lengthened. The addition of a few rail cars to a train would have only minor effectson locomotive-generatedemissions, and no significant changein railroad-related,emissions is expected. I t I 154 I JUNE 1994 CTIARLESP, HOWARDTERMINAL EXTENSION I DRAFT ETWIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I ATR QUAIITT Table 25 showsthe estimatedmaximum daily and annual averagedaily emissionsrelated to the proposedwharf expansion. The incremental daily I emissionsassociated with eachsource is shownin Table 24 for reactive organic gasesand oxidesof nitrogen (two precursorsof ozone), PM-10 and sulfur dioxide. The methodologr utilized in estimatingemissions from eachof I these sourcesis describedin Appendix D. T Table a5 PERMANENT PROJECT.REI,,ATEDREGIONAL EMISSION INCREASES I (in Pounds Per Day) Madmum Dailv Annual Average Daily ROG NOx PM.lO SOx ROG NOx PM.IO SOx '7 T Eruolovee Vehicles 9 t2 I 1 I I Ships and Tugs 69 2U 20 20 20 58 o 6 Truck Traffic 359 2519 573 6r0 51 358 81 8? I Total 437 2J39 594 631 88 94 ROG = Reactive Organic cases I NOx = Nitrogen oxides PM-10 = Paniculate Matter, 10 micron diameteror smaller T SOx = Sulfur Oxide"s I Guidelinesfor the evaluationof projectimpacts issued by the BayArea Air QualityManagement District consider emission increases of ozoneprecursors and other regionalpollutants to be significantif theyexceed 150 pounds per I day. Basedon thesecriteria" the projectwould have a significantimpact on regionalair quality. I ImoactAIR-I: Constructionactivities could increase dust levels in the project vicinity.(S) I MitigationMeasure AIR-I. To minimizeconstruction dust impacts, the Port shouldspeci! dustcontrol requirements in constructioncontracts. x Theserequirements should include: . wateringall exposedor disturbedsoil surfacesas necessaryto eliminatevisible dust plumes; T . wateringor coveringstockpiles of debris,soil, sand or othet T materialsthat canbe blownbv the windl I 155 t CTIARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL EXTENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT E}wI RONMEI.ITAL IMPACT REPORT I AIR QUALITY I . susp€ndingany earthmovingor other dust-producingactivities during periodsof high winds (15 mph or more) when watering cannot eliminate visible dust plumes; I . sweepingpaved portions ofthe mnstruction area and adjacent streetsof all mud and debris,since this material can be I pulverizedand later resuspendedby vehicle traffic; . limiting the speedof all constructionvehicles to 15 miles per hour while on-site;and I . coveringtrucks hauling debris,construction materials or earth. I Wat€r sprinkling for dust control is estimatedto reducedust emissionsby about 50 to 75 percent. The combinedeffect ofthe abovemeasures would have a control efftciencyof 70 to 80 percent,which is expectedto reduc€this T impact to a less-than-significantlevel. Imoact AIR-2: The proposedproject would affect regional air quality. (S) I Mitigation Measure AIR-2: Transportationsources are regulatedby local, state and federal agencies,so the Port's ability to impose emission I controls on thesesources is extremelylimited. The following are programsthat the Poft could implement to partially offset increased regional emissions.These measuresare consistentwith the Alameda I County CongestionManagement Program. . Include Howard Terminal employeesin the Pon's trip reduction I program. . Establish a preterence and policy for use of trucking companies that haul with late-modeltrucks, or that equip their trucks with I effectiveemission controls. I Implementing the abovemitigation measureswould reducethe project's impact on regional air quality somewhat,but this impact would be a sigrificant unavoidableimpact even after mitigation. I I I I I 156 I JUNE 1994 CIIARLES P. HOWAR.D TERMINAL EXTENSION I REPORT DRAFT EN!'I RONMENIAL IMPACT GEOI-rOGY, SEISMIOTY AND SOIIJ I I I G. Geologr,Seismicity and Soils lal l Setting a. ggglqg. The following discussionwas abstracted from available dat4 l repons, maps, and review of the report GeotechnicalInvesrigatian CharlesP. Howard Container T*minal Port of OaHand, prepared by Woodward-Clyde t Consultants,Oaklan4 CA October 1979. Regionally,the site is located on the east shore ofSan Francism Bay. San FranciscoBay is a depressionformed during the late Plioceneor early I PleistoceneEpochs. A combinationof faulting warping, and tilting of several large blockswest of the Hayward Fault createda trough which was subsequentlypartially filled by marine and alluvial deposits. Bedrock ofthe I FranciscanFormation forming the bottom of the trough is deepeston the east shore ofthe Bay. The depth to bedrock is not known at this site, but it is l estimatedto be at least severalhundred feet. The project area overlies sedimentsof the Bay floor and alluvium deposits. I Three distinct geologicformations are remgnized in the project area: (1) Alluvium (Oal). This Quatemary unit mnsists of unconsolidated I clay, silt, sand,and gravel occurring as alluvium along drainagesand alluvial fan deposits,and in many areascovering marine terace deposits. I (2) Bay Mud (Qm'|. This Mid-Pleistoceneto Holocene unit includes Pleistocenemarine and marine terrace deposits. It is mainly silty carbonaceousclay with very minor amountsof sand. It containsshell I fragnents and lensesof peat and sand. (3) Artificial Fill (Oal). This recent unit includesdam embankments I and associatedstructures, soil and wood debris,berms along drainages, scatteredwood debris piles, dredgedbay muds, rubble, and concrete I foundation remnants. Table 26 givesgeneralized descriptions and some engineeringcharacteristics of I the three geologicunits. I 157 I I 'aEEq I P,5 -- z xi: E"-=Et EIgEEF -9C .F6 PE 'ScA g-qE t EEs -YErI I E7 ;t€E iBiiirg eEEI E:g FgEg I gig k !rF o i:e$: EE?iIgg a I F at) &a iz I o{ JU ?t E !,/ I ()tr lc€sag:g (Jv Z F-r T*$ :h- 2- d- .EB I gr.F I -A.E€ q) zta jsi ,O FEF 9l- z'- ; r.9 XE; Y?E I *b b* Fr'r= iF= =*s*E @ EgE olr q *3R *Qa ;E g ,co> h6q Egsg F(r- :TF tr g. >.E E t I ze,a^ an -. I 7Y 59 FX ! 'r, tr- :'' I dx 9.9 td 1e z Flo :E I 9r- =< *88j- 2X NZ E t€ Et+; jji;qx^ a;**E*=n X.{ 6Y 5Es- €e:i I & E i tg BHE;iIE ??i F-Egi g Z'o E zz6 ii:F g EE 3"F. >la a E€iaqi d ^:: & ,z ->;98 > d &E I Ei< Eggs F.; a27 :epH E"i-E I ?=9 E€?F e9;;Fe$EAt€ zz> 9,92 f, :E; Elt!o ,| t(<{o l\ -l EEE I I JUNE 1994 CTIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION I TMPACT REPORT DRAFT ENVI RONMENTAL I GEOLOCY, SEISMICITY AND SOILS b. Seismicitv.The projectsite is locatedin a highlyseismic region, as with the restof the SanFrancisco Bay Area. The Haywardfault is the closest I activefault, andit is locatedapproxim ately 4Yz miles northeast of the site. The Calaverasand SanAndreas fuults are approximately14 miles northeast I and14Yz miles southwest of the site,respectively. The shorelineat the projectsite, based on the locationof the existingquay wall, is locatedabout 1,000 feet southof the formerOakland shoreline of the I mid-nineteenthcentury. Th€ tidal flats(marshland) fronting the former shorelinewere reclaimed by filling Inner Harbor Channelwas formed by dredgingthrough the OaklandEstuary eastward to SanLeandro Bay' thus I makingAlameda an island. The existingshoreline quay wall wasconstructed around 1910, and was used I for shipbeithing along its total length. The estimatedbottom of BayMudr contoursindicates that the originaldredge level may haveextended the entire len$h of the quaywall. Additionaldredging was done in the mid-190s to T placea rock dike andsand ftll aspart of the GroveStreet Pier construction' Specificinformation on the dredgingoperation and dike materialsis not I available.but it is assumedthat essentiallyall of the BayMud wasremoved in the rock dike and sandfill areaunder Grove Street Pier. The existingpiers weresubsequently mnstructe4 and sweral dredgingoperations took place I betweenthe existingpiers to allowfor berthingofvarious sized ships' The dredgingoperations between the piersremoved the originalBay Mud and the underlyingsands to the requireddepths, but mayhave left someof the I originalBay Mud underHoward Terminal Berth 68. c. &ib. The typesof soilsencountered at HowardTerminal in depth t s€quenceinclude the following: (1) RecentBav Sediment. This consistsof clayand silt deposits T accumulatedapproximately over the last70 years. The consistencyof this materialvaries from flocculeat the top to a verysoft mud at the bottom' I This sedimentis a very highlycompressible material. (2) OriginalBav Mud. The originalBay Mud consistsof soft to very T soft organicsilty clays.This materialis similarto the recentBay sediment; however,it is slightlyless compressible and has higher shear strength' I T I Bay Mud refers to both the receot Bay deposits and the original Bay Mud layer' t 159 I CHARLESP. HOWARD TERMTNALE(TENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT EIWIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GEOLOGY, SEISMIdTY & SOIIS I (3) Upper Sand Laver. The upper sandlayer consistsof silty sands interlayedwith occasionalclayey sands. Lensesand thin layers of sandyclays are also present. These sandsare fine-gtainedwith consistenciesthat vary I from medium denseto very dense. The thicknessof this layer varies mnsiderablyover the site due to the previous dredgingoperations. I (4) Siltv and SandyClays. Theseclays consist of stiff to very stiff silty and sandyclays with varying contentsof silt and sand and occasional mntents of calcareousnodules and shells. This material has relativelv low I compressibilitycharacteristics. (5) Lower SandLaver. The lower sand layer is similar to the upper ? sand layer having similar gladation but stightlyhigher consistency(dense to very dense). I (6) Old BaI, Mud. The lower sandsare underlain by stiff silty clays which are referred to locally as Old Bay Mud. These clays have relatively low densitiesand high water content. Becausethe older bay mud is more deeply T buried, it containsless moisturg and is overconsolidated;i.e., the degreeof consolidationis greater than would be expectedfiom the weight of the I sedimentsthat overlie the clay today. The soilsbelow the Bay Mud are relatively inmmpressible,have competent I bearing properties,and are capableof supportingfills and pile foundations satisfactorily.'?The sand fill under Grove Street Pier is loose; however,it should be capableof supportinglight static loadings. The Bay Mud I encounteredabove the upper sandlayer is weak and highly compressible.The Bay Mud would undergoa significantamount of subsidence,both totally and differentially, under the weight of any new fill and/or structuresplaced I thereon. The project would entail an estimated178,000 cubic yards of fill material t where a poftion of this would be obtained from authorizeddredging sites. The sandsto be dredgedwill be reusedas fill betweenthe new wharf dike and the existingdike and quaywall. The placementmethod for this sand fill I would dependon the dredgemethod usedto excavatethe sand. The existing pier would be removedprior to dike constructionand filling. I T 2 Woodward-Clyde, Geoaechnical lhedligalio4 Charleq P. Howard Conlainer Terminal, Pott of Oakland, 19?9. I I 160 I JUNE 1994 CTTARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAI E(TENSION I DRAFT ENVIRONMENIAL IMPACT REPORT AND SOIts I CEOLOGY, SEISMICITY d. Port of Oakland Ensineerins Desim Criteria. The Pon has adopted wharf designcriteria to be used in design,construction, reconstruction, and/or I repair of all existingand future wharf structures,except in the event that current engineeringpractice require adjustmentsor modification of the wharf I desigr criteria. The wharf designcriteria are discussedbelow. (1)@: I (") The wharf shall be d.esignedas a ductik moment resbtingframe supportedby vettbally drivenpiles reidforced and so connected.to the wharf as to act as an intqml part of the ductile moment resistingframe No batterpile shall t be used, (b) Both crane rails shall be pile supportedand shall be connected I horizontally by continuous wharf deck or other means to control the gage of the I raib. k) The reinforcing steel in the piles shall be insulatedfrom the I rehforcing steelin the wharf structurg and the crane rails shall be grounde& (d) A sufiiciently deep cutoff wall or other means,shall be ptovded along the back of the wharf to prevent erosion of yard matetials by tida\ wave or I other action under the wharf. @ The slope beneaththe wharf shall be protectedfrom emsian by fl placement of ip-rap or by other means as recommendedby a geotechnical consultant. I A The dike or cut slope beneaththe wharf shall be designedto' withstand the same seismicforces as the wharf structure. It shall contain the soil I behind the slope und,erthe designeartlquakc loading. k) Flsible connectionsshall be provided whereutilities passfrom the I yard through the cutof wall or other igid structure at the back of the wharf. (2\ The criteria for loads are as follows: I (a) Venizal Loads. The wharf deck shall be designedto suPporta uniform live load of at least 1,000pounds Wr squarefoot and point and i distributed loads appropriateto the maxitnum equipment and caryo loading likzly to be imposed on the stntcture over ils economic W' I t 161 I C}IARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E (TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT EIWTRONMENTAL TMPACT REPORT I GEOLOCY. SEISMICITY & SOIIJ I (b) Horbontal Loads The wharf shall be designedfor the maximum bething and tie-up loads likely to be imposed on the sttucture over ils economic life. I @ SeismicLoad (Eafthquake). The seismic loads shall be basedon sire responsespectml cuntesdeveloped by geotechnicalconsultants takinS into I account the efqts of earthquakeson the two major faults in the viainily of the wharf structwe (SanAndreas and Hayward) as well as other fauhs in the region' I 2. Impacts and Mitigation Mcasurcs a. SisnificanceCriteria. The level of significanc€for geologr,soils and I seismicityis basedon rwiew of CEQA requirements. A project wilt normally have a significanteffect on the environmentif it will: I . Exposepeople or structuresto major geologichazards. b. Seismicity. The project site is exposedto credible seismicevents, and I with the placementof fill it is subjectto potential impactsfrom ground motion and ground failure suchas from liquefaction,lurching (lateral movement), and,iordifferential settlement. This would be considereda signilicant impact. t Liquefaction of saturatedsands is a rather common phenomenonduring earthquakesand becauseof the project's location and dredgedsand to be I reusedfor fill, it is an issueof mncem. Liquefaction is a processby which water saturatessands, silt or salt depositscausing them to lose cohesionwhen shaken. Liquefaction resultsif loose or medium densesaturated cohesionless I materials are subjectedto earthquakeground vibrations. The tendencyof sandor silt when shakenis to compactaccompanied by an increasein water pressurein the soil and a resultingmovement of water from the voids. Water I is thus causedto flow uprx,ardsto the ground surfacewhere it emergesin the form of mud-spoutsor sandboils. The developmentof high water pressures I in soils due to ground vibrations and the resultingupward flow ofwater will often turn sand into "quick'or liquefied condition. Liquefaction cannot be entirely ruled out due to the proposedplacement of the new dike and backfill. t Lurching is the lateral movementwhich occursin soft, water-saturated material during seismicshaking. These movementscan result in cracks I opening at the ground surfaceor can result when fill has been placedon mud which rests upon an inclined plane, thus creating the tendencyfor the loaded fill to creep downward. The mud undergoesa slow lateral displacementalong i the inclined plane and carries the fill with it. I I 162 I I JUNE 19C4 C}IARLES P. HOWARD TERMIN{ EJ I Fills placedin the extensionarea must be selectedand fairly incompressible. Fill mustbe well-gradedand mmpacted with the absenceof voidswhich might permit mud to squeezeupward into the fill body. In compliancewith BCDC's I safetyof fill policy,the Port intendsto submitthe plansfor the placementof fill to BCDC'sEngineering Criteria Review Board for their reviewand I approval, ImpactGEO-I. The fill placedfor the projectis subjectto groundmotion andground failure from liquefaction,lurching and/ordifferential settlement. I (s) I MitigationMeasure GEO-I. Sitespecific engineering geologr, soils, andfoundation investigation reports should be preparedand provide detailedguidelines and recommendationsregarding grading fill I placementand mmpaction,surface and subsurfacedrainage control, andseismic safety. All mitigationmeasures recommended in the report shouldbe implemented.All geotecbnicalengineering design work t shouldbe preparedby and mnstructionwork monitoredby a certified geotechnicalor soil engineer. I T I I T I I 163 I CTIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT EIWIRONMENIAL IMPACT REPORT CEOLOGY, SEISMICITY & SOII.S JUNE 1994 CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION I DRAFT ENVIRONMENIAL IMPACT REPORT I TIAZARDOUS MATERJAIS I I H. HazardousMaterials lal I Setting I The proposedproject would involve the demolition of the transit shed and the pier on which it sits, and the removal of some existingpiers nearby. The transit shed is mostly unused. A portion near the westemmostcorner ofthe I building is used as a maintenanceshop. The project could also involve the excavationand movementof soil in the vicinity of the terminal. I The transit shedwas built to provide warehousestorage for break-bulk shipping. It consistsprimarily ofa single large open space. The front of the buildin& representingperhaps 15 percent of the floor space,is divided into T two floors of offices and some storageareas. The building is constructed primarily of concretewith a steel and wood roof. The office area portion I includeswhat appear to be wood walls dividing the work areas. The concretewalls of the main structure are painted both inside and out. The warehousearea floor is concrete,unpainted, u/ith a grated trench running the I lengrhof the building. The transit shedwas inspectedon December 15, 1993for the purposeof this l evaluation. In addition, the maintenanceshop area was inspected. This area is still in use and likely containshazardous materials typical of such facilities. I These materialswill be handled in accordwith the Port's best management practicesmntained in its National Pollutant DischargeElimination System I (NPDES) Storm Water Pollution Program,which was prepared in 199. Severalareas could not be viewed during the inspection. These included severallocked rooms in the office portion of the building a l2-foot by l2-foot I cement rblock house"adjacent to the southeastwall, and all areasunder the building. In addition, the floor, althoughin generallygood condition, was I cracked in a few locationsand theseareas can accumulatespilled materials. I Although there was no specificinformation related to hazardousmaterials in t 165 I CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL D(TENSION ,UNE 1994 I DRAFT ENVTRONMENTALIMPACT REPORT }IAZARDOUS MATERIAIJ I the precedingareas, the potentialpresence of suchmaterial needs to be consideredduring building demolition. I Potentiallyhazardous materials and other potential pollutants associated with the buildingand the immediatearea are describedbelow. Hazardous materialsare definedin Chapter6.95 of the CaliforniaHealth and Safety T Code. a, Lead-BasedPaint. Becauseof the ageof the buildin&the interior and I exteriorpaint maymntain significantconcentrations of lead. This was mnfirmedby the samplingconducted on December17 ' L993,and January 25' 1994(See Table 27, Results of PaintSampling). Lead contamination of the I OaklandInner Harboris particularlycritical since lead is one of the contaminantsfound in elevatedconcentrations in musselsby the StateWater ResourcesControl Board Mussel Watch Program.r I Sampleswere mllected by JohnBorrego, Uribe & Associateson December 15,1993 and January E, 1994'All wall sampleswere mllected approximately t 4 feet ftom the groundor floor. All samplesmnsisted of a chipof paint. An analysisof the sampleswas performed by Curtisand Tompkins, Inc.' a I state-certiftedanalytical laboratory in Berkeley.The analyticalmethod used by Curtis and Tompkinswas EPA 74?n. The Chain of Custodyform and I laboratoryreport are availableon requestfrom Bradyand Associates. I Table 27 RESULTS OF PAINT CHIP SAMPLING t Interior or Lcad Concentrslion Sample Numbcr Exterior lrcstion Wall Location (nlg/kg) S.14 Interior Southeastwall 8,m0 t s-3A Erterior Northeastcomer 900 facade (blue) t S.4 Interior Office windo\r, sill lBoo (northeast end of building) T I I State Water Resources CoDtrol Board, 198f. CalifoniL Stote Murtel Watch Ten Year Dato Suftnvry, 1977-1987,Water Quality Monitoring Report No. 87-3' I t 166 I I JUNE T994 CTIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT T }IAZARDOUS MATERJAIS b. Grated Floor Drain and Floor Spills. Includins Oil. The inspection indicated numerousareas ofwhat appearedto be crankcaseoil on the I concretefloor. In addition, an unknown quantity of spilled material may be located in the grated sump or drain running the length of the warehousefloor. The spilled oil, if in a liquid state,would likely be classifiedas hazardous T basedon the State Health and SafetyCode section25250.4. Waste oil is listed in the regulationsat 22 Califomia Code of Regulations66261.126 Appendix X on the List of ChemicalNames and Common Names for I HazardousWastes and HazardousMaterials. The Port is taking stepsto ensurethat all waste liquids and other related materials will be removed and t disposedof prior to the initiation of the demolition project. c. Discardedwaste Liouids and Related Materials. Somewaste materials left in the building may contain hazardousmaterials. These include several I open drumg a mmpressedgas tank (contentsunknown), and a floor spill of oily material in the area enclosedby a wire cageon the northeastend of the building. The Port is taking steps to ensure that all waste liquids and other I related materialswill be removedand disposedof prior to the initiation of the I demolition project. d. Transfomier. A transformer labeled T 28 is located next to the exterior of the building on the northwestside. In the past,transformers typically I mntained polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBS). Port staff membershave checkedtheir recordsand verified that this transformer does not contain I PCBs. e. Piling. The projeci would include the removal and disposalof piling from a portion of the existingwharf. The Port has test results for the t materials used in the piling which enable them to disposeof the pilings at the appropriate landfills (see SectionJ. Water Quality for more information). I f. Fluorescentand mercurvvapor light fixtures. Some of the lighting in the office portion of the building mnsisted of fluorescentlight tubes. Mercury vapor lights may also be present. These fixtures may contain small amountsof I hazardousmaterials, g. Asbestos. Asbestos-mntainingmaterials are located in the flooring the I heating and ventilation system,and the roof, as shownin Table 28. These l materials are non-friable (not crumbly). I l 167 I CHARLBS P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT E}WIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAZARDOUS MATERIAIJ T Table 28 ASBESTOS.CONTAININGMATERIALS AT TRANSIT SHED (BI'ILDING E.4O7A) I Percent Matedal Type Quentity Asbesto6 Friability I Floor tile H (black) & adhesive in entratc€ 200sf 5-10% NF-I Viny' flooring (yellow) & adhe'sivein dispatch 300sf 3040% NFJ office I Floor tile m Orown) & adhesive SE comer office 6ffi sf 5-LOVo NF-I Floor tile (black) & adhqsive in hallway and $tairs 6JU ET 5-to% NF.I I Floor tile (green) & adhesive 3rd lloor c€nter 60Osf 10-m% NF.I office \O-9OVo NF-II I Duct taDe on HVAC in attic 40 tf Duct insulationon HVAC in attiC 85 sf &o-90Eo NF.N 800 lf 2G3OVo NF.I I Black roof patcb Silver paiDt roofrng & felt 71,000sf Vacf., 1 NF-I I @: NF-I (non-friable, Category I) NF-II (non-friable, Category II) I ' Udbe & Associat€s personnel conducted a site visit on December 15' 1993, Tbe visit confirrned that all thermal lystsm in$lation identified in the ACC survey has been remoned from the building, No edditional asbestoc-coltaining materials were identified during this visit, I Source: ACC Eovironmenaal Consuttaots, I|.lay 19y2, insPection snd sa$Pling program. I h. Contaminatedsoil. The area north of the project area was formerly the site ofa gasplant. This area is shownin Figure 22. T\e remainder of I Howard Terminal has alwaysbeen in maritime use. Beginningin 1903,the Oakland Gas,Light and Heat Companyoperated a facility which produced gas from crude oil. The gasification process produced a by-product known as I lampblack. Wastesfrom the plant probablyincluded tar sludges,oxide wastes, emulsionsand ash. The plant was dismantledin 1961. The Port bought the land from PG&E in 1980. The resultsof soil tests on the gasplant site are I summarizedin Appendix D. The gas plant land has characteristicsthat could make it eligible for the State Corteselist. The.Port has an ongoing program for the assessmentand mitigation of contaminatedsoils encounteredduring I constructionprojects. Becausepotentially hazardousmaterials are presentin I I 168 I I I i.= F :'r tr i :h -"'-v/ e6 e qt I // A I >,G F+* //VA f-, .:a. I I M; Es I -J/Ml /*"',Ax->i iX \i 14 '1 \l* F /Nf,$'=li ; ii E FEIT /f r"--' -ilf FElls "" \3s--;--// ft""t- ii (, =sils:; 'it{ v"3# ir\ iJl gEllb': I 1s* rI *o^d ii :\='; E iEf E,E:IE | 0 ,,S^5",,______/ J " I - i\ + iE.i I //{iL--J l) iTi I li'! ij lll I ;i ili; I tiili* { L(---\Lr_i f------, i ir\o t x ll I i,F t i ;u. CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMTNAL E For eachof the identified impactsthere are proposedmitigation measures I which should reduce the potential impacts to an insignificant level. b. Impacts During Demolition. During demolition, hazardousmaterials I and other debris could be released,with possibleimpacts on human health and the environment. Projectworkers and nearbyresidents or office workers I could be exposedto airborne lead dust or asbestos'Lead dust and other hazardousmaterials could accumulateon the surroundingwharf and be washedor fall directly into the inner harbor. Improper disposalof debris I mntaining hazardousmaterials could result in air, soil, or groundwat€r contaminationelsewhere. Specificimpacts and mitigation measuresale addressedbelow. ! (1) GeneralDemolition Imoacts. I Impact HAZ-I: Demolition of the transit shed,which is close to Bay waters, and removal of the timber wharf. debris and wastes,could result in wastes entering the Bay. (S) t I I 170 I Jt NE 1994 CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E The samplingconducted on December 15, 1993and January25, 1994, I- indicated that the paint on the interior and potentially the exterior surfaces mntained significantconcentrations oflead. This lead could be releasedin dust form as the building is being demolished. This potential releasepresents I ds}s to the project workers and other workers in the area, Tbe dust fallout could directly impact nearbysurface water and indirectly impact surfacewater by being washedfrom surfacesduring rain storms. This is a significant I impact. The new OSHA lead standardbecame enforceable on June 3, 1993. The I permissibleexposure limit has been reducedfrom 200 ug/m3 to 50 ug/m3. This is the level below which a worker can operate without th€ need for I respiratoryprotection. The action level at which the employer must provide I 171 I C}IARJ-ESP, HOWARD TERMINAL E (TENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT ENI'IRONMENTAI IMPACT REPORT IIAZARDOUS MATERIAIS protectivemeasures to employeesis 30 ug/m3.The employerwill needto I completeexposure assessments or otherwise provide proof of the effectiveness of engineeringmntrols, Basedon the results,the Port (or contractor)will I needto provideevidence of plansto complywith the interim final rule. If the contractoruses engineering controls in orderto complywith the Standardand if the mnstructiondebris and associatedwastes are controlledappropriately' T the potential environmentalimpacts should be significantlyreduced. MitigationMeasure HAZ-2: The Port shouldinsert a contractclause I to require the site contractorto complywith the Lead in Construction Standard(29 CFR Parts1910, L91,5,1917, and 1918)for the demolition of the transitshed. The contractshould require the contractorto I completea plan demonstratingthe following: (1) dustfrom lead-base paintwill not be releasedinto the environmentat concentrations greaterthan the OSHA standard,(2) collecteddust (e.g.' from HEPA I vacuumengineering mntrols) will be disposedof ashazardous wastes' (3) constructiondebris mntaining lead-based paint will be disposedof asrequired by the CaliforniaHealth and SafetyCode, Chapter 6.5, and I (4) other mntrolswill be implementedas necessary to preventthe environmentalrelease of lead. I Implementationof the precedingcontrol measures would reduce the potential impactsto an insignificantlevel. t (3) GratedFloor Drain andFloor Spills. I I!qpaS!-HAZ=3.:The demolitionof the transitshed could result in the dischargeof hiddenwastes. The gratedsump area or drainrunning the length of the buildingmay contain the residueof previousspills. During demolition' t and duringdisposal of debris,it muld be difficultto controlthe wastesin this areaand preventthem from eitherentering the wateror from beingdisposed of improperly.(S) I MitigationMeasure HAZ-3; The Port shouldrequire the demolition contractoror tenantto completea pre-demolitionassessment and I cleanupof the sumparea in the transitshed and anyother majorspill areas.The assessmentand cleanup plan shouldconsist ofthe following: (1) samplingto determinecharacteristics of the wastes,(2) assessment I of the volumeand characteristics of the wastematerial, (3) cleanup'and (4) disposalin compliancewith Californialaw. I Completionof this mitigationwould reduce the potentialimpacts to an insienificantlevel. I t 172 t JUNE 1994 CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL D(TENSION t DRAFT EIWIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I IIAZARDOUS MATERIAIJ (4) DiscardedWaste Liquids and Related Materials, I lmpact }lAZ-4; Demolition of the transit shed muld involve dischargeof accumulatedwastes.(PS) I These materials are potentially hazardouswastes and must be removed prior to the building demolition. This includesany wasteslocated in the area ofthe I maintenanc€shop. Mitieation Measure HAZ4; The Port or current tenant should provide for the removal and disposalof any discardedwaste liquids or related t materials in the building prior its demolition. Completion of this mitigation would reduce the potential impactsto an t insignificantlevel. I (5) Fluorescentand Mercury Vaoor Light Flttures. Impact HAZ-S: The transit shed'sfluorescent and mercury vapor light I fixtures muld result in releaseof hazardouswaste during demolition. (S) These fixtures contain small quantitiesof hazardouschemicals which can I presentproblems if handledinappropriately. Mitigation Measure HAZ-s: The fluorescentlight tube fixtures should I be collectedprior to the demolition. If functional, they shouldbe reused. If not, and if the number exceeds25, they must be handled as hazardouswastes. Mercury vapor light fixtures, if present,should be I similarly collectedand disposedof. Completion of this mitigation should reducethe potential impactsto an I insigni ficant level. I (6) UninspectedAreas. Imoact HAZ-6: The demolition of the transit shed and wharf could discharge I hidden wastesthat were uninspected. (PS) Areas that were not inspectedduring the site visit in December 1993may I contain hazardoussubstances which could present a risk to the environment during demolition. For example,the area under the building may contain lead pipe or other materials. These additional materials,if present,are of I unknown significance. ! t73 I CTIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JttNE 1994 I DRAFT E}.TVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAZARDOUS MATERIAIS I MitigationMeasure HAZ-6: The Port shouldcomplete a pre-demolitioninspection of the entirebuilding to identiryany potential hazardousmaterials or other substancespresenting an environmental t risk andas appropriateshould identiry and implement control measures. I Completionof this mitigationwould reduce the potentialimpacts to an insigrificant level. I (7) PilingRemoval. !@: The removalof the wharf pilings would createa disposal I hazardof creosote-treatedpilings. (PS) The pilingswhich would be removedare assumedto containcreosote and I possiblyother toxic compounds intended to preventdeterioration of the wood. Creosoteis high in polycyclicaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and wastes containingcreosote may be classifiedas designated wastes by the California I RegionalWater Qualig Control Board (23 CCR 2522). Thesechemicals are a potentialsource of continuingpollution if the pilingsare inappropriately I disposedof. This is a potentiallysignificant impact. (The potentialwater qualityimpacts of the pilingsand the piling removalwithin the Bay are discussedin SectionJ. WaterQuality.) I MitigationMeasure HAZ-7: The Port shouldensure that all pilings' partsof pilings,and related decking are disposedof at a site permitted I by the stateto acceptthese materials. Completionof this mitigationwould reduce the potentialimpacts to an I insigrriftcantlevel. (8) Asbestos. t Imgl-IIAZ-8: The demolitionof the transitshed, if improperlyconducteq couldrelease asbestos. (PS) I The Port hasremoved the friable(tending to crumble)asbestos materials from the building. However,asbestos-containing materials can become broken and t consequentlyfriable during demolition, if inappropriatedemolition methods suchas sandingare used. (PS) I MitieationMeasure HAZ-8: The NationalEmissions Standard for HazardousAir Pollutants(40 Codeof FederalRegulations 61) and I I 174 I JUNE 1994 CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL D(TENSION I IMPACT REPORT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL T IIAZARDOUS MATERIAIS other Federaland State regulations (29 CFR 196,8 CaliforniaCode of Regulations1529) separate non-friable asbestos-containing materials I into two categories.Category I includesfloor tile, asphalticroof coverings,and gaskets. Category II includestransit cement pipe and board,plaster, stucco, ceiling tiles, fire doors,and drywallmudding tape I andcompounds. Category I materialsare not requiredto be removed prior to demolitionunless they are significantlydamaged. Category II materialsmust be removedprior to demolition,but maybe disposedof I as non-hazardous@nstruction debris if there is no potentialfor damage during transportationand disposalactivities. t If theseindustry-standard conditions are met,the removalof asbestos- containingmaterials at the HowardStreet Terminal will not impactthe l surroundingenvironment. c. ImpactsDuring Renovation of the Wharf. I (1) GeneralConstruction Impacts. I ImpactHAZ-9: Constructionwould generate construction debris and wastes.(PS) t After the proposeddemolition of the transitshed, the wharfwould be demolished.Construction materials and debrisand waste liquids from constructionequipment would be in closeproximity to the Baywaters. Evena t minor spill couldimmediately end up in the Bay. This is a potentially signilicantimpact. I MitigationMeasure HAZ-g: The Port shouldrequire the mntractorto developa debriscontainment and construction pollution control plan for the renovation.This planshould present measures to ensurethat T debrisand other pollutantsdo not enterthe waterduring the constructionphase. If constructiontakes place during the wet season, the Port shouldrequire the contractorto preparea StormWater I PollutionPrevention Plan (SWPPP)as discussed in SectionJ. Water Quality. The mnstructionSWPPP should be integratedand compatible with the Port'sStorm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (whichis I applicableto generalindustrial activities and e:clusiveof specific constructionprojects). The debriscontainment and consttuction t pollutioncontrol plan shouldinclude the followingcomponents: I t 't1< I CTIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAI E (2) measuresto control liquid spills, including the provision of on-site spill cleanup kits I (3) worker training mncerning the importanceof protectingBay waters and specific control measutes and response T (4) assignmentof responsibility l (5) independentoversight mntrols includingvisual monitoring of the water surfacesand work areas I (6) proceduresto insure that constructionvehicle maintenanceis consistentwith Port requirementsand the NPDES permit conditions (best managementpractices). I Implementationof the plan(s) would reducethe potential impactsto an I insigrificant level. (2) ContaminatedSoil Impacts. During the re4onstructionperiod earth I moving actMties could disturb contaminatedsoil. If improperly handled this contaminatedsoil may present a health and safetyrisk to workers and neighborsand muld potentially contribute to environmentalpollution. For I example,exposed or improperly placedcontaminated soils muld allow contaminantsto enter Bay waters. Typical mntaminants found in the soils in this area include organics(coal tars) and metals from industrial production in I the area many years ago. This would be considereda less than significant impact. (IS) I Contaminatedsoils exposedduring constructionprojects are regulated primarily by the County Department of Public Health, HazardousMaterials Division, the California Regional Water Quality Control Boar4 the I Department of Toxic SubstancesControl and the Bay Area Air Quality ManagementDistrict. The involvementof the individual agenciesdepends on the type of pollutant involved and the exposurerisks. For example,the Bay I Area Air Quality ManagementDistrict becomesinvolved and has procedures which apply if volatile organicsare present (such as from gasolinespills). I Becauseof the many ongoingmnstruction projects at the Port and becauseof its active program to identi$ and correct past releasesof pollutants (especially I I I /fO I I JUNE 1994 CTIARIIS P. HOWARD TERMINAL E Additional information regardingmntaminated soils in the vicinity of Howard I Terminal is included in Appendix E. d. Impacts During Operation of the Wharf Extension. The new portion of I the wharf would be operatedas a container facility as opposedto the break- bulk operationswhich prwiously used the transit shed. Container operations are inherently 'bleaner"than break-bulksince the shippedgoods remain in the t container rather than being handled in smaller units as occurswith break-bulk. Observationsduring the site visit on December 15, 1993,indicated that the I container portion of the wharf was in a relativelyclean state for an industrial/commercialsite, t After construction and during port operations, pollutants are likely to occur on the wharf and yard surfacesrelated to operating the container moving equipment and trucks. These pollutants are similar to those found on I roadwaysand would include paniculates,copper, lea4 zinc, oil and grease, and polycyclicaromatic hydrocarbons(PAHS). These pollutants could be washedinto the inner harbor; however,the volume of traffic at the terminal is t Iow. The impacts would not be significant Completion of the review and plan improvements,as necessary,and I implementationof controls,if warranted,should reducethe potential impacts to an insigrificant level. I Impact HAZ-10: The renovationof the wharf muld require the relocation of materials that could be sourcesof pollution, which are stored on-site for Port J use. (PS) The maintenanceshop in the transit shed did not appear to be operation in I compliancewith the requirementsfor the control of hazardouswastes, speciftcallywaste oils and batteries. These standardsare in regulations implementing hazardouswaste laws in Chapter 6.5 of the California Health J and SafetyCode and hazardousmaterials laws in Chapter 6.95of the Code. If this maintenanceshop is relocatedto another portion of the Port and operated in the samemanner, this would be a sigrifrcant impact. Because I these materials are stored close to water and becauseof the potential that a l 177 I CHARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT ENVI RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAZARDOUS MATERIAIJ I spill wouldadversely affe€t water quality, these materials need to be controlledas requiredby Californialaw. I MitisationMeasure HAZ-10: The Port shouldassure that the tenant complieswith stateregulatory standards on the storageand handling of potential sourcesof pollutants. t The Port is implementinga newaudit pro$am. The scopeof this audit programwilt includeinspections of maintenanceoperations such as those in T the transitshed to ensurethat hazardousmaterials and hazardous wastes on the wharf are storedin compliancewith the CaliforniaHealth and Safety Code. Conformancewith the Staterequirements for the handlingof I hazardousmaterials and hazardouswastes would reducethe potential impacts to a less-than-significantlevel. I I I t I I t T I I I I 178 I I JUNE 1994 CI{ARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I SEDIMENT QUALITY I I I. SedimeutQuality tll I Setting a. Proiect Description. Approximately 30,000cubic yards of dredging I would be required in order to extendthe wharf at Howard Terminal. Most of this dredging is required to remove muds that are not stable enough to be used as a basefor the dike. Approximately 144,000cubic yards of solid fill l would be necessary. Of the material dredged from the site, the material which is suitable for reuse as fill material would be used,as well as additional sandy I material which is obtained from new dredgingas other berths are deepened. In addition to the dredgingfrom the wharf extension,approximately 13,600 cubic yards of material would be dredgedat Howard Terminal to deepen T Berth 68 for the container ships. Berths 22,23, U' 30, 67 and 68 would be deepenedto a depth of 44 feet plus two feet overdredge,to provide fill for the project and a ne€dedsafety margin of depth for the berths. Dredging to a I depth of42 feet plus two feet overdredgeis mvered by the Port's maintenance dredgingpermits, as shownin Appendix A.r Maintenancedredging involves I recent Bay mud on top of Merritt sands. The recent Bay mud is tested for contaminantsand disposedof accordingto the regulationsof the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(COE), the San FranciscoRegional Water Quality I Control Board (RWQCB), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the San FranciscoBay Conservationand DevelopmentCommission (BCDC). Tbe Merritt Sandsare extremelyhard-packed and mhesive and I have never been exposedto man-madecontaminants.2 Therefore, the EPA and COE have stated that Merritt sandsdo not need to be tested prior to oceandisposal. For this project, the portion ofthe deepeningdown to the I depths specifiedin the maintenancepermits would be tested and disposedas I described in those permits. The ponion below the depths sperified in the 'US, A[Dy Corps of Engineen Permit No. 1891E35 and San FraDciscoBay CoDseflatioD I and Developoont District Perrnit No. M92-41. '! U.S. Army Corps of EngineeG, 19V2. Envircrunental Assessment,OaHand huer Hafuq 3&Foot Sqoruble Elsneflt of the Oakland Hatbor Navigation Imprcrwneft hoject. U.S, Allny I Corps of Engineen, Sao Francisco. I 779 t CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E} Dredged sedimentswould be dewateredat a rehandlingfacility which would be built at Berth 10. In addition to dewatering any bioremediationof I mntaminated dredgematerials would occur at the upland rehandlingfacility. b. DredBeMaterial DisposalOptions. Four disposaloptions for San I FranciscoBay sedimentsthat fail in-bay and oceandisposal tests include (1) mnfined aquatic disposal,(2) wetland creation or restoration,(3) on-site disposaland (4) managedlandfill disposal. Each of theseoptions has I potential problems. . Confined aquaticdisposal has been usedin some areasofthe United I States,but is not currently availablein the San Francism Bay Region. . Wetland creation is problematicbecause sediments that fail aquatic I disposalcriteria would, under most cases,also be unacceptablefor wetland creation' Recent RWQCB Interim Final Guidelinesindicate that this may bemme a more viable option; however,no wetland I creation site is yet availablefor "non-cover"mntaminated material. . On-site disposalon the dredger'sproperty (upland areasadjacent to the dredgedchannels or berths) is only possibleif spaceis available,County I and State health departmentrequirements are feasible,RWQCB waste dischargerequirements can be met, and the dredgedmaterial has suitablephysical properties to be used as constructionmaterial. No I upland disposalsite on Port-controlledland is availableat this time. . Upland disposalto a ClassII or ClassIII landfill is expensivgbut is the I only option that is currently available. I I 3 Amdur, Jon, A. Clark-Ctough, R.G. and Michaeaux Jarnes, 1994. "The Feasibility of Bioremediating Contaminated Dredge Material,' i* Proceediagsof the Fifih Annual Wat Coast Conferenceon Hydrocarbon Coda.minared Scib and Groundwater. I t 180 I JUNEI994 CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION I DRAFT EN!'I RONMENIAL IMPACT REPORT SEDIMENT QUALITY T The Port proposesto segregatethe dredgematerial into threetypes for uplanddisposal depending on the physicaland chemicalnature of the I material. The threetypes mnsist ot . the undisturbedMerritt sandand old Baymuds, which have physical propertiesand low contaminantburdens that allowthem to be usedas I on-sitefill; . recentbay muds which have no constructionvalue and @ntaminant I burdensthat allowdisposal of the materialinto ClassIII landfills;and . recentbay mudswhich haveno constructionvalue and have a contaminantburden that will requiredisposal to a ClassII landfill,or I treatmentprior to disposalino a ClassIII landfill. The confinedupland disposal facilities, or landfills,under mnsideration for I dredgematerial disposal sites have either Clas II or ClassIII disposalcriteria. Wastedischarge requirements for theseupland sites are proposedon a site- t specificbasis by the landfillsand approvedby the RegionalWater Quality ControlBoard. For ClassIII landfills,restrictions also may be imposedby the local enforcementagency and the IntegratedWaste Management Board in the I SolidWaste Facilities Permit. In general,landfills can only a.:ceptmaterial that hasat least50 percentor greatersolids by weight. Eachlandfill has preparedan EIR' and maintainspermits to coverthe typeof materialto be I disposedof at that facility. (1) ClassII Facilities.Class II facilitiescan acceptdesigrrated wastes I that containpollutants which may cause degradation of Statewaters (including groundwater)typically up to but not exceedinghazardous waste concentrations.Any wastecontaining concentrations of chemicalsthat exceed I hazardouswaste criteria must be takento a ClassI facility. All dredge materialfrom the proposedproject would be acceptableat ClassII facilities' basedon sedimenttesting that the Port hasconducted. Two ClassII facilities I are underconsideration by the Port asdredge material disposal sites - I Fonvar4 Inc. andKeller CanyonLandfill. I ' Alameda C/Jlcj;oty,Vatco Road Sanitary Landfill Area "Y Erpansion EnvircNiental ImPad Report, 1994, State CXearinghouseNumber 87(D242n; Contra Costa Can*y' Keller Conyon I Lendfilt Envirauneatal Impad Report, Draft 1989, Final 1990, state clearinghouse Number 89040415; Woodward Clyde for Marin County, Redwood Landfill SdU Woste FacihaiesPqnit Eryawion Project Enirorvnental Impa.l RePort, 1994, State Clearinghouse Number 9163O42; I5A Associates for San Joaquin c-osr'ry, Font'Ltd Landfiv Use Pe'mit Modificaliots I Enirc$nenrdl Imryct Reprt, 1993, State clearinghouse Numbe! 926201:,. I 181 I CTIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E'(TENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT EI{VI RONMENIAL IMPACT REPORT SEDIMENT QUALI'TY I (2\ ClassIII Facilities. ClassIII landfills are limited to acc€pting non-hazardoussolid waste. Becauseconstruction and operation requirements are more strict for ClassIl landfills than for ClassIII landfills, disposalfees I are sigrificantly higher for ClassII landfills. SeveralClass III landfills exist in the San Francisco Bay area. These landfills vary significantly in their capacity and ability to separatewastes from Statewaters. This in tum affectstheir I acc€ptancecriteria. TWo ClassIII facilities are being consideredas dredge material disposalsites; Redwood and Vasco Road kndfills. Vasco Road is in the processof installing a clay liner and plans to have subtitle D cell I c€rtification (EPA) by August or September19%. This c€ll will be able to accept Class II wastes that are not hazardous. Redwood landfill can accept some Cla$$II wastes. Dredge sedimentsthat meet the landfills' engineering I criteria will be used for daily cover. Regulatorylimits are not defined for individual PAFIs under CCR Title 22. t Landfill facilities assessPAH levelson a case-by-casebasis. Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) and total recoverable hydrocarbons (TRPH) are used as indicatorsof petroleum mntamination, even though they are not numerical I objectivesin the strictestsense. These analysesinvolve a complete extraction containingall the organicmntaminants that are bound up in the sediment t matrix. These analysesdo not describethe availabilityof the contaminants. The TCLP analyses,discussed earlier, is desigrredto predict how much if any of the contaminantsprssent can becomesoluble in a landfill and migrate into I the groundwater. Until recently,landfills have not been askedto deal with the large quantities t generatedby dredgingprojects. I-andfills are more familiar with wastes resulting from processwaste streams or contaminatedsite remediations.A large leaking undergroundstorage tank (LUST) soils disposalproject may I consistof disposingof 1,000cubic yards of soil. A relatively small dredging project would be in the rangeof 5,000cubic yards. This terminal expansion project will require 43,600cubic yards of sedimentdisposal. I Often the regulatorsreject a proposalfor unmnfined aquatic disposalfor a dredgingproject due to the ambiguousresults generated by the current in-bay I testing protocols. In some instances,the best a port can hope for is to segregatea project and to minimize the upland disposalcomponent. Unfortunately,by the time an area requiresdredging time is of the essence. I It is often more cost effectivenot to reanalyzesediment repeatedly or more intensively,but to proceedwith upland disposal. In many casesthe sediment is not contaminatedabove the generalbackground levels of contamination T found throughout the Bay. Currently, landfills treat dredgematerial as a I I L82 I I JI,JNE 1994 CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMIN{ E) After thoroughreview, the Port of Oaklanddetermined that althoughthe t contaminantsin the materialstested at Berth 68 do not appearto be toxicto the bioassaytest organisms,the concentrationof contaminantsin the recent bay muds,particutarly the polycyclicaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) warranted I uplanddisposal. The Port of Oaklandconducted new tests, over a largerarea' specificallyrequired for uplanddisposal of dredgematerial at ClassII or III I land fills,? (1) SedimentAnal.vsis for UplandDisposal at ClassII and III Landfitls. The analyseswere made as two separateepisodes. In the first of I these,by MEq the dredgematerial testing program for Berths68 and69 mllectedsediments from eightlocations along the southend of Berth 68 and I two stationsoff Berth 69. Analyseswere conducted to fulfill all current testingrequirements for assessingdisposal at RedwoodLandfill, Inc., a t ClassIII facility. Sedimentswere mostly fine grainedwith highsilt/clay fractions that ranged from 64.2to 94.4percent; pH resultswere typical for marinesediments, I rangingfrom 7.90to 8.17. Therewere no detectableconcentrations of phenols,cadmium, molybdenum, or silver measuredin any sample. One mre from Berth 69 had a tracelevel of Aldrin (0.002mg/l I t MEC, Regubsol Chenical Physical and BioassayTating of Sedimentsat Be,th d{ Pon of Oakland. 1993. I 5 U.S. Anny Corps of Engineen Public Notice 93-2. 1 Rqu!:o ol Chenical and Physical Te.tting of Sediments at Be,th 6 and @ for Upland Dispaa\ Put ol OaHand, MEC 1994; Battelle and Jon Amdur, Dra/t Sediment Quality 8eP4 I Charla P. Howa Tetmind Eryotuion Project, Porl of Oakland, 1994. I 183 I CHARI.ESP. HOWARD TERMINAL EI(TENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT ENVI RONMENIAL IMPACT REPORT SEDIMENT QUALITY I All cores displayeddetectable concentrations of PAHs, indicativeof chronic input of combustion-relatedproducts. Fluorantheneand pyrenewere the two most prominent PAHs in most of the cores. Total PAH concentrationsfor I the sixteenpriority pollutant PAHs rangedfrom 3,6 to 70.8 mg/kg,with a mean total concentrationof 16 mgftg. Regulatorylimits are not defined for individual PAHs under Califomia Code of RegulationsTitle 22. Hazrrdous T waste guidelinesexist for some petroleum-relatedcontamination through results reported fiom GC/FID (gaschromatograpVflame ionization detection) and IR (infrared spectrometer)screening tests (EPA methods 8015and 418.1, I respectively). Although hazardouswaste guidelines do not exist for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPff and total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons (TRPI{), TPH results of 100 mg/kg and TRPH results of 1,000 mg/kg have T been used as indicatorsof petroleum mntamination. Becausetests detect TPH and TRPH of biotic as well as petrochemicalorigin in dredgematerial, neither TPH or TRPH was specificallyrequired or analyzedin the study ! reported in MEC 1994. Of the sixteenpriority pollutant metals,concentrations reported fot zinc, I barium, chromium, mpper, lead, nickel, and vanadiumwere greater than 20 mg&g, while concentrationsof the remainingmetals were lessthan I 10 mg/kg. STLC valuesmeasured from the WET procedurewere generally one to two orders of magnitudelower than the total metal concentrations reported. Only zinc, lead, and barium were measuredat concentrations I mnsistently greater than 1 mg/I. Irad STLC criteria for the ClassIII disposal facilities at RedwoodLandfill (0.831mg/l) and Vasco Road Landfill (1.02 rngn) were exceededin 9 out of 10, and 6 out of 10 cores,respectively. I However, STLC lead @ncentrations exceededRedwood and Vasco Road Waste AcceptanceCriteria by lessthan 0.4 mg/l and 0.2 mgll, respectively. Although thallium was not detected,the detectionlimit (0.2 mg/l) was not low I enoughto determine suitability for disposalat RedwoodLandfill (0.1 mg/l) or Vasco Road landfill (0.14mg/l). While elevatedlead and possiblythallium concentrationsmuld prevent disposalof some of the dredgematerial at the I ClassIII facilities under consideration,disposal at the ClassII facilities would not exceeddisposal criteria. I Sincethe MF,C 1,994testing did not fulfill the requirementsfor all the landfills under mnsideration,the Port of Oakland conductedadditional sediment analyses(Figure 23 and Appendix F) to fulfill Waste AcceptanceCriteria for I all the landfills proposedas disposalsites (Battelle and Amdur 1994). Six out of sevensediment samples collected from under the pier had lead I concentrationsranging from 2 to 2.8 mg/,, abovethe 1,05mg/l Waste AcceptanceCriteria at Vasco Road Landfill (ClassIII). Two other cores from under Pier 69 had lead concentrationsof 1 mg/l, abovethe 0.75 mg/l Waste I l 184 I I I P.G.&E. I I I @ I LEGEND .l samplenumber 42.6 Depth.tomudline from I meanlow low water 45 3 Deplh.toold baymud from BERTH69 meanlow low water ' I .25 17 '30.924 FIRE BOAT t 41.5 PIER I 4*rt", t9 1.7o I 40.0 3r.s .\1, |5 22r'..,t6 40.0 I 40.5 36.6 33.2. g ; 2t.2.42 4t.0 I .?r., 37.4 4.7o1| I 37.7 3t.8 40.3 H.t o 6 28.9.7 zz.7.g 44.t 32.9 I 42.6 4t.3 35.7 | 2 45.3. 43.3. is.z'3 30.3 t o 4 FEBRY 39.9 39.0 TERMINAL Source:Jon Andur, SedimenlQuality Repon. Pon ofOaklJnd, 1994 I CharlesP. Howard - FIGURE23 0' 31.25' 62.5' 125' TerminalExtension EIIVIIOiTEIIAL IT'ICT iEPOBT Location Of Sampling t Port of Oakland StationsAt Berth 69 ata I Br A D Y A N D A s s o c I A-r E s CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL EKTENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SEDTMENT QUALITY I AcceptanceCriteria at Redwoodhndfill (ClassIII). In addition, two sedimentsamples, one from under the pier and one off of Pier 69, had mercury levelsof 0.00?and 0.008,respectiveh abovethe 0.006mgA Waste I Acceptance Criteria at Vasco Road Landfill. The laboratory detection limit for thallium was 0.2 mgA,which is .06 mg/l abovethe Waste Acceptance Criteria at Vasco Road I-andfill for thallium ot 0.14 mgll. A thallium analysis I detec'tionlimit below 0.2 mg/l is not easilyor usuallymet; therefore, Vasco Road and Keller Canyonlandfills are willing to acceptthallium at non- detectablevalues based on the laboratory detectionlimit of 0.2 mgn. t The Waste Acceptance Criteria at Vasco Road and Keller Canyon l:ndfills include a sedimentanalysis for TRPH (total recoverablepetloleum T hydrocarbons).This analysisincludes an extractionmethod which theoreticallyextracts all organic material from a sediment,including organics from biological sources. The extractis processedin an effort to remove the t non-petroleumbased organics. However,if the concentrationsof organicsin the sedimentis high, as it often is, the organicsof biological origin are not removed and are analyzedalong with the petroleum basedorganics. Thus the I TRPH analysisoften doesnot describethe level of contaminantsin the sediment. The Port negotiatedadequate testing protocolswith both vasco I Road l-andfill and the Landfill ManagementGroup of the RWQCB. The sedimentanalyses agreed upon by the Port, the landfill, and the RWQCB replacedthe TRPH analysiswith a TCLP (threshold concentrationleachate I procedure) analysis. The TCLP was desigred to predict how much, if any, of the contaminantspresent can becomesoluble in a landfill and migrate into groundwater. The TCLP resultsfor all the organicsconstituents indicated I that the PAIIS that are presentin the sedimentare not leachableinto the groundwater. Resultsfrom the sedimenttesting for upland disposalindicate that all Waste AcceptanceCriteria at Vasco Road and Redwood landfills, I other than those discussedabove, would be met. Dredge sedimentswhich are not acceptableby the ClassIII landfills would be acceptableat the ClassII landfills under consideration. t The Port will determine the disposalmaterial from future projectson a case- by-casebasis. Ifa landfill is chosenthat is not discussedin this report, an I additional environmentaldocument will be preparedfor that disposal. 2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures t a. SignificanceCriteria. The level of impact sigtificance for sediment quality is basedon reviewof CEQA requirements. A project will normally I have a sigrrificanteffect on the environmentif it will: I T 186 I JUNE 1994 C}iARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL EXTENSION I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SEDIMENT QUALITY I . Breachpublished national, state, or localstandards relating to solid wasre. I . Createa potentialpublic health hazard or involvethe use,production or disposalof materialswhich pose a hazatdto peopleor animalor I plantpopulations in the areaaffected. Projecl-relatedimpacts associated with sedimentquality would be associated I with handlingand disposal ofthe dredgematerial. All impactsrelated to on site dredgingactivities are addressedin SectionK. BiologicalResources. t b. Summaryof SedimentAnalvsis. Physical analyses of thesesediments rwealedtypical estuarine sediments consisting of slightlybasic, fine-grained particleswith high moisturecontent. Results from chemicalanalyses revealed I relativelyclean sediments displaying moderate levels of PAIIs from the chronicinput of combustion-relatedmaterials. Lead and PAHs werethe only mntaminantspresent in moderateconcentrations, and theselevels were much I lowerthan thoseused to designatehazardous waste. Low levelsof nearlyall other prioritypollutant metals were measured with concentrationsgenerally tlvo to threeorders of magnitudebelow CCR Title zz,'IifLC criteria,for I classificationof hazardouswaste. Other CCRTitle 22 priority pollutantswere eithernot detectedor muchlower than TTLC criteria. The resultsof the additionalsediment testing conducted by the Port determinedthe acceptability I at specificlandfills. The resultsreported in MEC 1994and in Battelleand Amdur 1994indicate that thesesediments will likelybe classifiedas either I non-hazardousor desigrratedwastes, suitable for ClassIII or ClassII (respectively)landfi lt disposal. I Reviewof test reports(MEC 1993and 1994,Battelle and Amdur 1994)do not indicatethe presenceof hazardouswaste in the sedimentsamples tested at Berths68 and 69. Four confinedupland disposal facilities are being I consideredfor dredgedisposal. Tivo of theseare ClassIII facilities:Vasco Road andRedwood Landfills; the other two are ClassII facilities:Keller Canyonand Fonward Landfills Thesefacilities maintain permits for the I wastesthey accept. Therefore, dredge disposal at thesefacilities would not requiremitigation measures. I Dredgematerial would be disposedat confinedupland disposal facilities. The dredgedisposal would not resultin a significantimpact due to facilitycontrols on hazardouswastes. This wouldbe considereda lessthan signilicant I impact. (lS) I No mitigationmeasures are necessary. I 187 I CHARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SEDIMENT QUALITY c. Use of Merritt Sands. Merritt Sandswould be obtained for fill on the project by deepeningBerths 22, 23,2A and 30 to 44 feet plus two feet overdredge. Merritt Sandsin the Oakland Inner Harbor are free of man- made contaminants. The dredgingof Merritt Sandsand subsequentuse as fill on the project would have no significant impacl No mitigation measures arenecessary. 188 JUNE 1994 CHARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL E The focusof this sectionis strictlyon waterquality. Issuesrelated to water I supply,sewer, dredging sediment quality, and biological resources are discussedin other sections. I Setting t a. Storm water Runoff. (1) Infrastructure. CharlesP. Howard Terminal now has 1,642 lineal feet of wharf apron. The Port proposesto extend the apron 306 lineal I feet (46500 squarefeet) to make it long enoughto accommodatetwo new generationcontainer shipssimultaneously. Currently, 57,000square feet I (131 acres)of the site is roofed over and the resultant roof runoff is directed to sixteenrainwater drain pipes extendingdown the face of the transit shed and then dischargeddirectly into the Estuary' Storm water runoff ftom the I outside areassheet flows awayfrom the building on two sides (east and south) into the Estuary. On the north and west sidesof the transit shed there are six storm drains including one in the southwestmrner of the loading dock. This I storm drain and at least one other on the east side of the building appearto be cloggedwith debris and oil/grease. A site visit in December 1993and photographsdocumented heavy accumulation on and around the storm drain I inlet. Accumulation included trash, sediment,and oi[grease' These storm drains dischargedirectly into the Estuary. I (2) Activities. Currently, a repair shop is housedin the southwest corner of Building E-40?A. Vehicle and equipment repair actMties take place both inside and outside the transit shed. Materials and wastes,including oil I and batteries.are stored both inside and outside the building. There are outside areaswith relatively significantstaining particularly near the shop (see I SectionH. HazardousMaterials for more information). I 189 I CI{ARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL EXTENSION JUNE 1994 T DRAFT ETWIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WATER QUALITY I b. Water Qualiw. Howard Terminal is located in the Oakland Inner Harbor. In general,water and sedimentquality values are lower in the Inner Harbor than in the open Bay.l Water quality in the Inner Harbor is affected I by urban runoff, direct dischargesftom human activity on the shoreline,poor circulation,and seasonaland diurnal temperaturefluctuations, In addition, as a result of documentedsediment contamination. the Inner Harbor hasbeen I identified as a known toxic 'hot spof by the San FranciscoBay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).' Sedimentsin the Inner Harbor are contaminated with heavy metals (cadmium, chromium, copper, lead' l mercury and silver), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAIIS), polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBS), tributyltin (TBT), and pesticides(chlordane' DDT, and dieldren). The deeperMerritt sandsdo not contain measurable I levels of man-madecontaminants,3 The wharf structure is supportedby 400 creosote-treatedtimber pilings and I 700 concretepilings. Creosoteis high in PAHs and thesepilings may act as a continuingsource of PAHs to the water column. Data from two recent T studiesappear to mnfirm this pollution source: data from the Inner and Outer Harbor deepeningproject indicate that total PAH concentrationsin the sedimentsoffshore of Berth 68 are high, with the highestvalue closestto the I expansionarea. Data for this projecCalso indicate elevatedPAH levelsat the berth expansionarea, I c. ProposedBerth 10 RehandlinsFaciliw. Two options are currently being evaluatedfor the constructionof the Berth 10 rehandlingfacility. Option 1 mnsists of usinga tube made of geotextilesfilled with dredged I material to create a 4-foot high berm around the site. Option 2 consistsof mnstructing the berm out of modified K-rail (3-foot high) with Z'inch by 12' inch boards attachedto the top to increasethe freeboard. Site preparation I and managementwould be identical regardlessof the constructionmaterials- I I t U.S, Army Cotps of Enginee6,1992. Enircnmeual Assetsmenl, OoHand htet Hafiq 3S-F@t Serymbb Element of the OaHand Harbor Nevigation Impownent Proiat' Alamedo Counry, Califomia" I '?SFBRWQCB. 1993. Bay Prctection and Toxic Clearup Progratn ' StatusReP,t' Od.oh€r 1993. t I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1992, op,cit. 'MEC R*ults of Chemical Physicalaad. Bioassay Testing of Sedimenrs4t Be,th 6' Potl of Oaldsnd, 1993. I I 190 I I ,UNE 1994 CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION DRAFT ENVI RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WATER QUALITT I Final decisionson how the facility will be mnstructed will dependon which metho{ or combinationof methods,is approvedby the Regional Water I Quality Control Board (RWQCB). If both methodsare approved,the final decisionwill be basedon the cost to constructand remove the facility and the easeand efficiencyof operation. A descriptionof each option can be found t below. Cross-sectionsof the facility are shown in Figure Z. (1) Option 1. A perimeter dike would be constructedof two-ply, t sealedtubes of geotextile(construction liner) and filled with dredgedmaterial. This type of liner has been usedin a number of projects throughout the country to contain dredgedmaterial. other projects that have used geotextile I tubqs to hold dredgedmaterials have included berms, leveesand groins. The two-ply liners can retain pafticles as small as claysand silts. Due to electrochemicaland physicalbonding, clay and silt range sedimentscontain l the majority of the mntamination. The geotextiletubes can retain the material and the bound contaminantsand allow only the water to pass through. The water dischargedfrom the tubes could contain low I concentrationsof dissolvedphase contaminants, especially metals. To prevent water that is eKruded from the tubes from dischargingto the estuary,storm drains would be blocked and the water would be diverted into the effluent I mllection basin. The water would be diverted by inserting impermeable plastic liner betweenlayers of geotextileon the outer halfofthe tube. The I internal liner would divert and retain the water within the bermed area. The water would eventuallybe dischargedto the estuaryor treated prior to T discharge. The RWQCB would establishdischarge requirements. The materials used to fill the tubeswould mnsist of mostly silt and clay range sedimentswith some minor amountsof sand. Permeabilitytests on this type I of material have shownthat it will act as an efficient barrier to both water and sediment placedinside the containmentarea, Becausethe material is dense and relatively impermeable,water tends to pool on the surfaceof the dredged I material rather than permlate through it. Becauseof the impermeableliner inside the tube and the nature of the material, water would not flow through the berm. In addition, the geotextiletubes would spreadand flow at the base, I making a wide footprint that can conform to the shapeof the sudace upon which it is placed. Therefore the filled tubeswould act as an efficient seal at I the base. (2) Ootion 2. A perimeter dike would be constructedof reinforced concreteK-rail, approximately3 feet high, with 2-inch by 2-inch timbers I attachedto the top of the railing to give a total height of approximately4 feet. Each rail would be pinned down to the surfacewith three-foot long,5/8- I inch steel pins (four per 2O-footK-rail section). Pinning would add more than I 191 I f=>r T llr 9= < bH i Eoo - (he I JI i;E FI=l tr.,lI AF tH ol l'--t i, 9;l I t) | I ;t urlJl : :', i ilil : I (3) SurfacePreparation and Site Management. The surfaceof the drying area would be sealedwith a sealingmat of asphaltbefore any material is depositedon the surfac€. The sealingmat would fill any cracksin the I surfaceand decreasethe penneability of the surfaceto a permeability of approdmately 1/1,000,000centimeter per second. A pit would be excavatedto allow a backhoeto scoopup large volumesof material from the holding area. I The pit would be lined with concreteto a suitablethicloess to prevent infiltration, All storm drains would be coveredand sealedwithin the facility, I-ow weirs would be placedaround drains near the facility. Two weirs would I be built at the low spot within the containmentarea. The weirs would be made of wood, K-rail or both with a geotextilescreen to further reducethe t amount of suspendedsolids in the decantwater. A barge-mountedcrane would remove dredgedmaterial from the scowsand I place it into the drying yard. Contaminantswould be bound to sediments. Some sedimentsmuld be briefly suspendedin the water when the dredge material is first placedin the fucility. A tractor would distribute the mate al I in the yard. Solidswould slowlybe worked toward the sediment unloading are4 which would be located slightly up-gradientfrom the decantingarea. Because of the density of the sediment, water should be easily separated from I the dredgematerial during handling. The decantwater would flow to the decant area while the sedimentis pushedtowards the unloading area. Decant water would collect behind the first of the weirs until it beginsto spill over the I top and through the first of the geotextilescreens. The geotextilescreen would be similar to felt and should retain more than 90 percent of the sedimentbehind the weir. A secondsettling area and weir would be built on l the inside of the first weir. The secondsettlement area should remove the remaining suspendedmaterial from the decantwater. The decantwater on I the dischargeside of the secondweir would be tested for permit compliance. Representativesamples would be taken of the water to ensurecompliance with the dischargerequirements before the effluent is dischargedto the I estuary. The RWQCB has determinedthat a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permit will be required for effluent discharged I to the estuary. Testing frequencyand analysiswill be determined by the t I:'J I CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WATER QUALITY I RWQCB to addressthe concentrationof the constituentsof concem. If the dischargeneeds to continue over a period of daysto weeks,the decantwater will be testeddaily for suspendedsolids and on a regular basisfor I contaminantsof concem.The dischargerequirements imposed on the effluent by the RWQCB will protect the estuaryand may be basedon background conc€ntfationsin the estuary. Ifthe water content of the dredgedmaterial is I low, the *ater might evaporatein the mntainment area and there might not be any effiuent. It is possibl€,although unlikely, that there would be a continued dischargeftom the site over a long-term rather than a brief one- l time discharge. Decant water dischargedover a longer time period would be tested as it is being dischargedto the storm sewersystem, as is allowed by the NPDES permit. I If decantwater doesnot meet RWQCB permit guidelinesfor discharge,the water can be held and treated in a variety of ways. The exacttreatment I method would be determinedby the contaminantsof mncem. Organic contaminantsmuld be removedby activatedcarbon filtration. Metals could be removed through chelation,precipitation, or electroderemoval methods. I I-andfills can typically acceptmaterial that containsgreater than 50 percent solids and no standingwater. Although free water cannot be taken to the landfill, sedimentwith a higher percentageofwater than would be optimum I basedon cost per ton for disposal(but still greater than 50 percent solids) can be sent to the landfill. The final option would be to haul the water to a I wastewaterrecycler at a premium price. Dredged material would be placedin the drying yard to a thicloess of I approximatelythree feet. One foot of freeboardwould be left around the drying yard to prevent surgingmaterial from going over the dikes. The material would be left in the facility to dry for up to four months. As I previouslystated, the landfills can acceptsoil/sediment with up to 50 percent liquid content. Material dredgedusing the clamshellmethod can generate material with approximately50 percent solid content. The cost for hauling T and disposingof soil that is 50 percentwater is cost prohibitive. The material would be left on the terminal to dry to minimize disposalcost and not interfere with constructionschedules, I A storm water managementplan would be developedfor this facility. Because of the physicalcharacteristics of the sediment,water would not percolate I through tbe material, but might pool on the surface. This water can be decantedand testedin a similar fashionas the original decantwater. As long as the water is decantedpromptly, there is little risk of mntamination from I the dredgedsediments. Coveringthe entire seven-acresite with plastic may be difftcult and unnecessarybased on the low potential risk of contamination. I I 194 I JUNE 1994 CTIARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL EXTENSION I DRAFT ETWIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WATER QUALITY t Stormwater would not be allowedto dischargedirectly to a stormwithout testing. Ifvery largestorms are expectedthat couldoverwhelm the water I holdingcapacity of the facility,as much of the sitewould be coveredas possibleand geotextiles would be usedto removeparticulates before storm I waterfrom the facilityis allowedto enterthe estuary. Dredgedsediments would be left at the uplandrehandling facility for a dayto sevenweeks. The surfacematedal would be kept moistto preventdust I formation.I-andfills will acceptsediments with up to a 50 percentwater content;however, shipping sediments with that high a watermntent is not economical.The majorfactor in decidingresidence time is the time required I for contaminantsto settleout of the decantwater and bind with the sediments.The Port is conductinga risk assessmentto determinethe maximumresidence time requiredfor this to occur. This residencetime will I be includedin an operationsplan, which will be submittedto the San FranciscoRegional Water Quality Control Board for approval. I 2. Impacis and Mitigation Measures a. Simificance Criteria. The level of significancefor water quality is based I on CEQA requirements. A project will normally have a significant effect on the environmentif it will: I . Substantiallydegrade water quality. I b. Storm Water Runoff at Howard Terminal. (1) Constructionlmpacts. I Impact WATER-I: Demolition and constructionmuld generatepollurants that could pollute storm water runoff or be dischargeddirectly into the I Bay. (s) The State'sGeneral Industrial Activities Storm Water Permit (SWRCB, I 1992a)does not requirethe Poft of Oakland'sStorm Water Pollution PreventionPlan (SWPPP)(Port of Oaklan4 1992)to includeprovisions for addressingstorm water pollutants generated during construction actMties at I the Port. Also,the State'sGeneral Construction Activiry Storm Water Permit doesnot coverconstruction actMties of lessthan five acresunless the activity is part ofa largercommon plan of development.Therefore, it is not T necessaryfor the Port or its contractorto file a Noticeof Intent or paya fee to coverthe work at HowardTerminal under the State'sGeneral Construction I I 195 t CHARLESP. HOWARDTERMINAL EXTENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT EI.IVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I WATER QUALITT I Activity Storm Water Pennit. (The rehandlingfacility, discussedbelow, would require a permit.) I Mitiqation MeasureWATER-I: The contractor should prepare, and the Pon should review, a constructionStormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)following the guidelinesin the State'sGeneral I Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. The Port should require the general contractor and the subcontractors, via contract language, to abide by the constructionSWPPP. I Adherence to the construction SWPPP by the mntractors should mitigate pollutantg generatedas a result of demolition and constructionactMties at I the site, to a lwel of insignificance. (2) Post-ConstructionImpacts. I (a) Increasedrunoff quantity. The existing pattern of sheet flow runoff is not likely to changesignificantly. There wi[[ be increasedrunoff as a I result of the increasein impervioussurface area (one acre in a 53 acre mmplex is 2 percent), However,the increasein runoff volume is not cxpected to causeflooding or require upgradingof existingstorm drains, sincethe I additional area currently is over water. Therefore the increasein runoff volume is not a significantimpact. This is considercda less than significant I impact. (IS) (b) Decreasedrunoff quality. When the wharf extension has been I mnstructe4 the transit shed demolished,and the site re-paved,the runoff from that area will pick up pollutants associatedwith terminal operationsand storageof chassisor containers. These are the same activitiesbeing t conductedat the re.stof the new Howard Terminal and that are coveredby the Port's Industrial SWPPP.5Adherence to the Industrial SWPPPby the new CharlesP. Howard Terminal tenantswould control pollutants,generated t as a result of expandedactMties at the site, This is considereda less than signilicant impact. (IS) I c. Storm Water Runoff at Dredeed SedimentRehandling Faciliw. Dredging for the new wharf and berth area would genemte43,600 cubic yards of dredgedmaterial. The dredgedsediment would be dewateredat a seven- I acre rehandlingfacility mnstructed at Berth 10. Becausethe facility would T I Port of Oakland, 1992. National Pollutant Discbarge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Pollution Program. I T 196 I t JUNE 1994 CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E (TENSION DRAFT ENVIRONMENIAL IMPACT REPORT t WATER OUAIITY cover more than five acres,a State General ConstructionActivity Storm Water Permit would normally be required under the National Pollution I DischargeElimination System(NPDES), through the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWOCB). However, in this instancethe RWQCB will require an NPDES permit to operate the site, rather than a mnstruction I permit, Implementationof the proposedproject would include the following: . obtaining the NPDES operation permit from RWQCB, T . constructinga mntainment are4 . testing and sealingthe asphait(if necessary), I . securingcontainment system to the wharf, . using a RWQCB-approvedoperations plan, I . controlling dust, and . collecting,testing; and treating the decantwater (if necessary). I Implementation of theseactions would keep water quality impactsat a level of insigriftcance. I Decant runoff from the dredgematerial will be required to meet NPDES permit conditionsbefore dischargeinto the bay. Concemswith decantwater I relate to suspendedsediments and associatedcontaminants. Although the suspendedsediment load in the decantwater is high, dischargecould exceed allowable levelsof turbidity, PAH's, and heavymetals, panicularly lead. I Proper treatment of the decantwater, either through allowing sufficient time for suspendedsediments to settle or through the use of a flocculent agent, should eliminate theseproblems. If it is determined that the decantwater I cannot be treated at the rehandlingfacility to meet NPDES permit standards, the Port has mmmitted to haul decantwater to a wastewater treatment plant I for treatment. d. Water Oualiw. I (1) Durinq Constructionat Howard Terminal. (") Removal of Creosote-TreatedTimber Piles, kisting concrete and I wood piles to be removedwould be cut off at the mud line. Impact WATER-2: The removal of the wood piles could releasecreosote; I however,removing the wood piles would eliminate a mntinuing sourceof pollution from the exposedcreosote surfaces of the piles and result in an I overall net environmentalbenefit. (B) I t97 I CTIARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAI E (b) Sedimnt contamination releaseduring dredging. After pile I removal,approximately 43,500 cubic yards of sedimentsin the new wharf area and the new berth area would be dredged. Sedimentsamples collected just ofhhore of Berth 68 as part of the Inner and Outer Harbor deepening I project6were tested. Despite the prosenceof elevatedpollutant concentrationsin the sedimentsjust offshore of Berth 68, re.sultsof suspended particulate phase (SPP) bioassaytests showed no water column toxicity to I biota. More recent samples taken specifically for this project showed some elevated levels of PAIIs and PCBs (Aroclor 1254 and 1260) that could be releasedinto the water column during dredging. However,bioassay tests of I these same sampleswith amphipods and larval bivalves showed a high survival rate. I It appearsthat metals and PAHs, although sometimespresent at elevated concentrationsin thesesediments, are not availableto the biota. This result is not surprising since both metals and PAfIs are known to complex with organic I matter and sediments,particularly in marine environments. For a further discussionof the potential impactsof dredgingon the biota, see SectionI. I SedimentQuality. DeepeningBerths 22, ?i, ?.4and 30 would not releasecontaminants, because I the dredgedmaterial would be Merritt sands. Merritt sandsare discussedon the first page of SectionI, SedimentQuality. I (c) Pi.leR*noval. Port tests show that most of the sediment contaminationoccurs in the upper sedimentsthat havebeen exposedto human sourcesof pollution. Most of thesetop layersof sedimentwill be t removedby the dredgingoperation and properly disposedof by the rehandling operation. The remainingMerritt SandFormation sedimentshave not been exposedto anthropogenicsources of pollution and should be relatively clean. T Therefore, as a result of project desigr, piles will be driven into these relatively clean sedimentsthereby reducingthe potential for impacts. Pile driving would tbus be considereda less than signilicant impact. (IS) I I T 6 U.S. Alrtry Corps of Engineen, 199). Enviromental Assessmert, OaHond Inner Harbq 3&F@t Seryable Element of the Oakhnd Ha$or Naigation Improvenent Project, Alaneda County, Califomia, I T 198 I I JUNE 1994 C}IARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION DRAFT ET{!'TRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I WATER OUALITY (2) Post-Constructionat HowardTerminal. I (a) Reductionof Creosote-TreatedPiling. The project would involve removalof 1,200cubic yards of creosote-treatedpiling andthe placementof I 536cubic yards of concreteand recycledplastic piling. Impact WATER-3: The project would result in a net decreasein piling of 664 cubicyards and the substitutionof creosote-treatedpiling with concreteand ! recycledplastic piling. Therefore,the impactsto waterquality from creosote- treatedpiles would be reducedby the proposedproject. (B) I No mitigationis required. (3) Pile-supportedWharf Removalat PacificDrv Dock and Sherex I sites. Approximately33,000 square feet of wharf at the PacificDry Dock site and 13,590square feet of wharf at the Sherexsite would be removedto meet I pemit requirementsregarding Bay fill. ImpactWATER4: The removalof creosote-treatedpiles at the PacificDry I Dock and Sherexsites would reduce creosote in Baywaters. (B) I No mitigationis required. ImpactWATER-5: During removalof the timberwharf at the PacificDry Dock andSherex sites, debris and wastes would be closeto Baywaters. Even t a minor accidentor spill couldresult in thesewastes entering the Bay. (S) MitigationMeasure WATER-5: ImplementMitigation Measure I HAZ-I, debriscontainment and demolitionpollution control plan, duringwharf removalat the PacificDrydock and Sherexsites as well as I duringdemolition and construction at HowardTerminal. Implementationof the planwould reduce the potentialimpacts to an I insignificantlevel. (a) Reductionof Creosote-TreatedPiling. The wharf removalprocess includesthe removalof 820cubic yards of creosote-treatedtimber piling. I Piling would be removedby cutting eachpile at the mud line and removing T the upperportion. The portionbelow the mud line wouldnot be removed. ImpactWATER-6: The removalof 820cubic yards of pilesat the Pacific Drydockand Sherexsites muld releasesome creosote; however, the removal t of pilingwould eliminate a continuingsource of pollutionfrom the exposed I 199 I C}IARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL EXTENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAST REPORT WATER QUALITY I creosotesurfaces of the pilesand resultin an overallnet environmental benefit. (B) I No mitigationis required. (b) Sedimenlcontamhation release duing piling removal, Crowley t MaritimeCorporation, operator of the PacificDry Dock and RepairYar4 is presentlyunder a CleanUp Orderfrom the RWQCB. CrowleyMaritime Corporationwas found to be in violationof WasteDischarge Requirements at ! varioustimes before 1993. A site characterizationTfound that sediments containedelevated concentrations of chromium,copper, lead, mercury zinc, PAHs,and organotin. Mercury gven its hightoxicity and the detectionof I sedimentconcentrations in excessof the Title 22 Total ThresholdLimit, will be clrivingthe cleanup8.The RWQCBwill be reviewingthe investigationof sedimentmntamination by CrowleyMarine Corp. Giventhat thereis a I processin placeto remediatethe site and that the Port will not be removing piling until it is environmentallysafe to do so,this wouldbe considereda less I than significantimpact. flS) e. WaterOualiw Impacts of UplandDisposal at Landfills. The EIRs for I the four landftllswhere dewatered dredged sediments may be transported after dryingat the Berth 10rehandling facility identified the impactsof the ClassII andIII facilities.eAll impactsare identifiedin the landfill EIRs. I The disposalof the proposedproject's dredging material would contribute to surfaceand groundwater impacts at the landfills.These impacts are identified I in eachof the landfill expansionEIRs. Measuresrecommended in the landfill EIRs wouldmitigate these impacts to a lessthan significantlevel. I t 7 Versar for Crowley Maritime Corporation, 1992, Revised Inthorc Sediment Impoirment Sady, Pacifc Dy Dock and Repat Yard II, OaHany' Califomia. I t San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quatity Control Board, 19!8, letters to Pacifrc Dry Docks I and II, Oakland Inner Harbor, from T. Wu, RWQCB to R.S. Wilson, Crcwley Environmental Servic€s,November 9 and December 30, 1993. I e Alameda Crl.rnty, Vasco Road Saniury LandfiU Area'Y' Eryawion Envirctttnentat Impact Reptl, 1994, State Clearinghouse Number 87@242Q Contra CGta County, Kell.er Canyon Landfll Envirownetual Impad Repofi, Draft 1989, Fioal 1990, State C'learinghouse Number I 8904O415;Woodward Clyde for Marin Cotrtty, Redwood LandfiE Solid Woste Facilitia Pqrnit Wotlsion Prcject Envircrvnental Impact Repd, 7994, State Clearinghouse Number 91033042; l,SA Arsociates for San Joaquin c!,lonty, Foward Landfill Use Pennit Modifrcalions Envirchmental Impact /tqport, 1993, State Clearinghouse Number 92032013. I I n0 I J UNE 1994 C}iARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION t DRA.FT ENVI RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BIOT.OCICAL RESOURCES I I I K, Biological Resources !lt I Setting This assessmentaddresses two concems;the loss of habitat, and the possible I increasedbioavailability of contaminantsassociated with dredging,filling and storageof dredgedmaterial. The area of influenc€ for biological resour@s has been defined as the Oakland Inner Harbor. The biological resources I describedin this sectioninclude benthic (bottom) organisms,fish, wildlife and threatenedand endangeredspecies. Speciesthat are @mmon in the Oakland Inner Harbor are listed in Table 29. Although benthic, fish and wildlife t resourcesare common to the san FranciscoBay, the biological communityin the Oakland Harbor has been describedas havingreduced fish and wildlife habitat valuesdue to past channeldredging projects and maintenance I dredgingactivities.l Ponions of Howard Terminal are supportedby piles. Although the pile-supportedarea has a benthic community and provides potential fish habitat, the shadedcondition has re,sultedin a limited plant I community and has reducedthe area'svalue as a biological resourc€. The Port of Oakland has a maintenancedredge permit (U.S. Army Corps of I EngineersPermit No. 18992E35,amended December 1993as Permit No. M9241) for annual dredgingwhich includesthe areasfrom the existing I whawes out 130 feet at Berths 68 and 69. Berth 68 is permitted to be dredged to -42 feet and Berth 69 is permitted to be dredged to -35 feet, with a I 2 foot allowancefor overdredging. Therefore, the area of the Oakland Inner Harbor that will be impacted by the Howard Terminal extensionis presentlyunder pile supportedfill or in an I annual maintenancedredge program. These mnditions result in degraded habitat which will be consideredin assessingadequate mitigation for the T project-relatedimpacts to biological resources. I I U.S. Alrrly Corps of Engineers, 1992. Environ nerxal Asse*tment,OaHand Inner Hcrbor 3&Foot Sepamble Elernent of the Oald&nd Eatbu Naigation Improvement Prcject, Alaneda t County, Califomia I ?r1 I CTIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAI E (TENSION JUNE 1994 t DRAFT EIWIRONMENIAL IMPACT REPORT BIOT.OGICAL RESOURCES I Table 29 SPECIESOF COMMON ORGANISMS IN THE OAKI,AND INNER IIARBOR I Conmon Naoe Scientilic Nauc Status RepresentaaiYcBenahic Specics Polychleae *orus Ewgorv lauei I Cinifomia spbabatoho Ciniformia lunuiosa MollusLr Gqflfio gerrt fla Shipwonn Bankia setecu l Bent-oGe claE Muotaa nzswta Bent-n6e claE Maco,na in4uinata LiJlot u q. I My"ll" q. Muscalistase 'o/sia Asiao clarn Polan@cdrbaa an@eilis Bluemussell Mytifua e&dw I A|t phipod$ Corophiwn sp. lsopods Gribble Limnoio spp. T Anemones Metidium senile Chitons Cyanopls hattwqi Bamicles Balanus glandula t Bay sbrimp Crat8on spp, Comnon Fish Spccies Topsneh Alherinops aftnis I Jacksrnelt At herinops cakluniensis Northem anchovy Engaulis morda Arrow goby Clevehndis i Additional fill material (Meritt sands)required for the project would be I obtained by deepeningBerths 22,23,24 and 30 from 42 feet plus two feet overdredge to 44 teet plus two feet overdredge. Merritt sands have no measurablelevels of man-madecontaminants, and have no adversebiological I effects.t I a. Benthic Orsanisms. The channelbottoms and adjacentareas provide habitat for worms, crustaceansand shellftsh. These benthic invertebratesplay an important part in the aquatic food chain as they are primary or secondary I consumersand are often prey for fish at higher trophic levels, Surveys conductedin OaHand Inner and Outer Harbors and Port of Oakland's Market Street Terminal identified 137 taxa as inhabiting the benthic I community,3Although no surveyshave been conductedsince 1992,bottom conditions are similar to those describedat Carnation Terminal and other I I 2 ibid I r Ibid. I 203 I CHANLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT EI.IVI RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BIOI,OCICAL RESOURCES I areasin the Oakland Inner Harbor.a The project site is adjacentto the sampledareas, and the depthsand sedimentcomposition are similar. I b. Fish. The fish community in San Francisco Bay includes a wide variety of speciesdue to varying salinity regimes. Anadromousgame speciesare not expectedto inhabit the Oakland Inner Harbor area becauseit is not located I near any main migration routes.s Pacific herring (Clupea harengus)represent an important herring roe fishery in I San FranciscoBay and the bay is a major spawningground in California' Spawningoccurs both intertidally and subtidallyto depths of about 30'40 feet' The spawning seasonin California extends from late October through March' I but in San FranciscoBay it peak from Decemberthrough February' Subtidal areascomprise 50-70 percent of the spawningareas. The eggsare usually attachedto a variety of surfacessuch as marine vegetation,rocks, pier pilings, I eelgrass,seaweed or sand. Soon after spawning,the adult herring usually leaveto return to their offshore feedinggrounds.6 I In San FranciscoBay the major subtidal spawningareas have historicallybeen just inside the Golden Gate, at Angel Island, off of the Marin and Tiburon I peninsulasand betweenRichmond and Oakland.TMore recently the distribution of herring spawninghas changedto the San FranciscoBay waterfront and the Oakland-Alamedaarea.6 Herring were reported spawning I atong the Oakland Inner Harbor during 1987-1990.eGiven the close proximity of known spawningareas to the project site, it is possiblethat Pacific hening may utilize the intertidal and subtidal areasin Oakland Harbor I as spawninggrounds. T 'E3rth Metrics, Inc- 1990. Draft Supplenent to the Endronmental ImPad ReFrt for the Redevelopnentof Canation Termitul Area Prepared for the Pon of Oaftland. t U.S. Army Corpa of Engineen, 199. I ^I'he 6 Suer, A. 1981. The Hening of San Fr*tcisco aad Tomales Bays' Ocean Researqh Institute, Satr Francisco, CA" t 7 Earth Metrics, Ioc, 1990, Draft Supplement to the Envircntnenlal ImPact RePft ror the Redevelopnentof Canution Tetmiml Area Prepared for the Port of Oakland. t " Califomia Departrnent of Fish and Gane. July 1992. Biomass Estimates of Pacific Ijeimg, Clupea pollo"i, t" Califomia from the 1991-9 Spawning-Ground Surveys. Marioe Resourccs Division, Administrative Report No. 92-2, T t Spratt, J.D,, 198?, 1988, 1989,1990,Biomass Estimates of Pac\frc IJerr.rrrg,ehrpra harcngus Nlasi, n Califomia Spawning Ground Surveys. Califomia Department of Fish and Game, Marine ResourceDivision AdminisFativeReports 87-12,88-7,89-6, 90-13. I T 204 I JUNE 1994 CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION I IMPACT REPORT DRAFT EI.I!'TRONMENTAL BIOI-OGICAL RESOURCES I c. Wildlife. No terrestrial mammalsexcept for the housemouse (Mus musculusl and Norway rat (Faaus rattus) are expected to inhabit Howard I Terminal. Occasionally,marine mammalssuch as the California sealion (Zalaphus califomianus\ and harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) use the Inner Harbor Channelr0.The nearestknown harbor seal haulout area is Yerba Buena l Island, severalmiles ftom the project area. San FranciscoBay is one of the most important sites for shorebirdsand I waterfowl along the Pacific Flyway.u Shorebirdsand waterfowl use the bay because the shallow bay fringes include intertidal marsh and mudflat habitats which serve as important staging areas as birds make their way to and from I their wintering sites in Central and South America. The Bay also provideshabitat for the thousandsof shorebirdsthat remain in I the bay during the winter and spring. Waterfowl prefer open water habitat and will occupytidal channelswhen water is present. Shorebitdsforage in mudflats exposedduring low tide. During high tide shorebirdsseek the higher I marsh areasand bare ground for resting. Shorebirdsforage in greater numbersalong mudflats that are adjacentto or near areasthat provide resting t habitat, suchas upper tidal marsh and seasonalmarsh habitat.rz Waterbirds found in the adjacentwaters of the San FranciscoBay use the I Oakland Inner Harbor to a certain degree. For example,shorebirds have been recordedas feeding along the Oakland Shorelinein limited numbers.u Speciessuch as grebes,diving ducks and cormorantsforage in the deeper I open waters in the Inner Harbor.tn The open water habitat is also utilized as a resting area. Gulls mmmonly forage in the intertidal areas,but use the open water as loafing sites. Typically,they are observedresting on the roofs I of buildings. Herons and egretsforage in the shallowwater along the bank I r0 U.S, Fish and Wildlife Sewice, 1980, Califumia Leost Tem Recowty Phn, Region 1, Portland Oregon, cited in U.S. Army CorpE of Eogine€rs, 1992. I rr Slenzel, LE, J.E. Kjelmer, G.W. Page, W.D. Shuford. 1.989. Retulz'sof lhe First CotnprehensiveShorebird Census ol Nonhern and Cental Califomia Coastal Wetl4n& &12 Se4nftet 1988. Poiot Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, Cd I t2 Ibid. ! Port of Oalland. 1982. lack London Square Project Development Phns, Draft I Environnental Impxd Repo s, Prepared by lhe Port of Oakland, dated November 1982- rt U.s. Alrny Corps of Engineen. 1984. Final Feaibility Shtdy and Environ nental Impact Statenwtt, OaHand Inner Hobo, Calilomia DeepDraf Navigation U.S. fumy Corps of I Engineen, San Fralcisco District, CA- I 205 I CHARIES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT ENVIRONMEI'ITAL IMPACT REPORT BIOI-OCICAL RESOURCES I of channels. Severalspecies of gulls and egretsare year-roundresidents' while most shorebirdsand waterfowl speciesare winter residentsor fall and spring migrants. I d. Threatenedand EndangeredSpecies. I (1) Calrtornia Leasr Jem. The Califomia least tem (S/end antillarum browni) is a state and federallyJistedendangered species. This specieswinters in Central and South America and breedsalong the Pacific I Coast from southem Baja, Mexico to San Francism Bay' The California least tern generally arrives at breeding sites around the last week of April where they remain, on the average,until Augusts. Recently reponed nestingsites I around San Francisco Bay include Alameda Island, Bay Farm Island, Coyote Hills and Bair Island. Within the project region the California least tern is known to nest on artificially-created,sandy upland sites at the Oakland I Intemational Airport and a runway apron at the Alameda Naval Air Station.l6 Ready accessto foraginghabitat in nearshore,shallow water within 250 meters of the nestingcolonies is a necessaryhabitat componentfor I reproductive success.lT I During the nestingseason least tems can be found foraging in the Bay waters within and adjacentto the Oakland Inner Harbor Channel.rEForaging actMty by least terns at the Alameda Naval Air Station colony indicatesthat I dominant foraging actMty occursin areasof relativelycalm, shallowwater less than 10 feet deep and in eddy slicks.reIn a studyof the overall geographic distribution of California Least Tern foraging around the Alameda Naval Air I Station,a no foraging actMty was observedin the immediate vicinity of I s U's. Fish and Wildlife Setvice, 1980. Califomia Least Tan Recovay PIan' Region I' Portla Oregon, cited in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1992 16 U.s. Arrl]y Corps of Engi[le€Is 198i8. SuryIzrrEnt I to the Envilon nental ImNd I ' Statenent - Oo*Lnnd Outq and Oakland Innq Hqrbors DeePDnf Novigation Impotwnents Atzmeda Coutrly. U,S. Anny Corps of Engineers' San Francisco Distdct' CA- r? I Erickson, RA. 1985. Ecotogical Chanctedsaicsof Least Tan Colany Sitesin Califonia' Masters Thesis, 110 pages, Califomia State University, Hayward. * U.S. enry Corps of Engineers, 1988, op'cit. I D Baily, S.F. 1985. Califomia Least Ten Fonging and Othet Ofr-Colany Aaivities uound Alameda NavatAil SlationDuti^81985. Califomia Academy of Sciences,Sao Francisco' CA- I ' Colfins, LD. 1987. CalifomiT Least Ten Nesting Seoson at ,he Alntned4 Navol Ait Sr4rion. US. Department of the Navy, Natural Resourcrs Branch, Westem Division Naval Facilities Engioeering Command, San Bruno. I I 206 I JUNE 1994 C}IANLES P, HOWARD TERMINAL E (TENSION I REPORT DRAFT EI{i'IRONMENTAL IMPACT BTOI.OGICAL RESOURCES I Howard Terminal, and lessthan 2 percent of foraging activity was found in the area ofthe Oakland Estuary. The majority ofthe foraging activity around I Alameda Naval Air Station was to the east and south, in San FranciscoBay. Therefore, limited foraginguse, if any, is expectednear the terminal. t (2) California Brown Pelican. The California brown pelican (Pebcanus occidentaliscalifomrcus) is classified as a State and federallyJisted endangeredspecies, as well as a fully protected speciesby the California I Department of Fish and Game. The nearestbreeding colony to the project area is on the ChannelIslands in southern California. After the breeding seasonthis speciesdisperses north to estuarine,marine, subtidal and marine I pelagic waters along the California coast. Brown pelicans are commonly found around San Francism Bay fiom June to Novembefr. The largest roosting area of brown pelicansin San Francism Bay is located on the I breal$,atersto the south of the Alameda Naval Air Station, Brown pelicans are also known to forage along the Oakland Inner Harbor channel (COE 1992). They usuallyforage in the early morning or late afternoon or during I rising tides when they feed almost exclusively on fish (Zeiner ef cl 1990). Limited foraging and roosting use,if any, is expectednear the terminal due to T the lack of appropriate habitat and scarcityof prey. (3) American PeregrineFalmn. The American peregrine falcon I (Falcoperegrinus anatum\ is listed as endangeredby the federal and State government. This speciesis an uncommonbreeding resident and migrant' Although nestingis uncommonin the San FranciscoBay arc4 sweral pairs of I falconshave begun nestingon the Bay Bridgez. In winter peregrinefalmns are found inland throughout the Central Valley and along the coast as further northern breeding residentsmigrate into California during winteP. This I speciesfeeds primarily on a variety of birds, but occasionallytakes mammals, insectsand fish, There are no known peregrinefalmns inhabiting the area of I the terminal. I 2t Zniner, D.C, W.F. I-audenslayenn fr., ICE. Mayer and M. White, 199O,Califomiab l4ildlife Volume II Birds. Califomia Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relatioqshipc SFtem, I Department of Fish and Garne. 2 U.s. Fish and Wildlife Service,1992, Preliminary Planning Aid Irtter dated March 5, I 1992 to the Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District. B Zniner, D.c, w.F. Irudenslayerm Jr., ICE. Mayer and M. white, 799o, Colifornia's I'Ttldlife, VoI me II Birds, Cglifomia Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationship6 S)6ten' t D€Danmentof Fish and Game. I zut I CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL EXTENSTON JUNE T994 I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BIOI,OCICAL RESOURCES I 2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures a. SisnificanceCriteria. Identification of impacts resulting ftom the I proposedproject has been evaluatedunder the guidelinespresented in Appendix G of the California EnvironmentalQuality Act, which identifies 26 project effectson the environmentthat would be consideredsigtificant. t Three of these significantimpacts are directly applicableto biological resourc€s ftom the dredging and disposal activities associatedwith the proposed project: T . substantiallyaffect a rare or endangeredanimal or plant or the habitat of the species; I . substantiallydegrade water quality; . interfere substantiallywith the movementof any residentor migratory T fish or wildlife species. Impacts can occur to biological resources,in general,and to sensitivespecies I and habitatsin particular. Potential impactsto sensitivespecies and habitats are usuallymore highly regulatedthan are impactsto lesssensitive resources. Potential impactsto biological resourceshave been assessedin terms of a I predicted decline in critical habitat or wildlife habitat values. Ttre significance of theseimpacts is basedupon type, magnitudeand duration of project impactson sensitivebiological resources.The potential impactsmay result I from the dredgingof Berth 68, and placing fill in the bay to extend the existingpier 306 feet to the east. The impactsassociated with these activities could include increasedturbidity associatedwith dredgingand pile removal I reducedforaging efficiencyof waterbirdsduring dredgingand burying benthic communitiesunder solid fill. I b. Dredeine. Approximately39,000 square feet of benthic habitat would be dredgedto create the new berth area. Benthic organismsin the Oakland Inner Harbor would be directly impactedby the proposeddredging actMties. I Most of this area is within the existingCharles P. Howard Terminal, however, and has been dredgedregularly. With annual maintenancedredging of existingchannels, the communitystability of benthic life is limited and the I existingpopulations are probablyadapted to reooveringafter periodic dredgingdisruption.2{ Thus, thesedredging impacts on the benthosare I T a U.s. Army Corps of Engineers. 199. Environmental A.ssessrnentOakland Inner Harbor 38-Foot Separable Element of the Oakland Harbor Navigation InPrcvement Prcject. U.S. Anny Corps of Engineen, San Francisco, CA- I I 208 I T JUNE 1994 CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION DRAFT EI.IVI RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I BIOI-OGICAL RESOURCES expectedto be temporary and minor. This impact is not considered I significant (15) (1) Disruntions to Biological Resources. The benthic habitat and food resourcesfor fish would be temporarily disturbed in the dredgedarea. I There may be a temporary deqease in dissolvedorygen levels and an increase in availablenutrients due to the suspensionof nutrient-rich sediments. These effects occur each year when maintenance dredging is conducted, Thus, fish t are exp€ctedto dispersein responseto dredgingevents, but will quickly retum to the area within a few hours after dredgingceases.s I Suspendedsediments may cause stress by clogging gills and interrupting the exchangeofgas acrossthe gills. Most fish inhabiting estuarineenvironments are adaptedto high turbidity lwels and can tolerate a high concentrationof I suspendedsediments. Tbus, no significant impacts to fisb arc expected.r I (IJ) (2) Disruptions to Pacific Herring. Spawningsuccess ofthe Pacific Herring could be adverselyaffected due to increasedsediment loads on the I eggsduring dredgingthus increasingegg mortality. Dredging could result in a reduction of spawningsubstrate, as herring may avoid the areasdisturbed by dredgingi?.Dredging activitiesfrom Decemberto March could result in I significantimpacts to Pacific Herring inhabiting the site. The zone of impact is expectedto be small, but should be mitigated by avoiding dredgingactivities I during critical periods. Impact BIO-1. Pacific Herring spawningwithin a half mile of the activity I muld be adverselyaffected by dredging. (PS) Mitigrtion MeasureBIO-1: Dredging activitiesshould be scheduledto aroid the period from Decemberto March when the Pacific Herring I spawningis anticipated. (3) Disruotions to Wildlife. Consideringthe short-term occurrence I of dredgingand the large area of open water habitat availablenearby, I dredging activitiesare not expectedto adverselyaffect common waterbirds or I 6 Ibid, , rbid. I t Ibid. I 209 I CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL D(TENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT ETWI RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BIOI-OCICAL RESOURCES I madne mammals,as they would most likely avoid the immediate vicinity until dredgingis complete. This would be an insigniEcant impacl I (4) Disruptions to Threatenedand EndangeredSpecies. The nearest nestingsites of the Califomia least tern are located at the Oakland Airport and the Alameda Naval Air Station. Temporary increasesof turbidity could I occur zlsa result of dredgingat the project site. This could reducethe foragng efficiencyof California least tems. Most least tems nestingin Alameda Naval Air Station foragein San FranciscoBay. The immediate I project area doesnot function as a critical foraging area. Thus' no impactsto California least tems arc expected. I The Oakland Inner Harbor Channel provideslimited foraginghabitat for the Califomia brown pelican and the American peregrinefalmn. No impacts are anticipated for the California least tern or the California bmwn pelican' I (5) Desradation of Water Oualiw. As discussedin the sectionon I sedimentquality, the PAHs in the sedimentat Berth 68 exceedU.S. Army Corps of Engineersstandards for in-bay disposal. Disturbanceofthe material during dredgingcould causethe material to becomeavailable to the organisms I and biological resoutcesin the area, This would be viewedas a shor{'term temporary constructioninpact' The long-term effectsare consideredto be insignificantbased on the resultsof the bioassaytests.6 (I,s) I c. El!!!g. The footprint of the wharf extension area would consist of approximately150,300 square feet coveredby solid fill. Of the solid fill' I approximately48,20 squarefeet would be placedon previouslyuncovered benthic organisms. About 41 percentofthe area which is currently covered by pile-supportedwharf would be coveredwith solid fill. As discussedabove, I the benthic mmmunity, both under the existingwharf and in the uncovered annually dredgedareas, is a degradedbiological resource. The impact of the solid litl on the bentbic communitywould be consideredinsignificantr given I the degradedcondition ofthe resources.Therefore, no mitigation would be required under the California EnvironmentalQuality Act. The Port proposes wharf removal to meet permit requirements,as describedin subsectione. I below. I I a MEC Analytical S)Etems, lnc", Tiburul, CA Decamber, 1993. Resuttsol Chetnical Plrysicaland BioassayTesting of Sedime*s at Benh ffi, Porl oI OaHdnd- I I 2r0 T I JUNB 1994 CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E MitigationMeasure BIO-2. Pile drMng shouldbe scheduledto avoid I the periodfrom Decemberto Marchto avoiddisruptions to Paciftc herringspawning and other biological resources. I e. Shadins.Pile supportedfill constructedfor the extensionofthe wharf at HowardTerminal would shade 34,425 (112.5 by 306)square feet of the I aquaticcommunity. The shadingwould permanently reduce the amountof availablelight and,therefore, reduce plant productionin this area. The shadingimpacts are consideredinsignificanL No mitigationis requiredunder I the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act. I f. Off-SiteWharf Removal. ImoactBIO-3. In order to meetthe permit requirementsof the San FranciscoBay Area Conservationand Development Commission and the I U.S.Army Corpsof Engineers,the Port of Oaklandproposes to remove 33,000square feet of wharf(pile supportedfill) at PacificDry Dock locatedat Embarcaderoat ChannelEstuary Park and 13,590square feet at the former I SherexSite adjacent to the AmericanPresidents Line (APL) Terminal. These actionswould improve biological resources within the Middle andInner t Harbors. (B) No mitigationis required. I g. UplandDisposal and Temporarv Storage of DredgeMaterial. I (1) DredeeMaterial Rehandling Faciliw. The wallsaround the facilityhave been desigred to withstanda maximumcredible earthquake, I I 21.1 I CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT EI{!'IRONMENTAL IMPACT REFORT BIOI-OGICAL RESOURCES t If brine flies, salt mosquitosor other insectsbreed in the decantwater on the sedimentsnext to the wiers, they muld take up contaminantsfrom the water. If shorebirdseat these insects,they muld in turn take up the mntaminants. I However, it is unlikely that a sigrificant number of insectswill breed on the site becauseof the prevailing winds along the shore. Water insects are surface feeders, and rely on surface tension; wind tends to break the surface tension I of the water, making it difncult for the insects to rest on the water surface. Therefore, th€ number of insectsbreeding in the decantwater would not pose a seriousthreat to birds. This would not bc a signilicant impact. (IS) I Shorebirdsmuld also be contaminatedthrough contactwith dredge material. If migratory birds do come into contact with contaminants ftom the sediments, t it would be most likely by skin conractwirh the low conc€ntrationsof contaminantthat could dissolveinto the decantwater. The majority ofthe contaminantsare bound up in the sedimentclay/silt matrix and would only be I availableto a migrating bird through direct ingestionof the mnraminated sedimentor foragingon benthic organismsthat have themselvesingested contaminatedsediment, In general,the contaminantscan only be taken up I through ingestionwhere stomachacid would allow the contaminantto become availablefor inmrporation. Dermal contact is not mnsidered a significant I pathwayfof uptake unlessthere are exposedreceptor organs, such as gill epithelia. It is therefore reasonableto assumethat short duration dermal exposure1o migratory birds would be insignificant. I During the processof pumping the sedimentto the disposalsite, benthic organismsthat may have body burdensof contaminantscould be availableto I foragingbirds. Sensitivespecies such as tems, plovers,or billed speciesare unlikely to forage or aggressivelyout-compete local gull species.The potential for gulls to take up contaminantsis much higher in ClassII or III I landfills where highly mntaminated soils from various sourcesare accepted. No concernor obviousdestabilization of gull populationshave been noted near landfills, The dischargeof sedimentwith potential food items would be I temporary and localized"and would consistof only material in the surface sedimentlayer where there is sufficientoxygen for the benthic organismsto re,side.Many otber more typical food sourcesand foraging areasexist in the I general project vicinity. There is no reasonto believe that large groupsof migratory birds would abandonother sourcesof food in preferencefor the dredgematerial discharge. No significant impact is expected.(IS) I t I t 2r2 I I JUNE 1994 CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REFORT I BIOI.oGICAL RESOURCES (2) Upland Disnosalin Landfills. Upland disposalof dredged sedimentsat landfills would cont bute to the impactsof theselandfills on I biological resources.These impactshave been addressedin the certified environmentalimpact reports for the four candidatelandfills.D The Vasco Road landfill has eliminated 80 acresof non-nativegrassland that provided a t wildlife mrridor and suppofteda kit fox population. The Keller Canyon landfill eliminated three acresof riparian habitat and four heritage trees,and disturbs SanJoaquin pocket mouse,Alameda striped racer and tiger I salamander. If leachatesreach gloundwater,mntaminants muld affect aquatic habitat downstream. The recentlyapproved Redwood landfill expansionwill disturb a half-acreof jurisdictional wetland and an area of oak I woodland.and birds could transfer microbial or chemicalmntaminants to other biota, The Forward landfill EIR has no biotic section;this indicates that biotic impactswere mnsidered less than significantin the Initial Study. I All of the biotic impactsidentified in the landfill EIRs are being mitigated to a lessthan significantlevel. I h. Deepeninsof Berths 22. 23. 24. 30. 67 and 68. Merritt sands,which are needed for fill on the project,would be obtainedby deepeningthese berths I from 42 feet plus two feet overdredgg to 44 feet plus two feet overdredge. Merritt sandshave never been exposedto man-madecontaminants and have no adversebiological effects. The newly exposedsediments resulting from I dredgingat theseberths would exposecompacte4 uncontaminat€{ and biologicallyfavorable sediments. Releaseof contaminantsfrom, or resuspensionof, this sedimentwould be unlikely. Tbe dredging of Merritt t sands ond subsequentusc as fill on tbe project would have no significant impacL No mitigation is required. I I I I 'Alameda Cannry, Vatco Road Sanitary Landfll Area 'P'E;qosion Enl/"rcntne 6l ImIEd Repn, 1994, State Clearinghous€ Number 87022420; Contra Csta County, Keller Canyon I Laadfill Envirowae*al Impacr Repofi, Draft 1989, Final 1990' State Clearinghouse Number 8904O415;Woodward Clyde for Marin C-o\roty,Redwod LatdfA SoUd WasteFa.ilitia Perrnit Eryanrion Project Eniromenlat Impad Reporl, 1994, State Clearingbouse Number 91G3042; I.SA Assosiates for San Joaquin Counf, For*'$d Landfill Use Pennit Modificatiotu t Envirorvflaxal Impaar Rep\ 1993, State Clearirghouse Number 926201!}. I ztJ I CIIARI-Es P, HOWARD TERMINAL E (TENSION JUNE T9C4 DRAFT EWIRONMENIAL IMPACT REPORT BIOI'CICAL RESOURCES JUNE 1994 CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION I DRAFT E}WIRONMENTAI- IMPACT REPORT PUBLIC SERVICES AND UIILTIIES I I I L Public Servicesand Utilities ltl t Setting a. Water Sewice.Water service in the City of Oaklandis providedby the I East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMLID), a publicly ownedutility which designs,constructs, opentes, and maintainsthe water distribution system. EBMUD provideswater to 20 citiesand 15towns in Alamedaand Contra I CostaCounty, with a total consumptionof 215million gallonsper day. The primarywater sourc€ is PardeeReservoir in the foothillsof the Sierras,a I few milesoutside the tovmof Jackon. Raw (untreated)water is transported 91.5miles to the sevenEast Bay filter plantsand storedin tbe SanPablo' Upper SanLeandro, Chabot, Lafayette, and Briones terminal reservoirs in the I Fast Bayhills, The reservoirshave a mmbinedmaximum capacity of 155,150acre feet of untreatedwater and hold a four to six monthsupply. I EBMUD publishedthe Uflated WaterSupply Management Plan EIR in February1993. EBMUD expectsits water needsto increasebecause the numberof customersis projectedto increase.In addition,EBMUD foresees I a decreasein its supply.For example,use of MokelumneRiver waterby non- EBMUD usersis expectedto increase,allocations for fisheriescould increase, t and droughtsmuld recur. EBMUD hasestimated that it needsan additional 130,000acre feet to limit rationingto 25 percentin a worst-casedrought scenario. If EBMUD's UpdatedWater Supply Manageme* Pkr is successful, I EBMUD will be ableto providewater for the levelof developmentprojected by the Associationof BayArea Govemmentsin its servicearea. T The projectsite is servicedby gravity-fedwater lines, including a 10-inchline north€astof the site underMartin Luther King,Jr. Wayand an 8-inchline eastof the site underMyrtle Street. In 1981,the existingon-site water lines t wereabandoned and replacedwith lineswhich provide for both ftre and domesticwater service, The existinglines provide flows of 1,500gallons per minutefor fire purposesand 600gallons per minutefor domesticpurposes. I The existingwater lines on-site vary in sizefrom 3 to 8 inches.Berth 10 has I waterservice for fire flow. t 21,5 t C}iARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT ENVIRONMEI.ITAL IMPACT REPORT PUBLIC SERVICES AND UNLXNES I b. SewerSewice. Both the City of Oakland and East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMtlD) provide sewer service to the ptoject site. The City of Oakland owns and operatesthe sewercollection systemwithin the City I limits. EBMUD owns and operatesthreo interceptingsewen in Alameda County, which collects wastewater from sewer systemsin nine cities in Alameda and Contra Costa County,and transportsit to EBMUD'S treatment T facility. The treated wastewateris dischargedinto San FranciscoBay' The EBMUD Wa$tewaterTreatment Plant, located in Oakland near the San I Francisco-OaklandBay Bridge, has a peak dry weather capacityof 128 million gallonsper day (ngd) for both primary and semndarytreatment. It has an averagedry weather flow of 83 rngd. Wet weather capacityis 458 mgd. t EBMUD has no plans to expandits wastewatertreatment capacity. The project site is locatedin District One, which is servedby EBMUD's South I Interceptor. This 108-inchinterceptor is located along SecondStreet. Isteral sewerlines from the terminal areasconnect to the interceptor at Market T Street,Martin Luther King Jr. Way and Clay Streets. The collectedsewage is treated at the District's treatment plant near the Bay Bridge approach' Berth 10 doesnot havesewer service. I c, VesselWastes. Howard Terminal doesnot provide waste disposal sewicesfor shipscalling at the terminal. Coast Guard regulationsrequire I shipsto disposeof oily wastes,bilge, and garbagethree miles out to sea' or to contain them while the shipsare in pon. Ifa ship is in port long enoughto exceedits holding capacity,it mntracts with private mmpanies who haul away I sewageand garbageby truck. If new regulationsare adoptedrestricting waste disposalat sea,Howard Terminal has existingsewer pipelines to B€rths 67 and 68 so that sewerservice could be provided to shipsin the future' I d. Fire Protection. The City of Oakland Fire Department providesfire protection serviceto the project site. The Fire Department currently has I approximately123 fire fighterson duty per day, organizedinto 23 engine mmpanies and sevenladder truck companies. The total fire suppressionforce is 474 uniformed personnel. All fire stationsprovide "first response" I emergencymedical services;ambulance response is provided by a County mntracted ambulanceservice. Emergencymedical responsescomprise 73 perc€nt of the Department'sresponses. I The nearestfire station to the project site is Station 2 immediatelysoutheast I of tbe site adjacentto the FDR Pier. The station has a total staff of 12, working four per shift. Station 2 equipment includesa pumper engine' a I I 21,6 t I ruNEree4 CTIARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION DRAFT E}WI RONMENIAL IMPACT REPORT PUBLIC SERVICESAND UTILIIIES I 32-foot fire boat (soonto be replacedby a 65-foot boat), an air van for filling I air bottles,and a foamsuppression apparatus.r e. Police Protection, The project site receivespolice protection from the City of Oakland.The City'sFolice Department has 35 beatsCity-wide and I approximately608 swornpolice otficers. The OaklandPolice Department receivesbetween 4,000 and 5,000calls per day. The City keepstrack of dispatchtimes, which measuresthe time from receipt of a call to the time an I officeris assigned.Dispatch times throughout the City arewell within the City's standards,which are broken down into three priority mdes. Priority A calls,the mosturgent calls, have a dispatchtime goalof2 minutes,and an I actualaverage dispatch time of 1.7minutes. Pdority B callg whichare less urgent,have a l5-minutedispatch time goal,and a 1o.8-minuteactual average dispatchtime. PriorityC calls,which are not urgent,have a 60-minute I dispatchgoal time andan actualaverage dispatch time of 51.4minutes. The site is locatedin Beat 1 and is servedby a one-personpatrol car in I operationZ hoursper day, Beatt ha$4? officers,who work in threeshifts to prwide Z4-hourpatrolling. The beatextends from the waterto 27thStreet I and ftom Emeryvitleto 5th Street.'? I L Impactsand MitigationMeasures a. SienificanceCriteria. The levelof sigrrificancefor publicservices and utilitiesis basedon CEQA requirements.A projectwill normallyhave a I significanteffect on the environmentif it will: . Encourageactivities which result in the useof largeamounts of water. I . Useswater in a wastefulmanner. . Extenda sewertrunk line with capacityto servenew development. I . Inteffere with emergencyresponse plans or emergencyevacuation plans. b. Water Service.Water use at HowardTerminal would increase but not I effectEBMUDS water main facility or capabilityof supp$ngwater to meet the demand.This wouldbe considered a lessthan signilicantimpact. (I-S) I The Port useswater for steamcleaning equipment, supplying vesselS and providing gangs I drinkingwater andtoilets for longshore and regularPon t Uoyd salisbury, Engineer, Oakla$d Firc Departmebt, Station 2, January 11, 1994. I 1 Ricbard Zamora. Oakland Police DepartmeDt. January 13, 1994. I 11.1 I C}IARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAT E TTENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT ENVIRONMET{TALIMPACT REPORT PUBLIC SERVICESAND UTILITIES I employees.Howard Terminal usesapproximately 8,600 to 8,900gallons per day.3 The 67 percentincrease in shipscalling at Howard Terminal could increasewater use to 14,300to 14,900gallons per day. Thiswould be a I .027 petcentincrease in EBMUD water; however,EBMIID would not mnsiderit a substantialincrease and has the capacityto meetthe prqjected waterdemands.a In addition,the existing&inch mainis an adequatesize to I supplywater.s The transit shedwater lines will be removedwith the demolition of the transit I shedbuilding. This wouldbe considereda lessthan signilicantinpact. (I5) The wharfsother 4-inchand 6-inch domestic and fire waterlines do not I extendto the propos€dextension area at Befth 68. As part of the project plans,the Port proposes4-inch domestic water line extensions,new outlets, andtwo newfire hydrantsin order to supplydomestic and fire waterto ships I dockedalong the newwharf extension at Berth 68. This wouldbe considercd a lesslhal significant impact. ([5) I No mitigationmeasures are necessary. t c. W4S!9gA!9I_TreA!!!g!U.The main sourcefor sanitarywastewater dischargedue to the proposedproject would be ftom restroomsand possibly from truck and mntainer washing. The proposedproject is not anticipatedto I significantlyincrease the wastewaterdischarge and doesnot includeany plans for newsewer hookups. The projectis unlikelyto havea significantimpact on EBMUD'swastewater transmision or treatmentfacilities. The Port wouldbe t chargeda WastewaterCapacity Fee basedon projectedwastewater flows to contributeto fundingof futureupgrades and expansions.This wouldbe considereita lessthan slgnifrcantimpact. (I5) I No mitigationmeasures afe Decessary. I d. VesselWastes. The completionofthe proposedproject would accommodatean increasein shippingtraffic. Thiswould lead to a proportionatelyslight increase in vesselwastes disposed of at leastthree miles I out to sea. Tbis wouldbe considercda lessthan significantimpact. (lS) I ' sott Thodas, Steven Owefls Se/vices, Howard Terminal, January 14, 1994. I I John Houlihan, EBMUD, April 6, 1994. t Bill Mccowen, EBMUD April 6, 1994. I I 2t8 I JUNE 1994 C}IARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E (TENSION t IMPACT REPORT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL I PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTTLITTES No mitigationmeasures are necessarT. I e. Fire Protection.The demolitionofthe transil shedbuilding which posesa fire hazardwould reduce the currentfire hazardson site. Thus,no staffingincreases would result from the proposedproject. This wouldbe a I benefici:alimpact. (B) I No mitigationmeasures are ne@ssary. f, Police Protection. The increasein activity due to additional ships callingat HowardTerminal would not requirean increaseto policestaffing or I equipmentneeds, result in a changeto responsetimes, nor resultin unsafe conditionsat and aroundthe projectsite. The proposedwharf extension would not lead to a needfor additionalpolice staffingwithin Beat 1. In I addition,the increasein trucksexiting the terminaland weighed by the Police Departmentcan be handledwith currentstaffing levels.o Therc would be no I impacton policeservices as a resultof the project (I5) t No mitigationmeasures are necessary. I I I I I I t I o ScarlettKu, Oakland Police DepartmeDtPlanning Division, January 13, 1994. I 21,9 I CTiARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL D(TENSION JUNE 199.r DRAFT EIWIRONMENIhL IMPACT REPORT PUBLIC SERVICES AND UIILITIES I JUNE 1994 CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL EXTENSION DRAFT ENVI RONMENTAI IMPACT REPORT I PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION t I M. Public Accessand Recneation lal I Setting a. Existing Public Accessand Recreationprovisions. Existing public I accessand recreation areas near th€ project sit€ are shown in Figure 25. Existing public accessprovisions extend continuou$ty from the public access I path at the City of Oakland Firehouseadjacent to Howard Terminal, southwardthrough Jack Lnndon Squareto the vicinity of Webster Street, where the path is interrupted by Port buildings and Jack London Village. I These provisionsinclude the FDR Public Accesspier west of the central area ofJack Inndon Square,and a variety of public accessprovisions in Jack London Square,including marinag gatheringplaces, viewing and resting areas, t and linear paths along the water's edgeof the Inner Harbor. I Within the Port of Oaklandjurisdiction, Estuary park is located on the Inner Harbor at the edgeofthe Lake Merritt channel. This park on port land was developedand is maintainedby the City of Oakland. It includesa boat I launch facility on the channel,and passiveand active recreation facilities. As noted above,there is a discontinuousshoreline public accesspath between I Jack London Squareand Estuary Park. Ttvo miles to the east of the project site, Lake Merrirt in the City of Oakland is the nearestmajor recreationfacility, with a multi-purposepath suuounding I the lake, a boat house,amusement parks, gardensand numerouspublic facilities. I In addition to the FDR Pier and Jack London Squarepublic accessareas, the Port of Oakland has within its maritime area and jurisdiction the porwiew Park public accessfacility at the SeventhStreet Marine Terminal, about four I miles to the west of Howard Terminal. The new portview park now under constructionwill have public fishing facilities,areas for passiverecreation, and I a public accesspath along the water,sedge. There is also a public accesspark and fishing pier, Middte Harbor park, I within the Port's maritime jurisdiction. The pier is accessedby Ferro Street I 221 t CHARLESP, HOWARD TERMINAL H(TENSION JUNE T994 I DRAFT EItvI RONMENTAT IMPACT REPORT PUBLIC ACCESSAND RECREATION t via Middle Harbor Roa4 and has a parking area and fishing and picnicking facilities. I Berth 10 doesnot have pubic accessbecause it is located betweena container terminal and the Army terminal. Army and maritime usesoccupy the area betweenBerth 10 and public and residentialuses. I b. Plans for Future Public Accessand Recreation. The San FranciscoBay Trail is a regional multi-purposetrail that will provide a continuouslink I around the Bay.l The alignment in this area will be the public accesspath that follows the waterfront in the vicinity of Jack London Square. The Bay Trail will parallel the Embarcaderonorth of Howard Terminal continuingwest I and north to Mandela Parkway,with a spur to Middle Harbor Park and Portview Park. I Requirementsfor the main trail are a path with a minimum width of 10-12feet, designedto be accessiblefor the physicallychallenged. t c. @. The Port proPosesboth new and improved public accessareas. Figures26-29 show the proposedpublic access T area. The following public accessand recreation featureswould be paft of the project: . The new public accesswould be a public walkway around the harbor I side of Shenanigan'sRestaurant, connecting the existingpublic access boardwalkon the north of the restaurantto the existingpublic access path on the south at Alice Street. This componentofthe projec.twould I provide continuouspublic accessalong the water from FDR Pier to Estuary Park, exceptfor a brief interruption betweenthe EI Pescatori Restaurantand Jack london Mllage. I . Public accesswould be improved along the existingpathway from Alic€ Street south to KTVU. This public accesspath is now a 10 foot asphalt I pavedpath with no plantingsor other improvements. The Port proposesto seal-cotethe path, provide lanGcaping,an improved edge along the bay and two accesspoints with seating. The Alice Street I terminus area would be improvedwith landscapingand amenities,such as seatingand sigtage, I T 1 San Francisco Bay Trail Project, San Francisco Bry Trajl, Association of Bay Area Governments, 1990, I I 222 I IIIIIIIIIIIIII N ffi ? FEI io iF$F'HF r-EEnFll -tiFiF nFn"FiF -EFiHF n"n-FHh .gLJr_rl--.jg--F-i-= '^t tD t.) r'! ;: "E raoelE (D IH^ raoc -! ; E-V ..ooT tffiH $ll sl e3 E r.oe; lw2 iz - rr. >-i r) L H \ :BE -**-a lr: >ln P 0c !: !: di a €li gs!E 6' A6 f) g,T 6 Q- ; tD ii otDO fi6 F I Fl NJ a: Rr a ii.-a.t ;H Di Z;i a a { = ;_= o i:ll rFia E F6. l ii =Ll t.) o IIIIIIIIIITIIIII'II F Y { .lt 2 I I l' a p t> o t4 ProjectLimit sl 6' il 'ffi_ ,ffi\ -r-rl l kr\ Alice Sueet @ cftr .ct :t t : d .J d ni + a o o > I .d >u< F a E{ o-,^\ F .z\ o o \\ Eq <,/o \/ 6 ?16 t s a rd !t ts o { D o ,t E p if'ffi o Et tl .; o Ir ll i ii I tD =H iaLL rr, jL -.tLJ (D tl ?T' t1 3Ff^ E;; U' tD .! ; q-s qII c+ 9g P oq i3 - F.;i A 0a :F0 (, i; *TJ--r I r ^ F]EI (n a V1-.4 \.,1 t'.J "ll \7rQ ;s,: tt (.) o\ &" o(D !! (\r O tD a ;21 n @ 1 (? g. (Da .) Fl. lg (D rt (" ctt i;.Ll .A .) I P I I I I I I I I I t I I I t VerticalSculptures Benches I Low WallAlandrail I Sourcr: Brrdj rnd Assoclrtes 1t94 CharlesP. Howard I TerminalExtension FIGI,JRE27 ElvtiorarEITAtlllPlcT REPOnT ProposedPublic Access Port of Oahland SectionB: Infrastructure Park I a rl and View From Alice Street c I AT E s I BnloY AND A s s o 10'Path ConcreteDebris Stairs soure: Brrdt rrd Assoclateq 1944 CharlesP. Howard TerminalExtension FIGURE28 E}IVIRO}ITE}IIALIIPACT BEPORI Port of Oakland ProposedPublic Access SectionC: ConcreteLanding BrlpY AND AssocIATEs r\J-1 -l ,pffi.'rLJ 10'Path Boulders ravel Bank Source: Brldt rnd Ascodateq 1994 CharlesP. Howard TerminalExtension FIGURE29 El| 80t{rEITAt- t{PACI REPOnT Port of Oakland ProposedPublic Access !ta SectionD: Boulder Benches BneoY AND AssocrATJs CTIARLBS P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JTJNE1994 I DRAFT E}{vI RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECF€ATION I . Viewing of Port maritime actMties at Howard Terminal would be facilitatedwith educationalexhibits located on the FDR Pier, explaining activitiesat the teminal. I These public accessimprovements would complete a critical link in the spur trail for the Bay Trail system,closing the gap around Jack I-ondon Village. I Future developmentby the Port of a marina betweenJack Ilndon Village and Jack l-ondon Squarewill likely completethe link so there will be continuous waterside accessbetween Estuary Park and the FDR Pier. I d. PoliciesRegardins Public Access. The City of Oakland Comprehensive I Plan (amended1980) shows proposed park linkagesalong the waterfront from the foot of Broadwayto Estuary Park, and along the Lake Merritt Channel. It also showsa proposedrecreational bikeway from Lake Merritt, along the I Bstuary through Jack London Squareand then north and west along a route to be determinedto crossunder the freewaydistribution structure to Emeryville. I (1) Citv of Oakland. The Open Spaceand Natural Resources Element of the Oakland ComprehensivePlan includesthe following policy T regardingpublic access: General Considerations I Policy 7: In the developmentof shoreline areas,every teasonable effort should be made to provide attractivepublic lccess to the water'edge I (Pc.J-2) Two policies in the Parks & RecreationElement of the Oakland t ComprehensivePlan relate specificallyto the waterfront: The Parks and Recreation Svstem I Policy Ij: A wide mnge of boating,fishing and other public and T commercial recreation usesshould be prwided along OaHand's waterfront. (Ps.I-2) I Policy 14: A citywide sy*em of pedestrianwaysand bicyclepaths will be develapd. (Pg. I-2) T (2) San FranciscoBav Consewationand Development Commission (BCDO. In actordancewith the McAteer Petris Act, BCDC requires new I I LJU I JUNE 1994 CTIARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL D(IENSION I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PUBL|C ACCESSAND RECREATION I development to comply with its San Francisco Bay Plan2 policies regarding I public accessand recreation. The Public Accesspolicies state: Policy 1: Maximum feasible accessto and along the waterfront and on any permitted fills should be provided h and throtqh everynew T devebpment in the Bay acept in caseswhere publit accessis clearly iaconsistentwilh the project becauseof public safetyconsiderations or signifuant use conflicts In these cases,access at other locationspreferably I near the pruject, should be provided wheneverfeasible. This accessusually consLstsof pedestizn accessto and.along the waterfront (Pg. 27) I Policy Z Ptblic accessshonld be providcd to permit study and enjoyment of the bay and estuaryvi4 boardwallc or pien (Pg. 27) I Polity 4: Public accessimprovements should permit banier-free accessfor the physitally challengedto the maximum feasibb e*ent, shouU inclu.de an on-going maintenanceprqram, and.shouA be identified with I appropriate signs. (Pg. 27) Policy 6: Accessto the watetront shoul.dbe provid.edby wallat ays or I other appropriatemeans and connect to the nearestpublb thoroughfare where convenientparking or public transportation may be available I (Pg.27) Policy 9: The Public AccessSupplement to the Boy Pbn shouW be usd I as a guide in determining whethera project provi.desmaximum feasible public access The Design Reviev+'Board shouU ad.visethe Commission I regardingthe adquacy of the public accessapproved (Pg. 28) Impacts and Mitigation Measures I a. SimificanceCriteria. AppendixG of the CEQA Guidelinesestablishes that a projectwill normallyhave a significantimpact on publicaccess and recreationif it will: I . Havea substantial,demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. I . Conflictwith establishedrecreational uses of the area. I t San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, San Francisco Bay PIon, I SFBCDC 1986. as amended, I 231 t CI{ARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAI E(TENSION JUNE T994 t DRAFT EIWIRONMENIAL IMPACT REPORT PUBLIC ACCESSAND RECREATION I b. PublicAccess. The directeffect ofthe proposedproject on public accesswould be beneficial.The Port proposesto providean improvedpublic a@essarea and important accesslink as part of the project. I ImpactACCESS-I: BCDC'spreference is for on-sitepublic access; however, becausesecurity and functionalmnsiderations make on-site public access t infeasiblgthe bestoptions for off-sitepublic access have been incorporated into the project. Visualaccess to th€ proposedexpanded maritime actMties wouldbe providedas part of publicaccess provisions. (B) I No mitigation me:tsuresare necessary,assuming implementation of the proposedpublic access along the Oaklandwaterfront near Alice Street. t I I I I I I I I I I I t 232 I I JUNE 1994 CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E I Setling a. IBb!g!. The area of Oaklandin which the CharlesP. Howard I Terminal is locate4 from Interstate 880 to the waterfront and from Broadway northw€stto Adeline Street,is dominatedby medium to large two- to four- storyindustrial buildings, sited on regularcity blocksin a grid pattem, The I wide streetswith railroadtracls, absenceof uniformstreet trees, and overhead wiringvisible in the streetscontribute to the industrialcharacter of the area. Industryremains the dominantland use but the areanearest Broadway is I slowlymnverting to officeand retail commercialuses. Eastof HowardTerminal and mntinuingeast from Broadway,the area I changesin characterfrom industrialto mmmercialand of6ceuse. The ProduceDistrict is locatedin this are4 as is JackI-ondon Square. I Viewpointlocations referenced below are shownin Figure30. I b. The ProiectSite. HowardTerminal is sitedat the edgeof the City on a Port of Oaklandwharf that extendsdiagonally into the Inner Harbor. The terminalis in an areaof the Port with festrictedaccess, and so is usually I inaccessibleto non-Portemployees. The mostvisible portion ofthe terminal is the transitshed (Figure 31, photos 1 and2 from within the terminal,not public views). This building is a massivestmcture, painted blue. The north I and eastfacades ofthe buildingare visible to the public. The northemmain facade(Head House) is 40 to 45 feet high,equivalent to a three-story building and200 feet long abouta third the lengthofa city block. The I eastemfacade is 450feet long and33 feet high. The historic'beauxart" architecturalstyle of the buildingand the distinctblue colorcontribute to the prominenceof the shedas an importantvisual element along the watedront. I Eventhough the terminalis inaccessibleto the publiq the sizeand locationof the transitshed building make it a majorvisual element in manybayward viewsalong the Inner Harbor (photo3). The shedrests on a concretewharf I elevatedby pilesabout four feet abovethe highesttides (ten feet abovemean I sealevel). I 233 t CHARI-ES P. HOWARD TERMINAI E(TENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VISUAL RESOURCES I c. Views from On-Site. Views from within the teminal itself are varied. The transit shed blocksviews to the south and east and is the major structure on site. Gantry cranesare a strongvertical element,ftaming and accenting I views to the water (photo 4 from within the terminal, not a public view). The terminal wharf is filled with equipment,containers, vehicles and loading facilities. From the terminal there are open views acrossthe Inner Harbor to I the Alameda waterfront, bayward(photo 5) and southeastto the Jack Irndon waterfront where the seven-storyPort building is a key feature. The public does not generally have accessto views from the wharf. I d. Views from Off-Site, The Howard terminal transit shed is one of severallarge historic buildings in the area; it is infrequently seenfrom I surroundingstreets as the property is fencedand inaccessibleto the public from city streets. It is visible from the FDR pier, the foot of Clay Street,and from the end of JeffersonStreet where from these locationsHoward terminal I servesas a focal point and marks the water's edge. From the chain link fence Iocatedat the end of Martin Luther King Jr. Way (which is part of the teminal), the terminal yard and the western long facadeof the transit shed I becomevisible behind mntainers and equipment. From south of Broadway, the terminal is visible only from the waterftont edge,where the transit shed I providesan important mmponent of the view west along the Inner Harbor, directing viewsbayward. I Howard terminal is most visible from the FDR Pier, the Inner Harbor, Jack I-ondon Square,and severalpoints along the Alameda waterfront. It can be glimpsedfrom the industrial area to the north and from piers south of Jack I I-ondon Square. Theseviews are describedbelow. (1) Views from Jack London Souare. The transit shed is most visible I from the FDR Pier, located directly acrossthe water from the Howard terminal and in front of the Port Building (photo 3). This pier functionsas the primary public accesspoint near the terminal. The ferry terminal for San I Franciscoand Oakland is accessedadjacent to the FDR pier, Views ofthe shed are unobstructedfrom any point on this pier, and the shed dominates views to the west, closingoff viewsof maritime activitieson the terminal, but I also providing closureto the view and drawing the eye to the water and the bay. At this distance,one can seebuilding details. The public can also view the transit shed from a doclaide area west of rhe FDR Pier where the I Potomac ship is docked (from area shown in Figure 32, photo ?), which is opened for specialevents. The view may, however,be blocked by container storage. T I I 234 I I IIIIIIIII a'-'tA ouj ffiq ffiffi -mr !> ffi tx qm -ll--f tl ll JTt] rIn lIr I l---t t---t l ]LJL-JI ]EDI -< F=< FE ' *) EF ;o €= _:€g=' o i< Ir-l^ ; €a o -io- = E-V ; ii a. oa ,. :: ,.t Tl l+ e3 E #seE'z =Es 309= .O 6:: =rd 'S* = ii'r'. 's9,iAIF!{ c,(D O ei"E v ;; € A\ :r! F:(+ sq a 4:;^ F({ q?E= av) o IIIIITTIIIIIII III s { { 3 € { F € 2 FI !^ s s € o 3 a ,t : :." s € l1r d 3 € L-,/ 6' :> Ill^ = .D-( J tD .t !Fr5 { (+ 93s (t T] :> ! +d iE s I - rn.v .D 'r, u) _l i ii' (! s. .?(Do aE.S a ,!, i9 x (D = - a{r ='J IIITIIIIIIJIIIIIIII : { U t ci 3 ,l 3 9'o oa a p {< =6' ={ {: E7 j: =' l. 4 il t \l X> o- =FO (D \ sl 93 P { = i' !-! U) >,a l \ ?Bg oa I (D E !i' '-, (, >F. o(D O tD t9 ;; { T ;-. !D a =14 tsar i9 a (D JUNE 1994 CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E I To the immediateeastn the publicareas adjacent to the Port Buildingalso provideclear views of the terminal. This openspace grass area is scheduled I for hotel developmentwith public accessconsistent with th€ JackI-ondon SquareMaster Plan. I Howard Terminal is visible from the linear public spacealong the water's edge in Jack l-ondon Square, As the viewer movestoward the city from the water's edge,however, views of the terminal are obstructedby buildings' suchas the I waterfront PlazaHotel and the Port Building. Southof FranHinStreet, views of the terminalfrom the watert edgeare mainlyobstructed by buildings'such as Kincad'sRestaurant, although the ttansit shedcan be seenfiom the I FranklinStreet Pier where the SaltyDog Restaurantis located(photo 6). The transitshed is visiblefrom areaseast of JackLondon Village and from I the publicaccess path that extendsea$t from the Village. A\ Viewsfrom the IndustrialArea to the North. In viewsfrom the industrialarea no h of HowardTerminal, a third of the mainnorth facade I (HeadHouse) of the transitshed is visibleas a tenninusto JeffersonStreet (photo 8). The view from JeffersonStreet is sometimesblocked by stacksof containers.The shedis alsoseen in occasionalviews from the Embarcadero' I Viewsof the transitshed from other streetsin this areaare blockedby buildingsor port structures,fences and equipment,although gantry cranes are I visiblebehind and abovethe buildings,until the vieweris at the edgeof Port propertyat the endof Martin LutherKing Jr. Waywhere the transitshed and I terminalare visible (photo 9). (3) Viewsfrom Alameda,From the ferry terminalin Alamedathe southand west facades of the transitshed are clearlyseen as a distantbut t substantialmmponent of the Oaklandshoreline. The transitshed is distinguishedfrom the other buildingsby its size,detailing and mlor' The remainderof the terminalis seenas a miscellanyof containers,cranes' I equipmentand vessels (photo 10). In viewsfrom MarinerSquare in Alamedq the transitshed can be most I clearlyseen from the SanFrancisco Bay Yachting Center' where it appearsas a closeand dominantfeature ofthe oppositeshoreline. This viewbecomes obscuredby buildings(the RustyPelican and Chevy'srestaurants) as th€ I viewermoves eastward (photo 11). I I I 241 I CHARI.ES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E (TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT EI.IVI RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I VISUAL RESOURCES €. Views of Berth 10. Berth 10 is visible from the container terminals to I the south and the Army teminal to the north and east. It appearsas a flat area with stacls of containers and light standards. These views are generally I restricted to employeesat the container terminals and Army terminal. f. PoliciesReqardins Visual Resources. I (1) Port of Oakland Desim Guidelinesfor Jack London Souarg. The Guidelinesfor View Corridors statesthat view corridors must be I established to protect and maintain imponant views from entry and actMty points, and along important movement oorridors. The policies relevant to the proposed project are as follows: I Policy Z Vlewsfrom each of the four maior activity qtaces (Broadway Terminus, FDR Piq, Lot 1 Phza, and Food Pavilion; and Lot 3) to other T spacesand to thc Estuary shall be protected, Policy 3: Vraw along the waterfront walk to other parts of the walk and I out over the woter must be kcpt as unrestrictedos possible. (2) Ciw of Oakland. The Oakland ComprehensivePlan contains I policies in the Land Use Element related to visual resources.The policies relevant to the proposedproject are as follows: I Policieson Urban Design and Preservation I Policy 1 : The City will purcue a continuing, comprehensiveprocess of urban designto seizeoryortunities as they occur and diect physical changestoward a more efftcient, more livablc, more beautiful and more I dramatic urban environment. (Pg. H-S) Policy 2: The City wiL seethat all public facilities . . . form in the I aggqate a logi.cal visibleframework which oryanizesand stimulates pivate development. (Pg. H-5) I Policy 4: Every effort shouA be made lo presene those oder buildings, other physical feotures, sites,and areaswhbh have signifrcanthistoical' archilecturol, or other specialinterest or value. (P8,.H'6) I PoliciesRelating to the Natural Setting I Policy 1: Urban developmentwherever it occurs should be related sensitivelyto the natural setling, wirh the scale and intensity of development I ,\^. I I JUNE 1994 CTIARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL EJ(TENSION I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VISUAL RESOURCES I h eachcase bearing 4 reasonablerelationship to thephysical I chamcteisticsof the site (Pg'H'1) ScenicCorridors. Howard terminal is not visiblefrom Interstate580' whichis desigratedby the OaklandComprehensive Plan as a ScenicRoute. I However,the OaklandComprehensive Plan indicates a possiblefuture designationfor portionsofthe Embarcadero.The City haspolicies, but no t restrictionsor guidelinesfor propertiesvisible from scenicroutes. (3) BCDC. The SanFrancisco Bay Plan, administered by the San FranciscoBay Consewationand DevelopmentCommission (BCDC)' co[tains I policies regardingappoarance' design and scenicviews. The policiesrel€vant to the proposedproject are as follows: I Pohcy1: To enhancethe visualquatity of developmenlaround the Bay and to takc mocimumadvantage of the attractivesetting it provdes,the shoresof the Bayshould be devetopedin accordancewith the Public I AccessDesign Guidelines and the GeneralDevelopment Guide. (PS'29) Policy3: In someareas, a small amountof fiIl may be allowedif thefill I is necessary-andis the minimum absolutelyrequired-to develop thc projectin accord.ancewith the Commission'sdesign recommendation* t es.a) Poticy 5: To enhsncethe maritime atmosphereof the Bay Area, potts I should be designed,whenever feasibb, to permit public accessand viewing of port activiliesby means of (a) viewpoints (e.g.,pierc, platforms, ot tot*eu), restourunts,etc, that would not interfere with port operations,and I (b) openingsbetween buildings and othet site designsthat petmil views from nearbyroatls. (fu. 29) I Policy 14: Wewsof the Bay ftom vistapoints, from roads, and from other areasshould, be maintained fo appropriateanangements and heights of all developmentsand landscapingbetween the view areasand the n)ater," I (Pc.i0) Policy 15: Vista points should be provided in the general locations I indicated in the Plnn maPs. Accessto vistapoints should be provided by wa The San FranciscoBay Plan Map for the project area showsa West Basin of I the Jack I-ondon SquareMarina adjacentto the Howard terminal, and states ' that at Jack London Squarecontinuous public accessshould be provided along t the Estuary to the l-ake Merritt Channel. 2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures I a. SignificanceCriteria. The lwel of significancefor visual resourcesand aesthetic,sis basedon QI,QA requirements, A project will normally have a I significant effect on the environment if it will: . Have a substantial, demonstrable neg tive aesthetic effect. t b. Effect on Views of Howard terminal. Sigificant visual impactsof removal of the transit shedwould be on views from the FDR Pier, the public t areasin front of the Port Administration Building and the waterfront Plaza Hotel, and from the water's edgepublic accessfacilities at Jack London Square. The transit shedhas two primary visual functions from these areas: I one is as a historic building that was part of the old Grove Street Pier; and the other is to frame views to the northwestand direct them to the waterscape of the Inner Harbor and more distant Bav, I The transit shedhas aestheticallypleasing character and historic significance; thus, the removal of the transit shedwould have a sigrrifrcantadverse effect on I views from the FDR Pier, the public area just east of the FDR Pier, and Jack I-ondon Square. Upon project mmpletion, the open views of the wharf would be predominatelythe cranesand the multi-colored cargo mntainers stacked I four high and reachingapproximately 38 feet in height, as shownin Figure 33. Removal of the shedwould, however,open up the view toward the terminal, the water, and the distant San Franciscoskyline. I With the removal of the transit shed and the extensionof the wharf, the characterof the area would changeand have an impact on views from the I Inner Harbor and the City of Alameda. However,these impacts would be less than significantbecause of distance, I Views of part of the Head House from Jeffersonwould also be affected. Removal of the Head House and transit shedwould open views into the wharf I from JeffersonStreet. Dependingon the fencingdesigr and treatment ofthe wharf, the changecould be adverse,but would not be consideredsignificant. I Overall, the view would changefrom an aestbeticallypleasing character becauseof the transit shedbeing a prominent feature to a lessaesthetic I u4 I I IIIIIIIII-IIIIIIIII (n rn X U) I o 0c g li o . ]: o € { FI { I 'o F?r-l 9- (n i (D Fl ,. 'l g o' t, f,fr H E ri H nl p t6' F0 .) H Fl |J f firi,' i ;l o o) rn rn '-) g g rj FrJ U U (? rD r.t F- ;i. < F> o- Edo Fn > r-l \ 6' <2< 3E> oF E E:]?E IfD 'lJ oc =;z *+ l- :' 3U ELu, o(n t- Fil is> "- l-l 'v E Z rn EE ;y6 o S 'Uil i:- N F#F .!a> s ila s i*; 'dLD o5 qsr o z .) JUNE 1994 CHARLESP. HOWARDTERMINAL E (TENSION I DRAFT ET'IVIRONMEI.TTAL IMPACT REPORT VISUAL RESOURCES I characterof waterfront industry becauseof the placementof additional cargo containers. However, sincethe area is used for maritime industry, the cargo I containers are an expected feature to be viewed on the wharf. The view opportunity presented by the proximity of public accessto the proposed wharf extensionis unique; such opportunitiesare not availableat other ports. There I is sufficient distanceto appreciateth€ magnitudeof Howard Terminal operationswithin the context of the waterfront. I Visual benefits of the project would result from the opening of views into the Port's maritime activitiesfrom the FDR Pier and the area adjacentto the Port Building assumingthat th€ area is not screenedfrom view. This area is I accessiblefrom downtown OaHand and public transit and gets used by many people. The opening of views to any operating terminal will allow viewersto I see port operationswhich is not feasibleat port operationsin the Bay Area. Impact VIS-I: Removal ofthe transit shed,an aestheticallypleasing architecturalterminus for the pedestrianaccess along the shore,would be a I significant adverse impact on views from FDR Pier. The current view would be replacedby a more industrial view of Howard Terminal operations.(S) I Mitigation Measure WS-l: The Port should provide an all-weather educationalexhibit on the FDR Pier that includesphotos of the transit I shed and explainsevolving actMties at the terminal. Impact VIS-2: Removal ofthe transit shedwould replaceaesthetically I pleasingarchitectural views of the transit shed from the public area in front of the Poft Building the Waterfront Plaza Hotel and the water's edge at Jack I London Squarewith industrial views of Howard Terminal operations. (S) Mitigation MeasureVIS-2: No mitigation is availablefor this impact. I JeffersonStreet Viewshed. Removal of the transit shed would affect views from JeffersonStreet and open views to the wharf. The changemuld be adverseif fencing and other structure at JeffersonStreet entranceto Howard I Terminal are not designedto provide an attractive terminus to Jefferson Street. This would be considereda less than signilicant impacc (IS) I c. Effect on Views of Berth 10. The sedimenthandling facility would restrict container stackingto the inland and northwestem edgesof Berth 10, The containerswould be replacedby geotextiletubes or mncrete K-rails T topped with lumber (lessthan four feet tall), a ramp over the rail, and a front- T end loader in the sedimenthandling area. This changewould replaceone t 'l,ln I CTIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL D u8 I I I Chapter VI. I PROJECT ALTERNATIVES t trt A. Alternatives ConsideredBut Eliminated I Ofi-Site Alternatives Ten off-sitealtematives were reviewed but eliminateddue to various I environmentalconsequences. The off-sitealtematives considered are as follows: I a. BavBridge Terminal (South and West). This altemativesite would include 103acres of fill south and west of the existingOakland Army Base Pier 7. The proposedproject does not requiresuch a largeland area. I Permittingand construction of the facilityat this locationwould take five to sevenyears, have greater environmental impacts and costmuch more than I necessary. b. BavBridse Terminal (West). This altemativesite would include 2'0 acresof fill westof Berth 10. This alternativewould cause 2,950 lineal feet of I vharf to be unusable:1350 of the wharf is no'*,used for mntainer operations.The creationof backlandwould eliminate Berths 20 and21 and I mostof Berth 9 whichis not ownedby the Port but leasedfrom the Army. Lossof existingBerths would be counterproductive. I c. NavalSupplv Center (NSC). This alternativesite would involve constructionon 540acres of NSClocated in the heartof the Port maritime operations.The potentialexists for developingthe areainto a modem I terminalin the future;however, it is a longterm projectrequiring careful planningcapitalization and permitting. Improvements needed for facilities sharingare five yearsaway, The Port will controlthis propertyunder a I lease/licenseagreement by December1994. I t I u9 I CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL D(TENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PROJECT ALIERNATI!'ES I d. American PresidentLine (APL)/SherexSite. This alternative site would include 1.8 acresof fill with the potential for an additional 550 feet ofwharf parallel to the channel, However,the added area for APL would be at the I expenseof a turning basin. The basin is being created to enableloaded vesselsto turn in the channel, This will savethe time currently required to travel up the channelat high tide to a wide plac€ in the vicinity of the Ninth T Avenue complex. Loss ofthe turning basinwould be an unacceptableongoing cost in inefficiency and loss of mmpetitive edge. I e. SchnitzerSite. This alternative site would include 14 acresof fill behind dikes that could produce 1,700lineal feet of wharf parallel to the channel,with accessto 28 or more acresof backlan4 for a total of 32 acres. I The Schnitzersteel site is an activelyused scrap iron and steel yard with an on-goingdemand for both dismantlingout-wom producls and shippingscrap to the orient for re-processingand manufacturing. The property owner is not I willing to closehis operatlon at this time. Redevelopmenton the site for a modem marine terminal is not feasiblewithin the Port's statedtimeframe. I f. Ninth Avenue Terminal Exoansion. This altemative site would include 10.8acres of fill and would add 400 lineal feet of wharf to the Ninth Avenue Terminal. In addition, modem container shipshave drafts of42 feet and can I not navigatepast the Alameda tubes,which are only 35 feet below sea level. The terminal is marginallysuitable for continuedbreakbulk operations, although the loading capacityof the wharf is becominga distinct limitation for I type,sof cargo that can be received without major reconstruction. I C- San Leandro Bav/66thAvenue Site. This altemative site would include up to 5,000lineal feet ofwharf now partially occupiedby the East Bay Municipal Utility District and the City of Oakland. The existingchannel to I this site is only dredgeddeep enoughto accomnodatepleasure craft. A project at this site would have extensiveenvironmental impact on sensitive ecologicalareas of the bay and marshlands,as well as constraintson the I transpoftation network. h. Encinal in Alameda. This alternative site would include 11.5acres of T an existingterminal facility. The terminal acreageis too small for a stand- alone facility. The constraintson vesselsize are similar to those of the Ninth Avenue Terminal as noted above. The land and water do not belong to the I Port and would haveto be purchasedor leasedat additional cost. I I I 250 I I JUNE 199I CTIARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION DRAFT E}'IVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I PROJECTALTERNATIVES i. AtamedaNaval Air Station.This altemativesite would include 37 acres in the vicinityofthe existingharbor. However,the terminalacreage is too I smallfor a remotestand-alone facility, and the time framefor site cleanup' political land and water use decisions,and facility reconstnrctionare too far in I the future. j. SanFrancism and/or Richmond Facilities. These altemative sites have under-utilizedcontainer terminals. The tenantwould need to be relocatedto I thesesites and receiveintermodal and other services.The Port of Richmondt channelwill not accommodatedeep draft ships. The Port would lose employmentopportunities and the oppoftunity to maximizethe use of I resourcesavailable at HowardTerminal. The Port wouldalso need to find a newtenant, if the currenttenant were to relocate. I 2. On-SiteAlternltives: Presenotionof All or Part of the Transit Shed I TWoon-site altematives to presefleall or part of the transitshed were reviewedbut eliminated.These two altemativesand the reasonsfor rejecting t themare describedbelow: a. Preserationof the TransitShed. Continueduse of the transitshed wouldrequire costly seismic repairs to the quaywall whichsupports one side I of the shed;mntinued use without these repairs would mnstitute a seismic hazard,Furthermore. the locationof the transitshed would block accessto I the newwharf extension,defeating the purposeof the project. b. Preservationof the HeadHouse. Preservationof the two-storyoffice portionof BuildingE-407A would not mitigatethe projectimpact on historic I resourc€s,because the historicalsignificance of the buildinglies in its mmbineduse as a transitshed and office. Retentionof the headhouse would alsointe erewitl the circulationof vehiclesand the storageof mntainerson I the wharf. I B. No PmjectAlternative The CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act, Section15126(d)(2), requires I discussionof the no projectalternative. For the proposedproject, this altemativecould occur if the Port madea determinationthat the site is not suitablefor the wharf extensionor couldnot be developed;or that the T developmentwould result in significantunavoidable, adverse impacts that cannotbe mitigatedfor whichthe Port wasunwilling to makefindings of I overridingconsiderations. I 251 I CIiARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT EI{VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PROJECT ALTERNATIVES I Under the no project altemative,expansion to wharf operationswould still be permitted basedon the site's current maritime industrial land use. The Port would still be facedwith developmentpressule to improve and enhanceport I operationsto keep up with the market demands,the advancementof maritime technolog/, and the need to accommodate new generation ships. I The no project altemative would not achieve the Port's goals for providing state-of-the-artmarine facilities and maintaining increasedemnomic viability. The no project altemativewould likely lead to other wharf developmentand I expansionoptions elsewherewithin the Port and potentially at a more unreasonablesite location and with potentially more environmentallyadvers€ impacts. The potential impactsofth€ no project altemative are discussed I below. 1. Historic Resources I This altemativewould leave the transit shed in its current use,with all character-definingfeatures intact. However,the quay wall that supportsthe I transit shedwas damagedby the Loma Prieta earthquakein 1989. Savingthe transit shedwould require mstly repairs to the quaywall, using methodsthat keep the transit shed intact. Although there would be a potential for t deterioration from lack of maintenance,this alternativewould not have a significantimpact on historic resources. I 2. Socio-Economics No expansionto Howard Terminal would result in pursuit of other less I reasonablealtematives to meet the demandsfor port expansionand maintain emnomic viability. In addition, no expansionwould not create additional jobs. I 3. Land Use I There would be no changein or expansionof Howard Terminal and its current land use operations. I 4. Transportation For the No Project Altemative, the existingtraffic generationfrom Howard I Terminal and the remainder ofthe Port would not change. As shownin Table 30, the No Projectyear 2000traffic conditionsare identical to the cumulativeconditions shown at the four nearbyintersections. The volume-to- I capacity ratio (V/C) corresponds to specific service levels, which are a qualitative measureof trafftc conditions. Typically,the LOS standardis "C" or 'D", which correspondto a V/C of lessthan 0.77 for LOS "C" and a V/C of I I 252 I I JUNE 1994 CTIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PROTECT ALTERNATIVES I Table30 CUMIJI,A'TryEIMPACT ANALYSIS- YEAR 2OOO I WITH AND WITTIOUTPROJECT Volune-to4apacity (V/C)' t No Project Wlth Project Changc Sisnitr- Unt AM PM AJII PM AM PM cantll I Bay Bridge (I{0 Wes) 1.10 1.18 1.10 1.18 0.m 0.m N I{O E - soutlpest of Powell 1.05 0.91 1.05 0.91 0.m 0,00 N I 1480 - south of 7th Strcet 0.70 o.67 0.70 0.67 o.01 0.m N I-980 - north of 17th SkeeJ 0.64 0.77 0.64 o.n 0.00 0.00 N ' I The volume-to.capacity (V/g ratio represents tbe perc€ntage of the maximum numb€r of vehicles that cao be accommodated by a facility. Ttre capacity used for this analysis is ba.$edon near ideal conditions for basic freeway lanes' i.e. 2,000 vehicles per lane per I hour. Note: AM aod PM volumes reflect flor in tbe peak direction only, I Source: Dowling Associate$ based on Alameda Counry Travel Model scenario 1001. lessthan 0.93for LOS "D' basedon a ?0 mph desigrrspeed for a basic freewaysection.l Generally, level of service'4" describesfree flow conditions I wherevehicles are almostcompletely unimpeded by othervehicles, while level of service"E" describesoperating mnditions at or nearcapacity. Levels of 'C" I service and "D" describestable flow at variousvehicle densities. Table31 indicatesthat the projectdoes not resultin anysignificant impacts on regional freeways.The cumulativeimpact of land use and traffrc growth in I the areq with or withoutthe project,would be significanton the BayBridge and the EastshoreFreeway (I-80). t The cumulativeNo Projectimpacts are likely to be significant,but are beyond the mntrol of the Port,since they occur due to land developmentand regional I growththroughout the BayArea. Caltranshas progmmmed a numberof improvementsthat are reflectedin Table31 (e.g.,the CypressStructure replacementproject), but despitethis, unacceptable peak LOS wouldstill t occuron muchof I-880in the year2000. The projectis expectedto increase employmentat the Port itself; theseimpacts are coveredin the sectionon I 1 The design speed refers to the physical, geometric characteristics of tbe fre€way, not tbe pocted speed limit. Virtually all new fre€ways, and many older ones, us€ a 70 MpH design speed. The use of 60 or 70 MPH does not have a significant impact oo the LOS calculatioos, I however. I 2s3 I C}IARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT E}WIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I PROJECT ALTERNATIVES I Table 31 CUMIJI,ATIVE LEVEL OF SERVICE ON FREEWAYS . YEAR 2OOO WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT I of Service (l-OS) l..cvd hojeca No Project Exg +Ploject Change Impsct SiCnili- I Unk AM PM AM PM AM PM crna? Bay Bndg€ (I{0 w) F F F F N I I{0 E - southwest of P@,ell F D F D N I-880 - routh of ?th Str€et c c c N I I-980 c D c D N Source: Dowling Associates,based on Alameda County Travel Model. I socio-economicimpacts. The project has the potential for secondaryimpacts I on increasedemployment in the surroundingarea (e.9., the employmentof truckin& warehousin&import/export, and related firms could increasesas a resultof the project). The transportationimpacts of suchan employment I increaseare likely to be widelydiffitsed throughout th€ c€ntralBay Area and NorthemCalifornia, and are not likely to havea significanttransportation impact. I t The no-project alternativewould retain existingoperations. There would therefore be no changeto the noiseenvironment in the area due to the operational noise and there would be no constructionactivities which could I potentially geneEte significantshort-term noise levelsat sensitivereceptors in the area. There would be no noise impactsassociated with the no-project I altemative. 6. Air Quality I The no project alternativewould not contribute to generationof dust or increasethe regional emissions. I 7. Geologr,Seismicity and Soils T The no project altemative would retain the transit shed and wharf as is. The transit shedwould mntinue to posea threat to public safetyunder credible t I 254 I JUNE 1994 CHARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION t IMPACT REPORT DRAFT EN!'TRONMENTAL I PROJECTALIERNATIVES seismicevents because of the seismicinstability of the structure,unless I expensiverepairs are madeto the quaywall supportingthe building. E. HazardousMaterials I The no projectalternative would retain the hazardousmaterials where they are and still posea threatto publichealth and safetyif disturbed. I 9. SedimentQuality There are no known activitiesplanned that would affect the sedimentquality I at the projectsite otherthan the proposedproject. Withoutthe project,the additional dredgemateiial associatedwith the project, abovethat excavatedin the annualmaintenance program, would not needto be disposedof in a I landfill. Pollutedsediments would remain in the bay. T 10. Water Quality No disruptionsto the waterwould result other than hom annualmaintenance T dredging.Creosote from pilingswould continue to affectbay water quality. t I l. Biol,ogicalResources There are no known activities planned that would affect the biological resourc€sat the project site other than the proposedproject' Annual t maintenancedredging would continue to impact the benthic community' the pile-supportedfill would remain, and biological resourceswould retain their I degradedcondition. lL Public Servicesand Utilities t No changesin demand for public servicesand utilities are likely to result becausePort operationswould not be expanded. I 13, Public Accessand Recreation I The no project would precludepublic accessimprovements to be made along the Oakland Shorelineconsistent with the San FranciscoBay Trail Plan. I I I 2s5 I CHARTES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E'(TENSION JUNE 1994 EI'IVI RONMENTAL t DRAFT IMPACT REPORT PROJECT ALTERNATI!'ES I 14. Visual Resources Viewshedswould remain unchange4and the transit shedwould remain a I prominent visual feature on the wharf. I C. Pile-Supported Wbarf Alternative To meet the objectives of CEQA one altemative to the proposed project was t evaluated. The pile supportedwharf altemative involvesbuilding a pile supportedwharf insteadof a fill supportedwharf. The existingpile supported concrete wharf would be extended 306 linear feet to the east, and from that I point north to the cutoff wall, forming a triangular wharf extension. The edge of the pile supportedwharf extensionwould be at the cutoff wall west of the west wall ofthe transit shed,as shownin Figure 34. A rock structure would I be constructedagainst the cutoffwall, at a 2:1 slope down to the top of sand. In this altemative,the center of the transit shed facadewould be moved to the spac€between Howard Terminal and the FDR Pier entrance. The remainder I of the transit shedwould be demolished. t As in the proposedproject, Berth 68 would be dredgedto 42 feet plus tlo feet overdredgg resultingin 39,000square feet of dredgedarea and 13,600 cubic yards of dredgedsediments. Dredged sedimentswould be dried at I Berth 10 and disposedat one of four landfills. This is the sameas the proposedproject exceptthat the amount of dredgedsediment to be disposed of would be much smaller with the pile supportedwharf altemative, T As is the proposedproject, the upland portion of the site would be graded paved,lighted and striped; the biotic impactswould be offset by wharf t removal at the Pacific Drydock and Sherexsites, and public accesswould be improved along the Oakland shoreline. Ihe timeline, increasein vesselcalls, and employmentincrease would be similar to those of the proposedproject, I but the pile driving would take longer. The samepermits would be required as the proposedproject. I The pile supportedwharf alternativewould be similar to the proposedproject in area ofwharf extension(48140 sq.ft.), in volume of dredgingfor the Berth .68 extension(13,600 cubic yards) and in area of piles (2,520sq. ft.) and I volume of piles (1,200cubic yards) to be removed,but would differ as follows: . dredgingof 24,000cubic yards for the wharf extension,compated to I 30,000cubic yards for the proposedproject; I I 256 I IIIII IIIII IIIIIIIII z i i:: . ,ii i ::i 1 lil E ,l i :rii :l iii t t , ,1 lii .; . rtl iiii a l::: , i :+: ::'ii i: ii,:i x i: z t :i :ii G= t'i zazB ,if, s9 '" -J= S-i :i - l::' s6 i:ii q, ): :i "" +* n*,r*i*uo*0, -E >= F.6 I ','. " .:.i n: ! rre;? i i 4 3 F-l ,^. o--! ; E-v Fl {D c.* e3H I a r=(D o \ =FJq) 0a I (D p = ii'r'r Ft a I OJ F. oCD O Fl + ;; { tr E FJ. A) (D :d: a i9 (D o JUNE 1994 CI]ARLES P. BOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION I DRAFT EI.IVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PROJECTALTERNATIVES I . placementof 16,650cubic yards of solidfill, comparedto 144,000cubic yardsfor the proposedproject; I . driving1,900 cubic yards of newpiles, mmpared to 536cubic yards for I the proposedproject, This altemativewould accomplish the samegoal as the proposedproject, to extendthe wharf,but wouldhave impacts that differ and maybe viewedas I more environmentallyadverce. The potential impactsare discussedbelow. I 1. Historic Resources Sameas the proposedproject. t 2. Socio.Economics Constructionof the pile-supportedaltemative would be more @stly, even I consideringthe lower cost of dredgematerial disposal. Differential settlement betweenthe pile-supportedextension and the fill-supported existingterminal would diminish the useablearea of the terminal, pose a hazard to worker I safety,and require ongoing repairs. I 3, Lond Use I Sameas the proposedproject. 4. Transportation I Sameas the proposedproject. I 5. Noise This altemative involvesbuilding a pile supportedwharf extensioninstead of the proposedfill supportedwharf extension. Pile drMng required for this t altemative would require a substantiallylonger duration and would bring the pile drMng actMties substantiallycloser to sensitivereceptors in the area. Maximum noise levelsgenerated during pile driving would increaseto 92 dBA I outside the Oakland Fire Station and 67 dBA inside. At the 530 Water Street building maximum noise levelswould increaseto 84 dBA outside of the building and 59 dBA inside the building. Pile driving would occur for up to I thre€ months. The proposedproject is therefore preferable to this altemative becauseofthe differencein constructiontechnique. Operationally,the two t altemativesare identical from a noise impact perspective. I 2)9 T CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAI E(TENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT EIWIRONMEMAL IMPACT REPORT PROJECTALTERNATIVES I 6. Air Quality Sameas proposed project. I 7. Geologr,Seismicity and Soils I The pile-supportedwharf altemative increasesthe potential for damage,and the severityof damage,as a resultof an earthquake.The largespace of pile- supportedwharf and its connectionto the existingshoreline presents I engineeringproblems. This altemativeraises issues regarding safety of 6ll. The potential for increasedinstability of pilings due to potential differential settlement,liquefaction, and lateral movement in the underlyingsoils or bay I mud is raisedby this alternative. 8. HazardousMaterials I As discussedin ChapterV, SectionJ, the impactsrelated to hazardous materialsare for the mostpart the mnsequenceof demolitionand t constructionactivities. Consequently, the proposedproject impacts described in ChapterV, SectionJ are commonto this altemative. I 9, SedimentQuality I This altemativewould require dredgingof 24,000cubic yards, which is 6,000 cubicyards less than the proposedproject. Henceless dredge material would be processedthrough the rehandlingfacility and lessmaterial would be I disposedof in the landfills. 10, WaterQuality I As discussedin ChapterV SectionK the impactsrelated to stormwater runoff are relatedto constructionand dredgedsediment disposal. The I impactsto waterquality are associatedwith the removalof pilings,installation of newpilings, and filling of the Estuary.The only aspectof the pile- supportedwharf alternativethat differsfrom the proposedaction is the I surfacearea of newpilings. The net decreasein creosote-soakedpiling surfacearea is 1,215square feet for the pile-supportedwharf altemative,as opposedto a net decreaseof 2,025square feet in the proposedproject. All of I the potentialimpacts can be reducedto insignificanceby the implementation of the appropriatemitigation measures as describedin ChapterV, SectionK. I t I zffi I JUNE 199{ CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E (TENSION I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT REPORT PROJECTALTERNATIVES I 11. BiologicalResources I This altemativewould require only 16,650cubic yards of solidfill, compared to 14,000 cubicyards for the proposedprojea. This fill would cover only 2,625square feet of baybottom, compared to 150,300square feet of mverage I for the proposedproject. Becausethis altemativewould involve less dredging it would havea smallerunavoidable short-term impact on biologicalresourc€s duringdredging than the proposedproject. The pile-supportedwharf I alternativewould shade 45,615 square feet of baybottom. Much of this area hasbeen dredged to maintainBenh 69. Therefore,the biotic resourcesare degradedand the impactof fill andshading would be low, aswith the I proposedproject. I 12. Public Servicesand Utilities Sameas proposedproject. I 13. PubllcAccess and Recreation I Sameas proposed project. 14. VisualQuality I Sameas proposedproject. I D. Comparisonof Alternativeswith the PmposedPmject I Table32 comparesthe impactsof the No Projecrand pile SupportedWharf t altemativesto the impactsof the proposedproject. I I I I I 267 I I .Ee ; e ri I z rE:"9 9.es o.r gHE z r E€ z i ! = x- .5€ d F iiEE z I .d -ti! ,' o ?* F gd" .F 5 ,= EEH€, ? !)= il3E E EgE3Eg I :Eg'a .E't id -*.,o t g b I Eg ,l 'EE z t9 g ei6 E EAo €gi€FE5E .YEA 3EEg' € a.E ! E.g'5 B.E EE; :gE;.;E Ei:i ,,; ,,; sS #t=E I .tr =t: 9.9 'E.c {,a E'EE .!u E.t 9 € EgBEFEE'= AE ^a g._6,b E= g.EE C g.EEEb F gF T; *68; E* B.Ez.E F5(,] A za t I Eb *5 ^a . I 2At :E8E an B 6 HB= i;; F 5 ! I rE 3 3 3 Fi"= I q x o= z v) 8 A EAEHA 'oEi 9"6 5;eE I o6 Fr E € E P s 9 F: ,99e.r t t.rl !{t-;t l.l< 3 6 x9.I *.3:EgEPE ol E:EXE N i H.q.;"tt) .E'fia E FZ 640 .: I .Ez th !4 & AH E.E F tr E ?9 -9EFE: 0r : F-E 'ti€6 g I b.: E .9E Etr 9 5g .9 c'o o .irE ",,.g! eFs U oo.! ? E$r n.b o 9E t- t.e 8q EE I 6 3 !DF a:i- b6 Ei,H t - F:r E*-'i 5-9 ti EF ;AF 'rhF x.9 -eE B r! 3 z v+ h3 & FE ':F9* r € +.E5= E' .=e EC b€ g.E I =F EEgEs.E Ft)9- EN 2X #F 'EF q.q3; -f E .='l F g!€ t € f3* ?>, E EE a.F ii .: €.EAE C!F 4R a Eq5. 'r? FH gngE !P s xv-= I 33 6 Ed 5ea '5e EEEa* =E eifrE. z I hEt t -} U z o o yvFr72i' I E tr t n { - E ? 2 E iz4 I O tit 6lrrh <5 tu P Jh):( z !t 4= 6 R z I 3 z 6V 8EE I I I Z t'tt t a E 8FE Aq c! ! P>. l-z gE8s; !! :g XFI( ;95 3E €g€ r5 .9 ,; :tv pEe I -r5l aE 5 .6e'e ti :r . $=a E:E 6.=^v E I'd Hg? 3:E U S= E ';*.EFE-g EIH .F 9.r'- rg -:? EJ; qr Err !l E FE ;9E :E !tv 6 I t29 'E*.E F t7'i E:? otE EgE-,t;g :it6 EE 9=E z iEri e?^z sEd HE.6': € .E" E,A €E's ; f.. i Fa et,, gEEF.E ai 'E .=o * 6'; XE 29. s.+ aE x> t E.sE SDz -a I 12 =33 €€E ;E; A IT,I €ci €€Eg gErE 6.9 Ir,t E H€g EEE ds 'g EF 'EE.H n88 2Etsa^v >F 5 I sa 8z F.g o6E ! . -!E EQ a u39 l -cEd rcE EEiE 'r.g d E.H 5 t e:iaeE rt ti I E=i frE: c€ sE.E EE€ 9 ah 'E=g A I F T:EE1 X 8 I E E Hi aE$eEe a': I EEE€EEd $HE ",i o iE F H.E = Eb a I IJEE I€€EEu)Ee'a gs &* E ?E I .E;E * 9,EE .? ,; ti !rE -*s €?.i rEi €t*e ? =[H ;=EE ?,3, .F eit - ='= F 9'i I FIA !l lE EilE fl EE I :.E: 5,9 Fde .94 E K,9 :si?j n o€ E; Hii EEEaDqr= o=l .EEA ilId ,4. t :: EI !.E'A fE€Eg ;z l Ess !:x ;5 r.9 8s o €?a ix Icii 8E.fr .g Fz :E"EEEZJ!= az ?YA 't-p:t.E 6.C) sf* rE : o€ 9 . t! 's R ;;E EAEE€ :a E:tr.;E FR 6. I EEg$=v-2 *bs {-l t tt.F 3frass& a',5 EEgEe I I z I 5 z U t ul g I ,. ? (J i'1 ) ,1 AZ o I D !1 0 (, I att ! A. Introduction All phasesof a project must be consideredwhen evaluatingits impacl on the t environment:planning acquisition,development, and operation. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEaA), this chapter provides an overview of the impacts of the proposed projea based on the technical l topics analyses. Chapter Y, Setting,Impacts and Miligatian Measures,assesses the effecls the proposed project would have on the environment and suggests measuresto minimize those effects. A summarytable describingthe impacts T and mitigation measuresis provided in Chapter II. Chapter Yl, Project Altematives, describes and analyzesthe altematives, the altemative sites mnsidered but dismissed,and the environmentallysuperior altemative. The I topics coveredin this Chapter include effectsnot found to be sigrificant; shoft-term usesversus long-term productivity;significant irreversible and unavoidableenvironmental changes; growth-inducing impacts; and cumulative I impacts. I B. Elfects Not Found to be Significant I The Port prepared an Initial Study(Appendix B) for the proposedproject in order to "scope'the content of this EIR. The Initial Studywas basedon a preliminary review of issuesrelated to developmentof the expansionof the J wharf. Subsequentscoping discussions with responsibleagencies and input from recipientsof the Notice of Preparationhave further refined the smpe of I this EIR. The following areas are technical topics that were effects not found to be I significantand have not been evaluatedin this EIR. I I )A< I CTIARLESP. HOWARD 'IERMINAL E 2. Populationand Housing I The project will not havesignificant effects on population growth- It also will not sigrificantly affect the numbersof housingunits made availablewithin the I City and County. Employmentopportunities may increase slightly as a result of projectconstruction, but the increasewould not createa demandfor housing. I Energl D The project would not result in excessiveeners/ use. No new buildings are proposed. The net increasein container shipsusing the terminal due to the I wharf extensionwould not result in an increasedemand on enerry use. The shipsmuld still use another portion of the port or wharf terminal if the project were not constructed, I C. Short-TermUses Versus Long'Term Productivity I CEg4 6ug"*o state that an EIR for a project must include an assessment of the relationshipbetween local short-term usesof man's environmentand il the maintenanceand enhancementof lonS-termproductivity. This assessment describesthe cumutativeand long-term effectsof the proposedproject which adverselyaffect the state ofthe environment. Specialattention should be t given to impactswhich narrow the range of beneficialuses or pose long-term risls to health and safety. In addition, the reasonswhy the proposedproject is believedby the Port of Oakland to be justified now, rather than reserving I an option for future altemativesare included in this discussion. The implementationof the proposedproject would haveboth short- and long- I term effectsfrom dredging demolition of the transit she4 and socio- emnomics. l I t 266 I JUNE 1994 CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL EJ(TENSION I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT REPORT t CEQA.REOUIRED OVERVIEW 1. Dredging I Dredgingactivities would have short-term effects by temporarilyincreasing the turbidity and di$solvedconstituents, scaring off or removinghabitat for marine organisms,and to somedegree modi$ing the bottomcontours. However, in i the long-termthe turbiditywill settlealthough ship propellers have a continuedaffect on turbidity;post construction, marine organisms will re-establishhabitat; and the effectsof bay currentsand tidal flows will I continuallytransform the bottom@ntours to somedegree; and thus,result in limited short-termenvironmental consequences due to dredgingactivities. The maintenanceand enhancement of long-termproductivity would be the I benefitsof providingefficient shippingaccess and expandedport operations. I L Demolition The demolitionof the transitshed would have a long-termeffect on cultural resourcesthrough the lossof a structurewith historicsignificance of local t importance.The demolitionof the transitshed can be viewedin two ways, one is the permanentloss of a buildingwith historicsignificance, and the other is that the structureis not earthquakeproof andposes long-term risks to t publichealth and safety.Because of its locationalong an activearea of the wharf andunsafe condition, the structuredoes not providethe mostsuitable and compatiblelocation for a museumand visitor center. Demolitionof the I transitshed would open views to the marineterminal operations. t 3. Socio-Economics The tradeoffof both short-and long-termenvironmental effects is the short- I andlong-term socioeconomic benefit of maintainingthe Port as a major import andexport center. Duringconstruction there would be a short-term economicgain from constructionworkers at the localand regionallevels. I During dailyport operationsthere would be a long-termeconomic gain from the capabilityof accommodatingan increasein shippingoperations and providingpotential employment and thusincrease the long-termeconomic I viabilityat the local,regional, and statelevels. The short-and long-term environmentaleffects of the projectare consideredminimal at the regional I leveland to somedegree at the locallevel. t, 4. PmjectJustification The Port of Oaklandconsiders that the proposedproject is justified now, ratherthan reservingan optionfor future altematives.The wharf is built out I andin order to accommodatenew generation ships and cargo storage atea the I 267 I CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL EXTENSION JUNE 1994 I DRAFT EI.IVIRONMEI.TTAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA-REQTNRED OVERVIEW I proposedwharf extensionat the proposedlocation is the mostreasonable altemative.The Port did evaluateoff-site altematives, but mncludedthat mostoff-site altematives did not providefeasible options or suitablelocations I to meettheir currentneeds, or theywere outside of the Port'scontrol, Some of the off-sitealtematives would also be more environmentallyadverse and are locatedon siteswith acreagebeyond the needsnecessary for the proposed i project. I D. SignilicantIrreversible and UnavoidableChanges Implementationof the proposedwharf extension project would resultin the I follou,ingsigrificant ineversible and unavoidableimpacts: . Demolitionof the transitshed building which has historic significance I wouldalter the aestheticsof the surroundingareai . Viewsfrom the publicaccess FDR pier and a park on the eastend of JackLondon's waterfiont would be changed; I . Noisewould increase during construction actMty and mayaffect nearby businessesand the WaterfrontPlaza Hotel dueto the incrementalnoise I increasesfrom constructiontruck traffic,pile drMng actMty,and dredgingoperations (this would be considereda significantbut temporaryconstruction impact); I . Contributionto the increasein regionalair emissionsdue to increased port activityfrom vehicles,ships and tugboats,and trucks; and I . Food resourcesfor fishwould be temporarilydisturbed in the dredged area(this would be considereda significantbut temporaryconstruction impact). I Noisefrom constructionactivity would be of shortduration and temponry, but wouldbe viewedas significant. Loss of benthichabitat from dredgingand I placementof fill at Berth68 wouldbe long-termbut be offsetby creationof newhabitat from wharf andpile removalat Sherexand Pacific Dry Docks, In addition,Ioss of benthichabitat is viewedas insignificant due to annual I maintenancedredging activity within the Inner Harbor. Demolitionof the transitshed building would be a significantirrwersible and unavoidable changeand would require findings of overridingconsideration. Other impacts I that wouldbe unavoidablebut lessthan sigrificant after mitigation,are alterationsto the publicvier.r,sheds and coveringof habitatfor benthic organisms. I I l 268 I I JUNE 1994 CHARLESP. HOWAR,DTERMINAL E(TENSION DRAFT ENVI RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT l CEQA-REQUIRED OI'ERVIEW E. Gmwth-Inducing Impacts I The proposedwharf expansioncould induce growth by directly and indirectly creating additional jobs; however,the increasein employmentwould be a beneficial impact. Therefore, the wharf extensionis not mnsidered growth- I inducing,other than growth in container shipping activities. I F. Cumulative Impacts The major projects that are planned within the vicinity of the Port of T Oakland'sjurisdiction are the intermodal rail facility, Naval SupplyCenter (NSC) leaseof 2Z) acresexpansion to American PfesidentsLine (APL) terminal, a new Amtrack station betweenHarrison Street and Alice Street, I and build-out of Jack London Squareimmediately soutb of the site with either an expansionof the waterfront plaza hotel or a new hotel, and a new theatre. The development of the project would contribute to cumulative effects. The potentially significantcumulative effects of the proposedproject and other t proposeddevelopments within the Port of Oakland relat€ to issuesconceming historic resources,transportation, sediment quality, and biological resources, I and air quality. 1. Historic Resources I The project would contribute to the cumulativeloss of historic structureswith local importancebecause of the proposeddemolition of the transit shed building. In this context there will be some modification to historic structures I in the district with the NSC lease. I L Transportation The project would contribute to cumulativeeffects to transportationwhich would also occur regardlessofwhether the project is built. Delays in the I heavyright tum movementfrom the intersectionof Market Street southbound into Third Street would result in this intersectionto operate with long delays 'F) (LOS to the stopp€d(Market Street) approaches,and potentially delalng I trucks and other vehicle,sinto and out of Howard Terminal. I I I 269 I CTIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ENVIRONMENIAL IMPACT REPORT CEQA.REQUIRED OVER!'IEW 3. WaterQuality Turbidity and BiologicalResources The projectwould result in cumulativeeffects from dredgingon waterquality andbenthic organisms. 4. BiologicResources The projectwould result in a cumulativeloss to benthichabitat due to the 48,20 squarefoot wharfextension. I I 770 I I I I Chapter VIII t ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONSCONSULTED I lll I A. Consultation 1. Local Agencies I Port of Oakland Gerald Serventi,Supewising Civil Engineer Dean Luckhart. AssociatePort EnvironmentalPlanner t Jon Amdur, AssociatePort Environmental Planner Michael Beritzhoff, Senior Maritime ProjectsAnalyst JamesPutz, Senior Maritime ProjectsAnalyst I Robert Middleton, Jr., Public Affairs Manager OceanaRames, Associate Transportation Planner a Michael Morley, Civil Engineer City of Oakland, Department of Planning and Building I ChristopherBuckley, Planner Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey I Gary Knecht, Coordinator Betty Manin, Senior Surveyor I Oakland Landmarks Board Helaine Kaplan Prentice,Secretary l City of Alameda Collette Menuier, Planning Director ! Oakland Fire Department Lloyd Salisbury,Fire Marshal t Oakland Police Department Richard Zarnora I Scarlett Ku, PlanningDivision I 271 I CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ENVIRONMEMTAL IMPACT REPORT I ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONSCONSULTED I East Bay Municipal Water District John Houlihan Bill McGowen I Alameda C-ountyMosquito Abatement District John Rusmisel I 2. Statc Agetrcies I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Craig Vasel Jeff Olberding I Carin High Molly Martindale I U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Juliet Hannafin r U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sewice Ruth Pratt I National Marine FisheriesService David Mattens t 3. Federal Agencies I San FranciscoBay Regional Water Quality Contml Board Will Bruhns I California Department of Fish and Game Bob Tasto I California Department of Health Services Franklin Ennik I 4. Private Companies,Organizations and Persons Foundation for San Francism'sArchitectural Heritaee I William Butner StevenOwens Services I Scott Thomas I 272 I I I JUNE 1994 C}IARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAI E (TENSION DRAFT ENVIRONMENIAL IMPACT REPORT t ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSTJLTED B, Report Preparers I 1. Brady and Associates Sheila Brady, Principal t Nancy Wakeman,Principal-In-Charge, Project Manager Diana Murrell, EnvironmentalPlanner Mary Phillips, EnvironmentalPlanner I Nick Haskell, Land Use Planner Lyn Hogan, Graphics Manager Paul Seaton,Graphics Technician I SusanSmith, Word Processor Shelli Maximova. Word Processor t 2. Donald Ballanti - Certified Meteorologist I 3, CADP - Visual Simulations Noah Kennedy,Principal I Adam Noble, Technician t 4. Dowling Associates- Transportation SteveColeman, Principal, ProfessionalTraffic Engineer t 5. ENTRIX . Biologt and SedimentQuality Ted Winfield, Senior Consultant I Joe Rudek, Staff Biologist Joan Duffield, Project Biologist 1 6. Illingsworth and Rodkin - Noise t Richard Rodkin, Principal, AcousticalFnglneer 7. Moffat and Nichol - Port Operations,Engineering I Robert Battalio, Engineer II t Dilip Trivedi, Staff Engineer I t LIJ I C}IARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E (TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ENVI RONMENTAL IMPAST REPORT ORCANIZATIONS AND PERSONSCONSULTED 8. Uribe and Associates . Biologr and Sediment Quality Geoff Brosseau,Senior Projea Manager Fred Kreiger, SeniorNEPA Manager 9. Woodruff Minor . Architectural Historian a1A I I I Chapter IX I REFERENCES AND LITERATTJRE CITED t T l. Policy Conformity Alamed4 City of. February 1991. City of Alameda General Plan, Alameda I Planning Department. Alamed4 County of. July 1986. Aitport Land UsePolicy Phn, Alameda I County PlanningDepartment, Hayward. BCDC. August 1992. "SanFrancism Bay Plan Amendment, Dredging l Findings and Policies,"BCDC, San Francisco. BCDC and Metropolitan Transportation Commission(MTC). 1982 (Revised I 1988). San Francisco Bay Area SeaportPhn, MTC, Oakland. Oakland, City of. 1980 (amended). OaHand Pohcy Phn, A Component of the I Comprehenive Plaz, Oakland Office of Planning and Building. Oaklanq City of. 1989 (revised). Zoning Rqulations, Oakland Office of I Planning and Building. Oakland, Port of, June 1993. Maritime Division BusinessPlan 1993-94,Port T of Oakland. Oaklan4 Port of et. al. January 1994. SupplementalADEIRIEIS OaHand. l Harbor Deep-Draft Navigation Improvements,Pon of Oakland. San FranciscoBay Conservationand DevelopmentCommission (BCDC). July I 1979 (as amended). San FranciscoBay Plan, BCDC, San Francisco. I 2, Historic Resources Bagwell,Beth. OaHand: The Storyof a City, Novato: Presidio Press,1982, I Oakland History Room, Oakland Public Library (Main). I t1\ t CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E Corbett, Michael, and Mary Hardy. 'Encinal Terminals,Alameda, CA' (State Historic ResourcesInventory Form), 1988,Alameda (City) Planning I Department. Hegardt, G.8., Chas, D. Marx, and Chas. T. Ireds. Repot on Pon of I OaHand. Oakland: Commissionerof Public Works, Septemberl9?5, Oakland History Room, Oakland Public Library (Main). I Hegemann, Werner. Rqtort on a City Phn for the Municipalities of Oakland & Berleley. Oaklan4 1915,Oakland History Room, Oakland Public I Ubrary (Main). Hinkel, Edgar J., and William E. McCann, eds. OaHand, 1852-1938. I Oakland: Works ProgressAdministration, 1939. Two volumes,Oakland History Room, Oakland Public Library (Main). t Jones,DeWitt, ed. Historyof Port of OaHand, 1850-1934.Oakland: Oakland Board of Port Commissionersand State EmergencyRelief Administration, 1934,Oakland History Room, Oakland Public Library I (Main). Kembfe, John Haskell. San FranciscoBay: A Pittotial Maririme Hiaory. New t York BonanzaBooks, 1957,Oakland History Room, Oakland Public Library (Main). I Oaklan4 City. Auditor's Report, FY 1m9-10 to FY 1914-15,Oakland Public Library (Main). I Oakland, City. Oakland Cultural Heritage Suwey. "Grove Street Pier Section 'A (Port of Oakland), Oakland"CA." (State Historic Resources T Inventory Form and researchfiles), June 1983,Oakland Planning Department. I f 276 I JUNE 1994 CTIARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION I DRAFT ENVI RONMENTAL IMPACI REPORT REFERENGS AND LITERATURE CTTED I OaHandTribune. OaklandPublic Library (Main). Miscellaneousanicleg including: "Hegardt,Noted Engineer, Dies,' 9-l-42. I "Bastowto Retire From Port Post" 7-7-59. 'Port PlaysMajor Role in EastbayEconomy," 5-15-60. I -Abel,Retired Port Chief,Dies at 79,"lz-n-il. OaHandTribune Year Book Annual reviews,with sectionson port I developments,1910, 1912, 1914-1949. Articles on Port of Oaklandby GustaveB. Hegardt09n-1932) andArthur H. Abel (1933-1%3), I OaHandHistory Room, Oakland Public Library (Main). PacifrcMaiae R*ievv, QaklandPublic Ubrary (Main). nFamousPort Engineer,Gustave B. Hegardt,"October 1942. T "Arthur H. Abel,"August 1948. Port of OaHandCompass, Oakland History Room, OaklandPublic Library I (Main). "Retiring Port ManagerHonored," May 1932. "NewPort Managerand ChiefEngineer Appointed," May 7932. t "Decadeof Progress:A Brief Summaryof Port of Oakland DevelopmentsDuring Its First Ten Years,'Jan./Feb., 1937. I Port of Oakland. Bulletins,issued on irregularbasis, Oct. 1930to May 1934, OaklandPublic Library (Main). I Port of Oakland.Plans, elevations and sectionsof GroveStreet Pier and I miscellaneousother structures, Poft of Oakland, PortProgress. "Charles P. HowardTerminal Dedication Issue," I Sept./Oct.,1982, Oakland Public Library (Main). Queenan,Charles F. ThePort of Los Angeles:From Wil.demessto WorldPort. los Angeles:I-os Angeles Harbor Department,1983, Oakland History I Room,Oakland Public Library (Main). Sanbom-PerrisMap Co. Insurancemaps of Oaklandfor 1889,1902, 1903, I 1971,79L2, 1927, 1935, 1940, 1951, 1952, OaHand History Room, OaklandPublic Ubrary (Main);Uiiversity of California(Berkeley), t BancroftLibrary; University of California,Berkeley, Map Room. I t 277 I CITARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 REFORT I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REFERENCFJ AND LITERATURE CITED t Scott, Met. The San FranciscoBay Area: A Metropolb in Perspective.Berkeley and Los Angeles:University of Califomia Press,1959, Oakland History Room, Oakland Public Library (Main). I Weber, David- OaHand: Httb of tlw l/est. Tulsa: Continental Heritage Press, Inc., 1981,Oakland History Room, Oakland Public Library (Main). T Weber, David- The Poft of OaHand..Siny Years:A Chronble of Progress Oakland: Port of Oakland Public Affairs Dept., 1987,Port of Oakland. I Zane, Wendy. "On the Waterfront of San Francisco.nUnpublished manuscript,n.d. (c. 1991),Foundation for San Franciscot Architectural t Heritage. 3. Socio-Economics I Journal of CommercePiers Data and Port of Oaklan{ Port of Oakland ContainerizedTrade Shareby GeographicRegion, Fiscal Year I 19g211993,Port of Oakland. I Poft Handbook for E*imafing Marine Terminal Caryo Handlhg Capability, Moffatt & Nichol, Engineers. Preparedfor U.S. Department of Transportation,Maritime Administration, November 1986'Moffatt & I Nichol, San Francisco. 4. Lsnd Use I Same as Policy Conformity cited above. I 5. Transportation Memo from Dean Luckhart, Port of Oaklan4 to SteveColman, Dowling T Associates,November 22" 1993,Port of Oakland. "1992Traffic Performanceof Bay Area FreewaySystem," prepared by Caltrans I District 4, Highway OperationsBranch, undated (dated of releasewas April 1993),Caltrans Oakland Office. I Alameda County Draft 1993Congaetion Management Program, Page 23' preparedby the Alameda County CongestionManagement Agency, March 15, 1993,Oakland Main Library. T I 278 JUNE 1994 CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL EJ Highway Capacily Manual Transportation Research Board Special Report 209, I washington, D.C., 1985,University of Califomia, Berkeley,Institute of Transportation Studies. I 6. Noise U.S. Housing and Urban Development Agenq, Noise and Land Use l Guidelines. I 7. Air Quality Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist.rria, Bay Area 91 Clean Air PIan, I 1991. Bay Area Air Quality Management Distria, Air Quality and. Urban t Developmmt, November 1985. State of Califomia Air Resources Boar{ Area Designatiansfot State and T National Ambient Air Quality Standards,November 1989, State of California Air Resources Boar4 Califomia Air Quality Data, Annual I Summary,Vols. XX-)ilV, 1989-1993. I 8. Geologr,Seismicity and Soils California DMsion of Mines and Geologl, 1969. SpecialReport 97, GeoW and EngineeringAspects of San Francbco Bay Fill U.S. Geological t Survey,San Mateo. Woodward-ClydeConsultants for Port of Oakland. October 1979, t GeotechnicalInvestigation CharlesP. Howard Container Terminal Port l of Oaklan4 Port of Oakland. t I 279 I CHARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ETWIRONMENIALIMPACT REPORT I REFERENCESAND LITERATURE CITED I 9. HazardousMatrrials ACC Environmental Consultants, 1992. Asbestat Sumeyand Hazard. t Asse*sment,E-407A BuMing, Howard Street Terminal Oakland, Cahfomia, Prepared for Geomatrix. I ACC EnvironmentalConsultants, 1993. Project Documentation, To: D. Schoenholtz,Port of Oaklan4 From: L. Everton, ACC. I San Francisco Estuary Project, 1993. E*uary, Volume 2" No. 6, Oakland, CA, December 1993. I State Water Resources Control Board, 7988. Cahfomia State Mussel Watch, Ten YearData Summary 1977-1987,Water Quality Monitoring Report No. 87-3. I 10. SedimentQuality I Ebasco Environmental, San Francism, CA, September 7991.Preliminary EndangennentAssessment Repot for PG&E's Former Manufactured Gas I Plant Sites.Volume 1 of 2. Port of Oakland. ERM-West, Walnut Creek, CA May 1986.Invesigatinn of Soil Contamination I at the Howard Terminal Site,Oadand, CA, Port of Oakland. MEC Analytical Systems,Inc., Tiburon, CA December, 1993. Resultsof t Chemical Physical and BioassayTesting of Sedilnentsat Berth 68, Port of OaHand, Port of Oakland. I MEC Analytical Systems,Inc., Tiburon, CA, January 7994. Resaltsof Chemical and Physiral Testhg of Sedimmts at Berth 68 and 69 for Upland Disposal,Port of Oaldand, Port of Oakland. T Port of Oakland, Environmental Department, Drafi Sedimmt Quality Report, CharlesP. Howard, Terminal Enension Project, April28, 1994, Port of I Oakland. US Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice 93-2. TestingGuidelines For I Drdged Material DisposalAt San FranciscoBay S#as,Port of Oakland. T t T 280 I T JUNE 1994 CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL D(TENSION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAST REPORT REFERENCES I AND LITERATUR"E CTTED 11. Water Quality I Alameda County,1994. VascoRoad Sanitary Landfill Area Y Eryansion,Draft EIR, StateClearing House Number 870?24m. Alameda County I PlanningDepanment, Hayward. Contra CostaCounty, 1989, 79XJ. Keller CanyonLandfil!, Draft E1R,1989and Final EIR 1990.State ClearinghouscNumber 89040415.Contra Costa I CountyComrnunity Development Department, Martinea. LSA Associatesfor SanJoaquin County, March 1993.Fhal Envi.rontnental t ImpactRepot for the Fontar4 Inc Landfill UsePermit Modifieations State Clearinghouse Number yn32n1fl, County # ER-9-4. San t JoaquinCommunity Development Department, Stockton, CA. Port of Oaklan4 1992.National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System l (NPDES)Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program, Port of Oakland. Port of OaHand,193. InterofficeMemo - Berth 68 ExpansionSediment t TestingResults, From: J. Amdur,To: D. Luckhart,Port of Oakland. RegionalWater Quality Control Boar4 SanFrancisco Bay Region (RWQCB), I 1993. Bay Protectionand ToxicCleanup Program - StatusRqort, October1993. RWQCB. San Francisco. I RWQCB. 1993.Letters Paciftc Dry DocksI and II, OaklandInner llarbor, From:T. Wu, RWQCB,To: R.S.Wilson, Crowley Environmental I Services,November 9 andDecember 30, 1993,Port of Oakland. StateWater ResourceControl Board (SWRCB), 1991. California Enctosed Baysand Estuaries Plan, Water Qualiry Control Plan for EnclosedBays t andEstuaries of Califomia,91-13 WQ. port of Oakland. SWRCB,1992a. General Industrial Activities Storm Water Permit. poft of I Oakland. SWRCB,1992b. General Construction ActMtv StormWater Permit. port of I Oakland. I U.S.Army Corpsof Engineers,199. EnvironmentalAssessment, Oakland Inner Harbor38-Foot Separable Elemmt of the OaHandHarbor NavigationImprovement Prqject, Alameda County,Califorma Port of t Oakland, I 281 I CI{ARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E Woodrvard Clyde for Marin County, 1994. RedwoodLand.fill Solid Waste FacilitiesPermit Eryansion Project, Final EI& Volume 1 - Revisiansto T Draft EI& State ClearinghouseNumber 91033042.Marin County PlanningDepartment, San Rafael. I 12. BiologicalResources Amdur, John, A. Clark-Clough,R.G. and MichaeauxJames, 1994. The I Feasibilityof BioremediatingContaminated Dredge Matedal,' in: Pmcedings of the Fifih Annual West Coast Conferenceon Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soilsand Groundwater,Port of Oakland. I Baily, S.F., 1985, Califomia Least Tern Foraging and Other Off-Colony I Activilics arcund Alameda Naval Air Station During 1985. California Academyof Sciences,San Francism, CA. I Califomia Department of Fish and Game, July 1992.Biomass E*bnates of Pacific Hening, Clupeapallasi, h Califomia from the 1991-92Spawning' Ground Sumeys.Marine ResourcesDivision, Administrative Report I No. 92-2. California Department of Fish and Game, Menlo Park. Colfins, L.D. 1987. Cahfomia Least Tem NestingSeason at the Alameda I NavalAir Station U.S. Department of the Navy,Natural Resources Branch, Westem Division Naval Facilities EngineeringCommand, San Bruno. I Earth Metrics, Inc. for the Port of Oaklan4 1990. Drafr Suplement to the Environmental Impact Repoft for the Redevelopmentof Camation T Terminal Area, Port of Oakland. Ebasco Environmental, San Francism, Cd September 1997. Preliminary I EndangermentAssessment Report for PG&E's Fotmer Manufactured Gas Plant Sites Volume 1 of 2, Port of Oakland. I Entri& Inc. Biologicat Asses.rmentof Winter-Run Chinook Sahnon Rel.ativeto Drdging and In-Bay Disposal Prepared for the Port of Oaklanq dated T October 16, 1991.Port of Oakland. I I 282 I JIrNE 1994 C}IARIES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E (TENSION T DRAFT E}WI RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I REFERENCES AND LTTERATURE CITED Erickson, R.A" 1985. Ecological Characteri^sticsof Least Tem Colony Sitesin California. MastersThesis, 110 pages,California State University, I Hayward. ERM-West, Walnut Creek, Cd May 1986. Invesigation of Soil I Contam tation at the Howard Terminal Srre,Port of Oakland. Hirsch, N.D., L.H. DiSalvo and R. Peddimrd. 1978. Effectsof Dredgiagand I Diqosal on Aquotb Oryonis'ns. Technical Report DS-78-5. Dredged Material ResearchProgram, U.S Army Corps of Engineers, t Washington,D.C., cited in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,1992. Jones and Stokes Associates,Inc. 1981. Ecological Charactuization of the Central and North*n Cabfomia Coastal Region. Vol. II, Part 2, Species t FWS/OBS-80/46.2.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Office of Biological Servicesand Bureau of Land Management,Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Office, WashingtonD.C., cited in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, I 1992. I MEC Analytical Systems,Inc., Tiburon, CA, December,1993. R*ults of Chernical Physical and BioassayTesting of Sedimentsat Befth 6$ Port of t OaHand, Port of Oakland. O'Connor, J.M. 1991. Evaluation of Turbidity and Tutbidity-RelatedEffects on the Biota of the SanFrancisco Bay-Delta Estuary. Prepared by the T San Francism Bay-Delta Aquatic Habitat Institute for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,San Francisco,cited in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, I 1992. Port of Oakland. 1982. Jack Lordon SquareProject DevelopmentPlana Drafi t Envimnmental Impact Repofts, Port of Oakland, San FranciscoBay Regional Water Quality Control Board" August 3, 199. Teng-ChungWu, Chief, Surfacewater Protection Division. Letter to I George Brook, CrowleyMaritime Corporation, SeattleWA. Subject: ContaminatedSediment at Pacific Dry Dock, Port of Oakland. I Spratt, J.D. 7987, Biomass Esrimatesof Pacific Herring, Clupea harengus pallas'., in Califomia for the 1986-1987Spawning Ground Suneys. I California Department of Fish and Game, Marine ResourcesDivision, Administrative Report No. 87-12,California Depaftment of Fish and I Gamq Menlo Park. I 283 I CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 199I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I CITED REFERENGS AND LITERATURE I Spratt, J,D. 1988. BiomassEsimates of Pacifrc Hening, Clupea harengus pahast, in Califomia for the 1987-1988Spawning Ground Surveys. California Department of Fish and Gamq Marine ResourcesDivision' I Administrative Report No. 88-7,California Department of Fish and Game, Menlo Park. I Spratt, J.D. 1989. BiomassEstimates ol Pacifrc Hening Clapea hareng*s pallasi,in Cabfomia for the 1988'1989Spawning Ground Suneyl California Departrnent of Fish and Game, Marine Resources Division' T Administrative Report No. 89-6 Califomia Department of Fish and Game, Menlo Park. I Sprat! J.D. 7990. BiomassEstimaus ol Pacific Henhg Clupea harengus pallasi,in Cobfomia for the 1989'1990Spawning Ground Suneyl California Department of Fish and Game, Marine ResourcesDivision' I Administrative Report No. 90-13. California Department of Fish and Gamg Menlo Park. I Stenzel,L. E., J. E. Kjelmer, G. W. Page,W. D. Shuford. 1989. Resultsof the First ComprehensiveShorebbd Censusof Nonhem and Central Califomia T Coastal Wetlands8-12 Septetnber1988. Point Reyes Bird Observatory' StinsonBeach. I Stenzel,L. E., and G. W. Page. 1988. Resnlrsof 16-18April 1988Shorebbd Censusof SanFrancisco and San Pablo Bays Point Reyes Bird Observatory,Stinson Beach. I Suer, A. 1987. The Hening of SanFrancisco and Tomabs Bay* The Ocean ResearchInstitute, San Francism. I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1984. Final Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement,OaHand Inner Harbor, Cahfomia Deep' T Draft Naigation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, CA. Port of Oakland. I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1988. SupplementI to the Environmental Impac! Statement- OaHand Outer and OaHand Inner Harbors Deep- Drufi Navigation Improvements- Alameda County' U.S. Army Corps of I Engineers,San Francism District, cited in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,1992. I I 2U I I Jt NE 1994 C}IARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL EJ(TENSION I DRAFT ETWIRONMENIAL IMPACT REPORT REFERENCESAND LITERATURE CITED I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1992. Environmental Assessment,OaHand Inner Harbor 3$-Foot SeparableElement of the OaHand Harbor I Navigation Improvement Project. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco,Pon of Oakland. I U.S. Department of the Navy. l9X). Final Environmental Impact Statemed for ProposedNew Dredging,IJ.S. NavyMillary Construction Prqiects: P' 202 Naval Ai Station Bay, Cahfomi.a" U.S. Department of the Navy' t western Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command' San Bruno, cited in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,1992. I U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980. Cahfomia Least Tern RecoveryPIan Region 1. Portland, Oregon. In cooperationwith the Least Tern T RecoveryTeam, cited in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,1992. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sewice, 1992. Preliminary Planning Aid Irtter dated I March 5, 1992to the Corps of Engineers,San FranciscoDistrict. Venar for Crowley Maritime Corporation, 1992.Revisd lnshore Sediment t Impairment StudyPacifu Dry Dock and Repair Yard II, Oakland, Califomia,Port of Oakland. I Wang, J.C.S, 1986. Frhes of the Sacrumento-Sanloaquin Estuary and Adjacent Waten, Cahfomin: a Guid.eto the Early Life Hi*oies. TechnicalReport 9, January 1986. InteragencyFcological Study I Program for the Sacramento-SanJoaquin Estuary,California Department of Fish and Game, Stockton. t Zeineg D.C., W'F. LaudenslayermJr., K.E. Mayer and M. White. 1990. Cahfomia's Wildlife, Volu.tneII Birds. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat RelationshipsSystem. The ResourcesAgency, Department of I Fish and Game, Sacramento. I 13. Public Accessand Recneation Sameas Policy Conforrnity. I Association of Bay Area Govemments (ABAG). 199{J. The San Francisco I Bay Trail Phn, ABAG, Oakland. I I 28s I CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E (TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ENVI RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REFERENCES AND LMERATURE C TED 14. Visual Resources Sameas Policy Conformity. Port of Oakland. June 1985. Ja* London Square Urban Design Study and DevelopmentGuideliaes, Port of Oakland, 286 I l I Append'uA I PERMITTED BERTH MAINTTNANCE DEPTHS I t T I I I I I I I I I t t I CHARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL E I Locrtlon Permitled DeDthr (M.LLW.) 7 AImv I 8 BFT 9 BBT 10BBT -36' I 20 SEAI-AND -42' 2I SEAIAND I 22 OHPCT 42' 23 NOL 24 MAERSK I A5 TBCT -38' INTERCONNECTIN G CIIANNEL -38', 26 TBCT I 30 MITSUI/TRAPAC 32 MATSON -38' I 33 MATSON -38' 34 MATSON -38' 35 7TH ST PCT 42' I 37 7TH ST PCT -42', 38 7TH ST PCT -,lO' 40 PORT -3',t' I 60 APL -38' 61 APL -38' I 62 APL -4U 63 APL 40' 67 HOWARD 42' I 68 HOWARD 42', 69 HOWARD -35' 82 9TH AVE -35' I -35', 83 gTH A\/E 84 9TII A\/E -35' I BROADWAY MARINA -15' OTIIER MARINAS I I I A-3 I CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL EXTENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ET'IVIRONMENIAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX A: PERMITTED BERTH MAINTENANCE DEPTHS A4 I I I Appendix B I INITIAL STUDY I !tr I T I I I I I I I I I I I I CTIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAI E(TENSION Jt NE 1994 DRAFT ET'TVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REFORT APPENDIX B: tNmAL STUDY T ED # 92-023/Eq7A,/iscomp/Sept93 I INITIAL STUDY EXPANSION OF WHARF AREA - CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL I Port of Oaklaad GENERAL INTORMATTON II A. Project Name: Expansionof ExistingWharf CharlesP. Howard Terminal I B. Proj€ct Purpose: The purpose of the project is to maximize the containerized shipping potential of the Charles P. Howard Terminal by extendingthe length of the wharf, by increasingthe amount of useablebackland within operationalreach of the cranesand by inproving ouGbound t truck circulation. C. ProjectSponsor: Port of Oakland Maritime Division I 530 Water Street Oakland,CA 921607 I Contacts: John Verheul Maritime Division (510)2:72-1W I Jerry Sewenti Engineering Design 6Lqnz-L?ffi or Dean Luckhart t EnvironmentalDepartment (510)272-1777 "J.-5 t D. Ass€ssor#: Book O/Map 410/P$cel E. Land Use: Designated- Shipping(Oakland Shoreline PIan) I Existing- Shipping(Charles P. Howard Terminal) F. Project Description: The proposedproject consistsof the demolitionof a transit shedand wharf apron,the repair of a quaywall, the strengtheningof portionsof the wharf previouslycovered by the transit shed the constructionof approximately116,500 square feet of pile-supportedwharf structure,the dredgingand potentialupland I disposal of approxirnately 12"000cubic yards of sedimentsfrom the Bay, the provision of miscellaleous site improvements and frnally, the uncovering of -- -- -, - . square feet of existing Bay fill and the provision of ------I squaft feet of improvedpublic accessin the vicinityof ----- The tra.nsitshed that is to be dernolishedwas constructed circa 7929 as a "state-of-the-art" break bulk facil.ity with nro floors of ofhcesto housethe newlyformed Port Commission.Port officesrelocated in the 1960'sand the spacewas never reused. The containerization of the shipping industry has left the transit shed vacant much of the time and the I Loma Prieta Earthquakein 1989caused extensive damage to the pilings under the shedand the wharf apron on the eastand south of the building. The building itself sustainedminor darnagebut further deteriorationof the quaywall I could affect the whole building. The building appearseligible for the NationalRegister of Historic Buildings. The quaywall, a large concrete"gravity type" retaining wall, extendingeast from Market Streetto Clay Street,has functionedas the land/waterinterface siuce it was constructedcirca 1910. The wall also servEsas the foundationof I the front wall of the transit shed. Little wasknown of the conditionof the quaywall until recent explorations revealed extensivecracking and settling under the building. I -1- I The pilingsunder the building and wharf apronswere damagedin the Loma Prietaearthqua-ke and were I subsequentlyrepaired to supportthe original designload of the wharf of 600 poundsper squarefoot- Federal EmergencyManagement Act (FEMA) staff havebeen actively involved in the pile repair project, SinceMarine terminal operations today routinely rcquire a loading capacity of 1000pounds per squ:ne foot, work will be undertakento increasethe strensthof the old wharf. l Chafles P. Howard terminal now has 1642lineal feet of wharf apron. An additional 298 lineal feet ('16,500square feet) would make it possibleto accommodatetwo new generationcontainer ships simultatreously. The longervessel I is now standard in the industry and call routinely at CPH Terminal and when schedulesoverlap, the secondship must stard-by ir the Bay. This extensionwould create handling capacity for the termina.l operator aad ssg[d ninimize the a.mountof Bay fill required for what is essentiallya new berth - a goal of both the Bay Plan and the Seaport Plar I Berth 68 is currently rnaintained to -42 feet Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) plus 2' of over-dredge. The new berth area will need to be dredged Lo -42 feeaMLLW plus 2' of over-dredge. This will generate 12,000cubic ]ards of sedimentsthat will be disposedof as required dependingupon the chemistry of the sedinent sanpling. The naterial I that is clean enough for disposal at Alcatraz will be disposedof at tbat site, the balancewill be designatedfor upland disposal. There are no plans to deepen the channel adjacent to the additional length of berth at this time. The non-pile supported landside area will be graded, paved, drained, illuroinated aud srripcd for terminal use. T The project'srequired pile supporredfill in the Bay will be mitigatedby the removalof existingunuse{ 9r udL'. utilizid itructurei in oiover iG bay. Tbese structures have yet to be identihed in thefu entitety but their demolition will contributeto the health of the Bay in excessof the area of coverage.The removalof thc old piles (cuttilg at I mud line) will elininate a continuingsource of contaminationfrom the exposedcreosote surfaces of the piles. The provision of public accessat this site is not appropriate due to the nature of the healy equipment in use on the I site and the hazardousconditions to the unwary visitor that result from normal operations at a container terminal. There are no nearby unimproved sites. The g?e and e)dent of feasible, in lieu public accesshas not yet been identified but would ideally be transportation/shipping oriented and could perhaps showcasea visual record of the l eady history of the Port and its development. Location: Tbe project is located in the Inner Harbor of tbe Port of Oakland, wirhin the Ciry of Oakland, in the County of Alamida. The San Antonio Estuary widened and deepenedover the years to create the Middle a.ndInner I Harbor Channelsprovides water accessto the site while the land-side accEssto the terninai is by way of Market Streetwith ..-/arty accessfrom Martin Luther King Jr. Way. The site is lessthan a half mile from Interstate 880/980 and the relocation/consruction of the failed ponion of I-880. t Envimnrnental Setting: The Charles P. Howard Terminal is located on the Inner Harbor Channel of the Oakland- AlamedaEstuary (once knownas the SanAntonio Estuary)in the City of Oakland. lt 1927,at the time the Port t Commissionwas established,the site was already a municipal harbor facility known as the Oakland Municipal Dock and Warehouse. Plans were underway to redevelop it into a "slate-of-the-art" break-bulk terminal, and this was done as one of the lirst actsof tbe newlyformed Board of Port Commissioners.It also becametheir hrst "perma.nent" home i! 1930. Aithough the Port offices were officially moved in the 1960'ssorne portion of the offices were I occupied into the 19?0's. As originally constructedtthe building formed a "U" shape with wharf frontage on three sides anclrail service down the middle. The site was redevelopedin the early 1980'sto respond to the gowing demand for marine facilities with the capacity and technologyto handle containerized freight. As part of that I modernization,well over half of the truo.it .h"d was demolishedand fill was placed to create a continuouswharf face alongthe Inner Harbor, leavingthe remainingstructure as it is today, That work was the subjectof an enviromental documentprepared in 1976. Developmentof the site has been regulatcdin the pastby the San FranciscoBay Conservationand DevelopmentCommissiou and by the US Corpsof Engineersunder BCDC Permit I No. 13.78and COE Permit No. 12571-35respectively. The site is part of the OakiandChinatorrin/Central CommunityDevelopment District, but typicallythe District'sinvolvement in the Port Area hasbeen nominal- I In the early 1980'sthe City of Oaklandundertook an inventoryof the historic resourc€sof the City. This wasdone underthe authorshipof the StateHistoric PreservationOfficer (SHPO) as required by the NationalHistoric PreservationAct of 1966(NHPA). The remainingportion of the transit shedwas surveyedby the OaklandCultural 'A' T HeritageSurvey Staff for architecturaland historicinterest and was rated (Highestinportance). The building is on the City of OaklandPreservarion Study List and is possiblyeligible for inclusior on the NationalRegister of Historic Places. I I I In l989.theold secrionof wharf under the transit shedsustained extensive damage during the Loma Prieta earthqriake-The buildingsusrained relatively minor darnagebut the major foundation,a 1910quay wall usder the front of the building,is severelydistressed. The Port appliedfor FederalEmergency Management Act fundsfor the repair of the damagedpilings (the work has sincebeen completed)which ir turn triggereda Section106 consultation T processregarding the Port's proposalto demolishthe trarsit shed. The site is sandwichedbetween the Estuaryand the rail tracksthat havehistorically served the developmentof the I waterfront. Uplald, to the north and west,is a largelyindustrial section of the City of Oakland. This industrial section,like many othersin the Bay Area is begiming to giveway to retail, commerciala.nd ofhce uses- United lron work has become Cost Plus and a series of smaller retail outlets; a cannery has become a leather accessoriesfactory I and retail outlet. These newer uses,with their heavier reliance on passengervehicles and pedestriau trafiic nay have a different level of compatibility with the increasedintensity of landside trucking activity that is t)?ical of a marine terminal and that will be increasedwith the proposed wharf extension. A similar hansition is in processon the other side of the estuary,in Alameda- This transitionwill likely be acceleratedby the decommissioningof the Alameda I Naval Air Station and the conversionof that property hto some combination of currently u.nknownuses. The geological structure of the area is largely marine and alluvial sedimeotarydeposits with Merritt sandsunderlain I by the San Antonio formation. The upper soils are of medium dense to densebrown silty and cla!€y sands. The sedimentsto be dredged are known to contain the usual componentsand concentrationsof potentially contaminated materials characteristic of urban run-off. Bedrock is known to be up to 250' or more below the existing ground srirface. The site is within a highly active seismic areqhoweverr.there is no known or suspectedfault within the site I itself or the immediatevicinity. The most recentseis6ic event'ofnote wasthe Loma PrietaEarthquale in 1989 which did causesignificant damage to this older portion of the wharf. The rest of the terminalwas reconstructedin T the early 1980'sand sustainedonly minor non-cripplinginconveniences. The Inner Harbor Channelhas an authorizeddepth of 38'. The U.S.Army Corpsof Engineersis curreotlyworking on a related project to deepen the channel to -42'MLLW and to provide a turning circle for vesselsjust w€st of tbe t proposed project. The channel width at the Charles P. Howard Terminal is approxinately 600'. The averagediurnal tide range is 6.5 feet with an averagecurrent of 0.7 knots. The channel is well sheltered with wind induccd wave t action ralging from 0 to 2'. PRO.IECT IMPACTS EVALUATION: lr. Discussionof impactsth€ project may haveon natural and man-maderesounc€s: GeologicatFactors: Could the Projector its relatedactivities affect, or be affectedby the following: YES MITIGASLE I{O I SIGNIFIC$IT (TTS, NO, SIOIIIFICAIIT ADVERSE IfiKNOWN) A.DVERSE EPFECT EFFEC1 1. Seismic hazards,including fault surface I rupture, Iiquefactior\ seismic shating, landslidhg tsunami inundation l:i:iiii ii!#,ii :;:l:;:;:;l I 2. Slopefailure lii.i:i.i ifi:j.i::. IiDqi:i :i illiiill 3. Soil hazards: soil creep,shrink-swell I (expalsiveness),high erosionpotential iiii;;i:;:: :.r:r.rr.l riilf;:ii 4. Mineral resources i.iil'{j.x I 5. Other (State) :i:r:i,:i:i t COMMENTS: 1. The demolitionof the building,which wassomewhat damaged in the Loma Prieta earthquakein 1989,will actuallyrnake the overallsite saferin the eventof anothernatural disaster.The structurehas been adversely I affectedbv the Loma Prieta earthouakeof 1989and is not constructedto modern seismiccodes. The -3- I rernovalof thc buildingwould havethe net result of improvingthe safet-vof the site during a future seismic I event. The proposedrepairs to the existingquay wall will also havea positiveeffect on the safetvof the site. The wharf will be designedto a standardcompatible with earthquakesafety requirements and the necessity of economicviability. I 4. Mineral resourcesof this site were grantedto the City/Port alongwith the waterhont propertyso that it is not necessaryto further consultState Lands Commission prior to dredgingthe site. I Hydrologic Factors: Could the Project affect, or be affected by the following MITIGAILE I l{o UNxnOff , SIGITIFICAIIT (vEs, No, SIGNIFICINT AtltESSE UI|K€$T) A.DI'ERSE E!T'ECT it:i;i;l:!: i:l:.:i::i,ii 1. Public or private water supply ii:"e....,i i:1.+:la t 2. Septictanh functioning(hadequate percolatiou,high water table,location I in relation to watercourses,etc.) :::.i:iit; iiiAf.i,l ,r.i:,:.:!!:ia 3. Increasedsedimentation rates !ii:i+i ;ii.&; T Surfaceor groundwaterquality (contaminants other than sediment,i.e. urban runoff, nutrients,pesticides, temperature, dissolved I orygen, etc.) llijilii L$trii] ':,:i,*ii:t ). Groundwaterrecharge j:ii:j:iti .r:j.ri.r: I o. Watercourseconliguration,capacity,orhydraulics::il;i.il itr:illi :i*ili 7. Degradationof ripariancorridor, marsh, I i:,ti;:i; late, estuary,slough ill?li' ljiilf-,f rlXii'il i:ii::a:.,: 'ii.i.#il 8. Increasedrunoff due to impervioussurfacing i:iiitiiiii i.i..j.:f.:i{ I 9. Floodhazard areas, their depth or extent i:lii;iii! t:ii::ii]:ii i:i;r:i:i: I 10. Cumulativesaltwater intrusion ,,,:.,, ;.i::.;::'a ,!,:i(iiri 11. other (state) iii{s;' I COMMENTS: 4- The wharf extensionportion of the project will increase the amount of irnpervious surfacing by exposingthe I floor area of the building and by the addition of 46,500square feet of pile supported wharf structure. Potential mitigation would, in turn, reduce the amount of impervious surfacing for an over-all no "net" increase.Also, there may be some effecton the water qualityof the surfacerun-off from the site. Currently,57,000 square feet (1.31acres) of the site is roofed over and the resultantrun-off is directedto I sixteen points of entry into the estuary. When the wharf extensionhas been constructed,the building has been demolishedand the site repaved,the run-off from that area will hav€ the opportunity to pick up contaminantsassociated with terminal operations and storage of chassisor containers. The potential for T signficant degradationof surfacewaters is minor comparedto the total runoff from the 53 acre terminalor from the larger urban environment.Through pavement drainage design, compliance with NPDES standards and "bestmanagement practices", contaminated runoff can,for tbe area under consideration,be reducedto I levels of insisnihcance. I I I During the demolitionand constructionphases, every effort will bc made aoprevent pollutants from entering the storm systemor from being directlydischarged into the estuary- I 6. The bottom of the watercourseconfiguration will be changedand the actualcapacity for water (volumeof the Bay) will be increasedby the proposeddredging. This is not consideredto be an adr€rseinpact ad I thereforedoes nor require mitigatioo. 7. There will be someunavoidable degradation of the estuarywaters during the dredsingard pile driving ope(atio!,s. From previous testing, we knovr that there may b€ contaminantsin the sedimentswhich will be I disturbed during the construction phases. This degradationwill be of limited duration and until further testing and analysisis completed it is unknown whether the dredging will have a significant adverseefiect. Biotic Factors:Could the Proj€ct affect,or be affectedby the following: I YES MITIGASLE lIC) I'NKIIO9'N SlGlIIFICA'I' (IES, rro, sIGllIfIclfr AI}VENSE uNxrlqor) ADVERSE EFFECT EITECT I l. Krown habitatof rare/endangeredplants or animals (identi! specific species,if known) jXirii i:i',tr,ii:: ,i it i:iEi:,: 2. I Unique or fragile biotic community iilliii,l illl}(,1! J. Wildlife habitat or migration corridor iiXll. I Alterationsto the plant community r:iiitiii:l ::i!!siiii 5. Fire hazard from flammable brush, grass or trees T ijiri{lti:l 1:i'l:i:i:j 6. Auadromous fishery l::,:iji:i1 ii 7. I lands currently uti.lized for agriculture l:iirilri iii$,,'ii l:i:t:i:r:l 8. Other(State) t:if:i:i:i t:i:;:i:t::: ::.1:....i,,1i1 ii,l(iii I COMMENTS: The proposedproject will haveno effect on land basedbiotic factorsexcept for deprivingthe bird populationof roof- I top nesting or resting places. This is not considered significanr. The wharf extension will increase the area of shadowedmarine habitatand thereforethere could be somedisplacernent of organismsrequiring the degreeof exposurecurrently available. As a part of the overallproject, an approfmately equal area of water will be exposed I to light and will offset the proposed loss. Noise, Air and Energr Factons: Could the Project affect or be affected by the following: I NO UTKNqdN (YES, NO SIGIIIFICANT ElTICT ":x#:fl" ulIKltoHN) ADVERSE EFFECT I 1. Existing noise levels (ambient and single event) iitifii: it#i:ii iii,i.tii ::i:::t:::! 2. Ambient air quality (by hydrocarbon,thermal, I odor, dust,smoke, radiation, etc.) iilgi:;: .ffii,i ii.# rii:ii:ii 3. Climate (locally or regionally) ::i;i:iii ::!i+;:i: !i:i:l:::ll: 4. iil;::::::l I Use of substantialamounts of fuel enerry ,iiir,, :i::ii::.: ,i'r.'x-jii t:;ti.i:i 5. Cumulativeincrease in energydemand, noise, ',,, I or air pollutants i.ili:i:i: :rffi:i: I COMMENTS: I 1' Existingnoise levels will increasedduring constructionand may increasenonirally during operations.The increased capacityof the rerminalmav result in additionaltruck trips. The curent tralsiiio; of the land use in the area from industrialto commeicialand office doesnot really affectthe r"*p;;;;dvity facroras l the terminal was a pre-existing use. Therefore the increasednoise levels are unlikely to constitute a significaotadverse environmental impact. I 2' During the demolition and construction processthere will be a decreasein ambient air quality due to dust. hp*l lh on air quality can be mitigated through the partial conrrol of airborne parricuJatesby wefdng down.the site during the demolitionand constructionprocess and by adheringto aorpted practicesfor the harlling I of regulated materials. The Port conductedan asbestossurvey of thie building as iequircrt by EpA and the Bay Area Air Quality MaaagementDistrict regulations. Asbesios was identifrJd in floor tile aad mastic_, sheet vinyl, pipe insulation, and roofrng materials. All asbestoswill be rerroved and dispoeedof in accordancewith Federal ald State regulations prior to or in conjunction with the demolition ofine buitding. I Upland disposal_ofdredged materials unsuitable for disposa.lat Alcatraz will be handled and fansported in ways that will mininize air borne pa iculates and it will be done under the supervisionof quaiifiei personnel in accord with an approved plan. T E. Natural Resources:Could the Project affect, or be affected by the use, e{raction or consewation of any natural resources? I MIT16A!LE stelrF:cAxl (YES, NO, -'$i*,#' T$i?i ADVERSE uflxn4rN) I il: coMMENTS: # I The project does not affect the use, extraction or conservationo[ any natural resource. I F. Cultural/Aesthetic Factors: Could the project affect or result in the following MIlIGASLE l{o uNxllottN S I6IIIFICANI (YES, NO, STGNIFIC}NT ADVERSE u gtot{N) ADVENSE I EITECT EFFECT 1. The establishedcharacter, aesthetics or functioning of the surroundingarea ,:Xl, iii:,:;+ I 2. Physical changeaffecting unique ethnic cultural values :ijliti fii; t Restriction of existing religious or sacreduses within the potential impact area iii,iiilij: riiri,i I Prehistoricor historicbuildings, srrucures, objectsor uniquecultural features :;:iii:,i: l:!+..rii ritX:ii :::::i::lri: Archaeologicalor paleontologicalresources ,'.l,.]'l$:i:r t 6. Areas havingimportant visual/scenicvalue ririXrii ii.*:ri :irl!,i:i:i t 7. Adopted scenichighways or areasof scenic value i::::lill i'] iilli l: iiii.iil ,r+lsiii I Landspreserved under an agricultural,scenic, or open spacecontract :iil:,1! ,it::i:i:,, i*.i.i i,i*:,:r I -6- I YES HITIGASLE NO I SIGNIFICAIIT (YES, HO, SIGNIFICAHT T$-u ul{K]ror ) ADVERSE 9. Hazard to peopleor property from risk of explosion I or releaseof hazardoussubstances either on 6ite or in ,:. . I traffit iri.ii:i:i ffili 10. Signilicantnew light or glare impactson site or surroundingarea ...,.1,, I ,:.:.:;; ii#,iri i:i.i;ni.; 11. Displacementof peopleor businessactivity ,-,,,, l..-rjii irlt$* 12. Public controversy t :iix$l liiiii:lii 1j.1.:!,:+l 13. (Srate) Other #r :i:i:iriii:: iilxirri I COMMENTS: 1. The rernovalof the transitshed will alter the aestheticsof the surroundingarea. The viewsfrom Alameda, I the Estuary,the Waterfront PlazaHotel, the Frankliu Delano Roosevelt(FDR) pier, the ferry dock and the public accesspaths of Jack London's waterfront will be changed. The view towards the site from each of these locaiions is currently dominated by expansesof blue wall. The visually dominant eastern face of the building is 450' long and 33' in height 32' from the edge of wharf with an undifferentiated series of vehicular I entriesbelow banded,industrial sash windows. The main facadeof the building is in the "beauxart" styleof the City Beautiful movement which flourished in the 1920's. This 40-45' high by 2n0' long face of the building is viewed primarily from the public accessin Jack London's Waterfront which approachesobliquely I from the east. The utilitarian wall facing the Estuary was consftucted in the eady 1980'swhen the other portion of the original transit shed structure was removed. The removal of the remaining structure will serve to provide a better opportunity to view maritime terminal operations from existing public accessfacilities ald I will possibly open up views to the wesL The removal of the building will affect the character thoug! not the functioning of the surrounding area. The function remainsmaritime and shippingrelated (although more intenselyso and more visiblyaccessible) I and the beaux art architectural style will still be representedin the area by the more visible and dominant PG&E structure a.longthe Embarcadero that will remain. The major visual/aesthetic difference will be in I the lack of a visualterminus to the vistaslisted above. 4. The demolitionof the building will destroya visibleand tangiblereminder of the historicaldevelopment of the Port of Oaklandas the first permanentoffices of the newlyformed Board of Port Commissionerswere locatedwithin the upper floors of this shedand the sistershed that was demolishedin the early 1980's.In I June of 1983,the remaining portion of the building was studied by City of Oallald sta{f and consulta s as part of the Oakland Cultural Heritage Surveywhich was performed at the direction of the State of California ResourcesAgency. As a result of the survey,the building was placed on the City of Oakland Landmark l study list (it received an 'A' rating) becauseof the buildingls associationwith the economic and industrial past of Oakland, becauseof its architectural significance,and becauseof its associationwith local governmentalhistory. All of these factors can be thoroughly documented and made available to the public as a mitigationmeasure. Somehistoric photographsof the building existand thesecan be augmentedby I recentphotographs to documentthe styleand detailsof the sructure. Original blueprints,and microfilm thereot exist and these can be arcbived if the original drawings cannot be found. The avaiiable historical documentsof the originsof the Port dnd the contextof the City can be assEmbledfor archivingand/or l public display. With the involvement of interested citizens and knowledgeable,skiiled professionals,it shouldbe possibleto documentthe building historicallyand architecturallyso as to oeate a fitting retrospectiveof the building. it would then be most appropriateto replacewhat was oncea "state-of-the-art" I shippingfacility wilh a current "state-of-the-art"maritime facility. 17. Publiccontroversy does surround this projectbecause of the expressedneed of the Port of Oakland I Maritime Department to maxjmize the efhciencv and the potential of existing facilities. A crunch is felt on I the landsidebecause of exisringnon-maritime land usesand the difficultiesinherent in streetclosures, I hazardousmaterials clean-up and the probablehistoric inrerestin the structuresthat would be in the way of the most likely other expansiondirection (north and west)of the CharlesP. Howard Terminal. Also, in consideringoverall seaport development and existingpolicies relating to fill in the Bay, an opportuniwexists at this location to substantiallyincease the capacity of the terrninal bv a very nininal addition of pile I supportedfill. G. Public Servicc Factort: Could the Project or its related activities have effects upon or result in a need for new I or alteredgovernmental services in any of the followingareas: ,rnnlii"*, ",11tT"T ,r**or"*, ffi .DVERSE I'NIOIOIN) ADVERSE I EITE EFIECI 1. Fire protection lii$i :,:.;..:l,:;:I 2. Police protection lll,fl$iil ,.ir,#i 3. Schools ,ll:l*il iii.rii I 4. Park and recreation facilities iii** iilil 5. TraJfic(increases in congestion,hazard) :lil i.iii.], I 6. Emergenryresponse or evacuationplans ii*;ii .ii..l;:i. I 7. Maintenance of public facilities (roads, channels,etc.) iir'#s tliix 8. Public mass tra$portation or alternative I transportationmodes (preempting of some) :i:i;lil: Li.:t,,iti tii#.ii tiiji:i:iii 9. Orher(Srate) i.iiliir i rifiiit; I COMMENTS: t^ I 5. There maffiubstantial increasein truck raffic to and from the terminalwhen both berthsare occupiedand being worked, This will in part be off-set by freeing spacewithin the terminal for chassisthat are now stored off-site. Overall queuingtime will be significantlyreduced by the expansionand modernizationof the gate complexthat is currentlybeing designedfor construction.In addition,the improvementsto Embarcaderoby I Caltraas will reduce the congestionon Market and Third Streets; I Public Utility Factors: Could the Project or its related activities have an effect on or result in a need for new systems or substaDtialalterations to the followineutilities: MIIIGTSLE NO uNxlro{N SIGIIIFICAIN (YES, NO SIGIfIFICANT EFFECT I ADVSRSE ul{xlto{N ) ADVERSE EFFECT EITICT 1. Seweror septics),stems jiil$siii I 2. Water for domesticuse and fire protection l1::.ii'r'::1 I 3. Natural gasor electricity l!F.,i, 4. Storm water drainage iii.x'i: I 5. Solid waste disposal I -8- I YES MITIGASLE l{o I SIGI{IFICANI (YES, NO SIGI{IFICAII1 ADVERSE u{xnqJt{) JDI'ERSE EFFECT EFPECT I 6. Communicationsystems i'i:I'{i..r 7. Plant facilities for anv of the above I (sewerplants, microwave station) water tarks! etc.) i:i:p:::l I COMMENTS: There are no knoun environmental impacts to the Public Utility factors listed that would result from this projecr as I all neededservices currently exist on the site. 1. & 2' The domesticwater and sadtary sewerservice that existon the site will no longer be requiredand wil.lbe cut' capped and abandonedas appropriate. Fire protection service will be maintained either through the I servicethat existsto the structureor though the e)densionof the exisri"gservice to the yard. 3. There is no natural gasservice to the structureand the electricservice is sufficientto meet the electrical I treedsfor the additional yard area. 4. Storm water drainageis currentlyhandled by way of 1.6rainwater leaders enending down the face of the building and then droppingdirectly into the Estuary. Storm runoff from the \pharfsheet flows from the I building on two sides into the Estuary. This latter drainage pattern will likely remain intact with the repaved floor areabeing directedto new and existingyard catchmentbasins as neededto drain the yard. There will be a slight increase (one acre in a fifty three acre complex) in the amount of inpervious paving which will be I reflected in storm water concentration levels and times. Becausethis addition is over water, it is not expectedto conftibuteto any potentialflooding problems. t 5. The communic:tionssystem service to the building site will be discoutiuued. Socio-Economic Could the Project involve: TI. IES MIIIGAILE ITO UNKXqff sIG lrtcrN? (yts, No sldrrtFrcAltT EFFEC' AIVERSE U XIIoNJN) ADVERSE ETFECT XFFECT I 1. Expenditureof public fundsin excess of public revenuesgenerated by private proiects :i,,,, ii:il:ii 'i'.scll 2. t Reductionof low/moderateincome housing iilil! !j.ij:I n.iI$ii' I 3. Creationof demandfor additionalhousing :,i.i:,i :i:i:. ii.ff;il 4. Land use not in conformancewith character of surrounding neighborhood !:ifi:lf+ i:i:l:l:jii iiil*:r;:i I 5. Orher (State) i::iir';ii li:$(i;ii I COMMENTS: No adverseSocio-Economic impact will result from this project. The terminal expansionwill provideadditional emPlolmentopportunities and additionalrevenue to the Port as well as to the City through a healthierlocal T economy. t I -9- I J. GeneralPlans and PlanningPollcy: Is the Project: YES NO 1. Inconsistentwith the OaklandComprehensive plan I li-,-Xj,ii ii:!iili;i 2. Inconsistentwith the OaklandShoreline plan :ii::ii: iiiX . I 3. Inconsistentwith other adoptedpolicies ilisi il+l:a 4. Potentially growth-inducing iiil]lt,:i I COMMENTS: 1. The Port of Oaklandis a departmentof the City of Oaklald. The City of Oaklandhas prepareda I ComprehensivePlan whicb reflects the Oakland Shoreline Plan prepared by the Port and which is used by the Port to guide the developmentof the Port. The proposedproject is consistentwith the PolicyPlan and the Illustrative Future Land Use map showing the nadtime shoreling uses. However, other sectionsof the I ComprehensivePlan such as the General Considerations,Policy 4/of the knd Use and Urban Desiqn Element, establish an advisory policy of preservationof historic resourceq to the extent possible,within the City. I 3. The proposed project is inconsistentwith the policies of the State and Federal Government insofar as they seekto reinforcethe preservationof historicresources. Specifically, the NationalHistoric PresewationAct of 1966,through accountability of federal agenciesin granting assistanceto local agencies,arrd through tbe I activities of the State Historic Preserration Officer, seek to preserveknor*T historic buildings a-ndplaces whether on the national, state or local level. The Federal project evaluation process(Section 106) wilt not be required but the State Historic PreservationOffrcer will still have to rule on the historical status of the I building becauseof its inclusion on the City of Oakland Landmark PreservationStudy List. If the strucrue is found to have historical signfficancethe State Historic PreservationOfficer is charyed with assistingthe local agencyin finding and/or adopting feasible measuresto eliminate or mitigate the adverseeffects. I III. MANDATORYFINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE I Pursuantto Section15065 of the SrareCEQA Guidelines,a projectshall be found to have a significant effect on the environment if any of the following are true: YES NO 1. The projecthas the porentialto degradethe qualityof the I environment, substantiallyreduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaininglevels, threaten to eliminate I a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the rarrgeof a rare or endangeredplant or animal or elimiaate importalt exarnplesof the major periods of I California history or prehistory. it#i.ii 2. The projecthas the potentialto achieveshort-term to the disadvantageof long-term environmental goals I 3. The project has possibleenvironmental effects which are individuallylimited but cumulativelvmnsiderable. I Cumulativelyconsiderable means that the incremental effectsof an individualproject are considerablewhen viewed in connection with the effect of past projects, the I effectsof other currentprojects, and the effectsof probablefuture projects. :i:$[jri I -10- I I YES NO 4. The environmentaleffects of a projectwill causesubstantial adverseeffects on humanbeiues, either directlyor I indirectly. COMMENTS: I Localy signficantimpacts that could be partiallymitigated include: 1. The potentialloss of the viewsof the bui.ldingand the physicalreminders of the historyof the Port causedby the proposed demolition of Buildiog E4{7A can be ameliorated through the careful and s.vstematicassembly I of current '. and historic records of the building and the placing of these records in the halds of interested historians'Iibrarians and museum fo-,the purposeolmarking this structure'splace in history. The "u.utor. Port may attemptto find, and partiallyunderwrite, an interestedthird party willing to relocatethe I "headhouse"portion of the structureto somesuitable location outside of the terminal. 'fiI1" 2' The Bay requiredfor this project can be mitigatedby the uncoveringof a comparablenumber of square I feet of currently covered water or by the creation of -- of new bay or by some combination of the above. 3. The dredgingrequired to createthe additionallength for Berth 68 is nominal and is contiguouswith other I areas receivingroutine dredging. Therefore,no "new"area is being dredged. The sedimentsrenoved in the dredgingprocess will be taken uplandfor disposalif they are inappropriatefor disposalat the in-bay A.lcatrazsite, or if that site has beenseasonally used to capacityin advanceof this project being ulder I constr[ction, 4. The public interestin accessto the waterfront,since for reasonsof safetycauot be accommodatedon the site can be mitigated by the provision of 300 (600 ?) lineal feet of enhancedpublic accessalong the Oakland t shoreline that is not otherwise the subject of a curent requirement from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and DevelopmentCommission. I DEIT,RMINATION l - 1. I fud that tle proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, aDd a NEGATM DECLARATION will be prepared. I - 2. I find that althoughthe proposedproject could havea significanteffect on the environment,there will not be a signficant effectin this casebecause the mitigationrn"asui", describedabove have been addedto the projectby the proJectsponsor, A NEGATIIT DECI-{RATION will be prepared. I X 3. I find that the projectmay havea significanteffect on the environmentand an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTis requhed. I I Date Manager. Enviropmental Department I Title I t I -11- v. REFER-ENCES: I City of Oakland.L972. Gerretal and ComprehensivePlans. City of Oa-kland.As amendedthrough May, 190. Zoning Plan. I Ciry of Oakland.May 1990.Ordinance No. U217. PermanentProcedures and Regulationsfor tbe Repair and Demolition of EarthquakeDamaged Structures. I City of Oakland.June 1983.Historic ResourcesInventory: Howard Terminal Transit Shed. USCS.As amendedthrough April 192. Historic Sitesand Antiquities:Conservation. (Also known as the National I Historic PreservationAct of 1966.) CFR. Revised through July 191. Chapter VIII - Advisory Council on Historic Presenration:Part 800 - Protection of I Historic and Cultural Properties.(Also koown as Section106.) PRC. Revisedthrough 1991. Article 2. Historic Resources.Section 7: StateHistorical Resources Comnission. I Port of Oakland.September 1976. Final EnvironmentalImpact Report for Redevelopmentof the Market Street Terminal,Oakland, Californra. I Port of Oakland.Septernber 1987. The Port of Oakland...Sixty Years: A Chronicleof Progress. I Septemberlil, 1993 l I I I I I I I I I I I I I AppendixC I TRANSPORTATION t llt I l I I I I I I I I I I I I 1994 CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE DRAFT EI.IVTRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDIX Cr TRANSPoRTATI ON t I I City of Oakland Tiaffic Count MarketStreet and Third Street I August21,1991,7:30 to 8:30AM t I I I I -173 t Third (- t6 Street 12 -, I 64+ I -l19-I I llr' I Market Street I I I I I g6/?A/94 15:46 DOI,JLI NG FSSOC. N0.EB9 044 P.E3 .w-26-L994 W:4*t1 oFtJ Traffiq Engineei lh9 I locr?tarr: lrli"rko*l3d S*r*t I RESOSDER: I ie s{ztlqti-ZTi WE*T||ER: c;loer I I )tr- t J$l . #,1I Ncrllet 5*. t I 7-7:$nfl I I l I I I t I ,:. Cl?Y cf OAKLAXD TRAFFTCEI'GIIIEETTIIG AND PARKIiGDEPART'IETIT t I I I TIITERSECTIOIITURil fiOVEIIEIIT SUIIi RY PnOJECI: PORIOF oAKLAIo 10 & 14 lITERsEcllox! '1993 DAIE: oECEI|SER2, ^;^ tl ll N/s: lHtnost DAYOF UKI THUISOAY I ll ll ll rru: XARKETST I tl tl PEAXPERIOO suRv€YflqrRs: AA A APPROACIIVOL I Frdr 7:00 All 8 =====lI ll===== zz'l ll8! ?ll To 10300At{ SB: 88 <<===== 25 t!! 1t 98! 301 r. ----- | | PEAX8(I'R3 ,J ---_------I | | | | F.qn 07:30 lfl PEAKPERI(n lo 08330AI -=ii DEPARIUREVOL I,IARXETST tl tlB: 400 I il tl sB: 131 PEAT ilUJR il tl E8: 45 I FACIon: 0.86 15 t7l z) 9gr 50 ]HIID ST I *** 15-{I[UTE PERI6 lOlAtS afi I'ORTHBq'[O sdrrxsculo EASIB(lrtD TI€SIB(rJru TOTAL Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lett thru Right Left lhru RiEht VoLIIE I 07:00 lfl - 07:15 trll I 51 4 112 I 1 0 ) 5 4L 110 07115,'ra - 07:30All 3 11 4 413 0 0 7 47 124 ,] 07:30 Ax - 07:45 At{ 51 4 ,12 4 t0 2 71 t6a 07:45 A|| - 08:00 ,'ll I 598 0 1 2 13 9 58 182 t - 2 '19 1 0 1 12 6 17 112 08!00 Atl 08:15 ,"1 4 375 08:15Afi - 08:30 ,'H I 248 t11 0 8 45 137 ,] 08:a0, - 08145A|{ t07 634 tl 8 33 167 08:45 ,'tl - 09:00 Al.t ll 5 816 1 tl 11 26 1?Z I 't0 09:00 r'l{ - 09115AI I 426 33 2 (. 15 4 19 7 t7 180 09!15 l"l - 09:50 ,'I I 0 1 12 4 8 9 35 155 09:J0,'|| - 09345Ax 4 305 710 6 11 12 I t2 153 I 09:45l}l - 10100AL 245 723 1 7 3 6 27 131 rrr rcuRLYtot^Ls dr I IIORIHBqJ[D SqJTHBqJ[D EASlEdnD 9E3TBd'IID IOIAL Loft lhru Right Left Thru RiOht Left Thru Right Left Th.u Right \OLttlE I 07:00 ,r ' 08:00 Afl 11 1U 12t78 5 6 33 23 220 584 07:15r'|' - 08:15 Al| 17 188 21 13 64 10 1 6 10 39 ?1 225 616 07130Ax - 08:30 All 15 171 25 11 &10 6 !5 35 25 221 629 07345Ar ' 08:45 All 15 r70 ,A 15 86 6 9 18 t5 11 163 528 t 08!00 Alt - 09:00 ,,F 7 144 t) 21 826 10 21 51 ll 15'| 568 08115Ax ' 09115AH 4 149 26 29965 t8 24 19 61 31 111 606 '157 08:30 AI - 09!50 All 4 a', 31 t05 5 56 17 49 35 131 624 '147 08:45,$l - 09!45 All 6 32 t01 10 12 40 16 50 36 130 610 t 09:00 Al{ - 10!00 ,'li 6 142 1t 31 108 11 10 15 11 59 3',1 131 619 CUS1O4SPREADSHEET OESIGII I lrEffic Dats co[lection T I -a' I /.L. I I g (*' r tra,1 6tt Ie> t[lEnsEcTlo]tTURft tovEilEIT srJr,|| RY I PnoJECTT Pont oF O XLAllo 0 5 II{TERSECIIoHI DAIE: DECEIIBER15, 1t93 ^N^ tl l,l/Sl EITBARCIDERO otv 0F l/K: IJEDXESoY I tl tl Elyl r,tARKEtSl I tl tl I tl PEATPERIO SURVEYH(r,Rs: M AA APPSoCH VOt ----- I l==s== L Frdr 7:00 r'll J N8: 5 | | T ?o 10:00A|{ SB: 9 6',t EB: 63 98: 68 PEATH.iJI: z =-=..|| | |----- I Frqr 09100Atl M PEATPEII(D To 10:00 ,rl'l < 07100Ar - 07:15,rr I , 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 19 I 07115^ra - 07:30 ^|| 0 1 1 ? I I 0 7 fi 27 07:30 Atl - 07:45 A|{ 0 0 1 4 I 7 7 10 07:45 A|| - 08:00 Al| 0 0 I 0 9 1 t0 1 45 1 I 08:00 ,r{ - 08:15 Af,l 0 0 0 8 25 ,| 08!15AI - 08:30 Atl 1 0 0 0 I 6 I 8 1 20 08130Al| ' 08:45 Atl 0 0 0 0 14 0 1 1 27 08:45 A,'l - 09!00 Atl 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 3 l6 I 09100AI - 09:15 Atl I 0 0 , 11 1 9 09115A'|-09:50Ax 0 0 1 0 I 1 12 I 1 17 37 09:30 lr{ - 09:45 ^t{ 0 0 1 0 0 tl 0 a) 'I 09145Ai - 10:00^x 0 1 0 1 15 0 23 44 I *rr HOJRIYTOTALS ftr t{Es18qr[0 ToTAL I ltoRtNB(u[0 sqjrHEqrxo EASIEdJID To Lett lhru Right Left lhru Right Left thru Right Left lhru Right volirl.lE ',r5 07:00 ,"1 - 08:00 t'l| 1 20 1 I t 1 21 38 21 111 'to I 07:15Afl ' 08:15 All 0 00 I < 6 18 )1 42 19 137 07:30 Ax - 08:f0 Ar 00 2417 6 23 t ,i 139 tf0 07145,'|| - 08!45 An 01 3 0 14 l 30 l 14 406 I t5 08:00 lrl - 09100,rll 01 qna 40 I 388 108 I 08!15 Ax - 09115Ar| 01 701 5 5 396 115 08!30 Ax - 09!30 Ar i> 901 5 5 486 132 08:65 Alt - 09145Alt 801 4 137 09!00 .A}l- 10100Ar,l r1 504 5 3 61 4 145 I C1'ST6ISPREADSIEET DES I G'I rl.t,f,r,.*ritiitfE**tffit**rr.ttnFrttt*rnffii TrEf f ic oat€ cot lecti on I I I I *.,rt'*r**r*r'r$r'ri'.'******atttta***r*r** t[tERsEcrlo]rTURI ]rovEgE]rl sut4ftARy I PROJECI: POR]OT OAXLAIID I ilIERSEC'IOII: oAlE! DEcElllER13, 1993 ^[^ [/s: EI.IBARCIDERO oAY0i tfi: NoTDAY ElY. JEFFERSOXST I I I PEAKPERT(D sunvEY[cURs: AA ^^ APPROACHVOL ----- | | ----- Froo 7!00 AL v | | I t----- IB: 26 I 10:00,J'l s8: tiB: 9 | |---- T PEAK8(l'R: "-----tl I t----- Frdr 07:00 ,' PEAKPERIS lo 08:00 AI DEPARIUREVOL JEFFERSOIIST tl [B: 7 I tl s8! l0 PEAXHdJR tl El: t3 I tACloR! 0.75 q It l.g: 12 EI.IBARCADERO I *ft l'-l{lllllE PERto totALs rrr iloRlHE(lnD sdrT[BCtilo EASI&IJIIO IESTBdJ}ID TOTAL Fadn ?o Left ]hru Right Lett Thru Right left lhru Right Lcft lhru Right VoLtlE I 07:00 lll - 07:15 lrr{ 0 1 0 00000 07:15$l - 07!50 Al,l 0 0 U 00010 29 07:50 ,'l| ' 07145$l 1 I 4 00010 014 07:45A - 06:00AI 1 00023 014 I {B:00 AI - 08:15At1 0 ,| 0 00001 02 '| 08!15 ,$l - 08:30 lrl 'l 0 I 1 00001 08:30 Afl - 08:45 ,'tl 0 a 00010 l5 ,| 'I I 08:45 Afi - 09:00 ,'l.l '| 0 1 00001 212 09:00Ar| ' 09:t5 Al| 2 0 0 0 00t02 09:15 Ax - 09:f0 ,,r,1 1 t 3 0 0 00030 19 09:30 ,'n - 09:45 Ail t 0 00030 07 I 09:45,'n ' 10:00AI 1 3 I 0 00100 0 10 rrr HounLY I [oRtH8CtN0 sclrTHBot,t0 EAStEouI0 HESTB(I'XD TOTAL From lo Left lhru Right Left lhru Right Left lhru Right L.ft lhru Right volullE 07:00 Ali ' 08:00 ,,1 8 13 06 1 0001 3212 I - 07115Alt 08315Ar{ 8 5 11 04 1 0004 4239 't0 07:30 Al,l - 08:30 Afl 5 03 0003 5035 07:45 A{ - 08:45 Afi 6 04 0005 5126 I 08:00A{ - 09:00A{ 0001 3324 08:15Atl ' 09:15 Al| 3 11 05 0011 4536 ,| 08:!0 ,'t{ - 09:30 A 4 tt 01 0014 3640 08145Atl - 09:45 Afl 5 tt 0l 1 0016 3542 I 09100Al| ' 10300Al| 02 0026 2340 CUSTOI{SPREAI}SIIEET DESIGII l'.ttr..*.*tttt**..tfrrr.r*ttttttnrritt..*., lralticOataCollection I I I I ttti.rrrrrffihrtrtit}rrltrfffiaiti ll{lERsEcTloH Tunt xovExEtl st {t Ry rrfifififirlrrlritrfifiitttttr.trr.rtrri I PRoJECT: Pffil 0t O KLAllo llTERSEcflolr DllE3 DECETBER13, 1993 ^;^ [/S: EIIBRCADERo oAY0F IK: noAY I E19.. Lt.L. XG I I PEAXPERIO SURVEYHd'RS; AA M APPROACIIvOL fr.in 7100AN 0 ==-=ll [B: 3 t Io 10r00 ,'t| SB: 3 Eg: 2 ll8: 13 | |----- PElr flqrn: 0 =E:ll | |----- I Fndr 08100,rf A^ PEAKPERI00 lo 09:00 AX tl DEPAN'UREVOL t{.t. KtrG tl tl tl X3: Z il tl tl sB! 12 I PEAXHqJR il ll E8: 4 FACToI: 0,4'l 1 PB: 3 I EIIBATCADERO rr. 15-[trurE PEnto totAts *rr I TfiIHBqJM sqrrH lnD EASIBCT,D gEstBqflo ror L lo Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left thru Right Lcft Thru night \OLttlE 'l 07: 00 ,'x - 07: 5 ,'r 0 0 0 0 0 00000 02 I 07:15AX - 07:30Atl 1 0 0 0 0 0 00020 03 07:30 ,,r - 07:45 AX 0 0 0 0 0 0 00010 07:45 ,'|| - 08:00 lr| 0 0 I 0 0 0 00010 02 08100Arl - 08:15 Atl 0 0 0 00010 01 I 08315AI - 08:10 Al| 0 0 U 00040 08150Ar{ - 08:45 t}| 0 0 2 0 3 0 01021 211 08!45 t'|{ - 09300An ,] 0 0 01021 I 09:00 ,'f,l - 09315lI 0 t 0 0 0 00000 01 O9r'15All - 09:50 Att 0 0 I 0 00000 01 09130Nl - 09!45 l't| 0 0 0 0 00000 01 09:45AL - 10300, 0 I t 0 I 1 r0021 08 I *rr fldJRLYTOTALS fir ll0RlH8a!llD soutflB(l,[o EASIBqJTD UESTBCTJID TOTAI I Fro lo Lett Thru niEht Left lhru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right VOLUIIE 07100Ar - 08:00All 1 I 0 0 0 4 0 19 - 1i T 07115All 08!15Al,l I 0 1 00 0 0 0 0 07:30 AL - 08:f0 A|1 0 I 00 0 0 0 19 07145||l - 08:45 A 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 8 I 2 18 08:00 Ar - 09:00 Al{ 0 0 0 0 9 221 I 08:15AI - 09115,'r 3 0 0 2 0 8 221 08:30A - 09330,rtl t l 0 3 0 0 0 4 2 18 'I 08:45 tt{ - 09:45 t'|l I 0 0 0 0 2 1 08 09:00Arl - '10:00Ax 1 I 1 0 1 0 11 I CUSTOIISPREAI'SHEET OESIGII fifir.ri..tt.it*!.rr*fi*rirfir*fi***r*r*rr*** Tfaff ic Data collection t I I I I VEHICLECLASSIFICATION SUI.II.IARY PioJECT: PORI Ot oAXLAllo '1993 oATE: FEBRURY 4, oAY 0F 9X: IHURSoAY I vElllCLECLASSIFICATIo|I LOCATIOITEASIBOTID SEvEfIH ST xolEs: PERCENTAGE0F TOTAL vEHICLES BY E/O SEVEIITHSI EXI SURVEYT(IJRS: TII,IEPERIoo IRUC(S TRUCXSIRUCKS AUTOS I fron 3:00 Pll Fron To 5-5+ AX 4 lX f, AX 2 AX /PtlrEL Vllts Io 6!00 Pf 03:00 P[ 03: 15 Pl,l 10.71X0,00: 5.16x 1,16X, 6.25t E,217, 0f,:15 Ptl 03:10 Pfl 5.7M 0.00a ,.702 1.432 13.29A70.A9A I PCAKXq'R: 03:30 Pll 03:45 PH 12.0010.00u 5.142 2.29X 4.57A 76.O02 Frdr 03:30 Pll 03145Plt 04:00 Pil 21.8M 1-307, 7.321 1.302 12.032 55.6./1, To 04.!0 Pl,l 04:00 Plt 04:15 Pf,t 13.50t 0.001 7.983 3.O7X,15.34X,60.127, ',t 04:15 Px 04:30 Pl.l 12.5010.002 5.36r(2.981 5.48X63.69t I M:30 PH 04:45 Pl.l 10.00: 0,001 2.91x 1.71',r,17 .65A 61.717, PEAXfiq'|R 04:45 PL 05:00 Pll 15.1510.00r 5.06t 6.06X 19.1 53.54X, FACTOR: 0.91 05100Px 05!15 PH 7.712 0.00?. 1.192 1.7 27.3826t.90A I 05r15Pil 05130PH 1,822 0.002 2.11Z 3.61/ 15.56'.t 73.4 05:30 Pil 05:45 Pll 10.112 0,00t ?.251 3 .37t 22, 17t 61.807. 05:45 Pll 06:00 PH 1.35t 0.001 1.35X6.76L ?9.7t1 60.81L I r}i 15-HINUTEPERI00 IOTALS TTT TFTJCKS ]RUCKSIRUCKS IRUCKS PI CX.UP TOlAL tron to 5-5+ ax 4 ax 3 ax 2 Ax /PATIEL AUTOS voLUllC I 03:00 Pr - 03:'15 PH 0657820 000 00112 03:15 PL - 0l:!0 P[ 097 21 112 0 000 00158 05rf0 Pl| - 0l:45 Pl 2'l 0 9 1 I 133 0 000 00175 03:45 Pl - 04:00 Pl't 210216?40 000 nnltt I - 04:00 P 04:15 Pl,l 013525980 000 00163 04:15 Px - 04:30 PL 21 095 26 107 0 000 00168 04:30 Pfi . 04:45 Pll 17 0 5 8 30 110 0 000 0 0 170 T 04:45 PH - 05:00 Ptl 15 06619530 000 0099 05:00 Pfl - 05:15 Px 13 023 46 104 0 000 00168 05:15 Pf,l- 05:50 Px 1 02 31361 0 000 008:t 05:30 Pll . 05145 Pll 9 02320550 000 00E9 I 05:45 Pf,l. 05:00 Pil 1 01522450 000 0074 **r HdJRLYTOTAT-S r*r I TRUCXS TRUCXSTRUCXS TRUCXS PICK.UP IOIAL to 5-5+ AX 4 AX f AX 2 Ax /PAllEl- AUIoS v0LU[E 03:00 Pf,l- 04:00 Pll 71 18 52 401 0 00000578 I A,I 03:15Pl . (X:15 Ptl 1A701/.70 00000529 03:30 Px - 04!30 P|l 9l 16 75 41? 0 00000639 03145Pl'l - 04:45 Pll 89 20 97 389 0 00000634 ',r I 04100PL - 05:00 Plt E 24 00 36E 0 00000600 04:15Pll - 05:15Pll 22 121 371 0 00000605 04:10Px - 05t30 Pil 15 20 108 328 0 00000520 04:45 P+l- 05:45 Pl,l 41 12 't5 98 273 0 00000439 I 05:00PI - 06:00 Pil 27 7 t4 10t 26t 0 00000114 I CSDTRAf' I C DAIA I I I vEHlctEcrAssl t tcAt Iox sur,{raRy t PRoJECT: POATOf OAXLAIID DAIE: FESRUARY4, '1993 DAY0F !X: TfiUnSDAY I LoCArlox: Sd.JTHB(tJtoll RlllNE sT IoTES: PERCENTAGE0F ToTAL VEHICLES BY vEHICLECLASSIFICATIOx S/O GRATDAVENUE RA}IPS SURVEYHCTIRS: TII.IEPERIo0 TRUCKS TRUCXSTRUCKS AUTOS tron 3:00 Ffl Frofl To 5-5+ Ax 4 AX 3 AX 2 AX /PAllEL vAlls ! To 6:00 PH 0l:00 P[ 0]r15 Px 16.43X 1.137. 2.46X 3.57y. A.57t 67.113 0l:15 PH03:30 PH r5.5910.00x t.921 0.gax, 6.a6t 72.552 PEA( HdJR: 03:30 Pll 03145Pll 25.742 0,007.6.93?l 0,00x, 7.92/ 59.11.t I Fron 03:00 Ptl 03:45 Pll 04:00 Pf,l 11.69'11.30i1 1t .29i{ 1.30t 9.091 62.342 To 04:00 Pll 04:00 Pl &:15 Pll 14.462 1.20X12.052 1.?04 4.E2/&.272 06;15 Pt 04:10 PH 10.4910.002 4.90x 1.401 4.901,79.327. I 04:30 P* 04r45 PH 20.63A 1.591 4.767. 1.591, 14.292 57 .147, PEAXHC['R 04:45 P* 05:00 P a.002 2.ooz 2.9Gz 4.007 5.002 78.002 FACIOR: 0.73 05:00 Ptt 05: 15 Pr| 6.152 1.44% 4.062 1.612 1.612 n.42'A 05: It Pli 05:30 P[ 5.7f2 0.OOZ5.71A 0.907. 3.852 U.621, I 05:30 Pfl 05:45 PH 9.38U 1.56X12.50% 1.56"A1.56X 73.14'A 05:45 Pi 06:00 Pi 5.t 1L 0.001 3.117"2.702 5.417.al.OAZ rar ls-frllturEPERIo0 ToTALS **r I TRUCXS TNUCKSTRUCKS 'RUCXS PICK.UP TOTAI Ftom To 5-5+ AX 4 AX 3 AX 2 AX /PANEL VOLUI,IE 0l:00 Pl{ - 03:15 Px 23 4 5 12 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 '|40 I 03:15 Pr - 03:30 Fx 16 41774000000 03:30 Fx - 03145 P 26 70660000000 t0l 03:45 PH - 04:00 P 9 11 t 7 4a 0 0 0 0 0 0 7f 'f I 04:00 P|| - 04:15 PH 12 10 1 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 04115 Pl.{- 04130 Ptl 15 727112000000 113 04:30 Px - 04:45 Px 13 31936000000 63 04:45 Pll - 05100 PH 1 12359000000 50 I 05:00 Pll - 05:'t5 I 5114a000000 62 05:15 Ptl - 05:30 P 3 30244000000 52 05:30 P - 05:45 Pil 6 El117000000 & 05:45 Pl,l - 06:00 Pl'l 2 21230000000 I *r xouRLYToTALS ** I 'FUCXS IEUCXSTRUCXS TRUCKS PICX.UP lOTAL From To 5-5+ Ax 4 Ax 3 Ax 2 ax /pAllEL VOLT,NIE 05:00 PH - 04100 Pl,{ 74 7 31 276 000000420 I 03115 P}| - 04:15 Pfl 63 326237000000363 --0.3i30Pr: 04:30P .- --.-.62 35 1 26 275 --0-- 0 n _ll__o_ o 40L 03:45 PH - 04:45 Pl,l 49 ll 5 27 251 000000166 04:00 Pl - 05:00 Pil 11 21 623242000000339 I 04:15 Pil - 05:15 Ptl 36 l6 620235000000318 04:30 Pl'l - 05:30 Pfi 24 12 415 167 000000227 04:45 Pl{ - 05:45 Pfi 17 47178000000228 05:00 FL - 06:00 P 15 18 36169000000215 I CSOTRAFFIC DAIA I t I I I vEttI cLEcLAsslFlcATtor sur'lf4aRY PQOJECT! PORI OF OAXLA}ID DATE: FEBRUATY4, 1993 I oAY OF ltx! IHURSDAY LOCATIoI! [oRTHBdjxDl{ARII lllE ST ltOlES: PERCEITAGEOF 'OIAL VEHICLESBY VEHICLECLASSItlCAll0ll S/O GRAIIOAVENUE RA{PS SURVEYfidJRS: tE PERIO TRUCT(9TRUCXS TnUCKS AUIOS T From 3:00 Pil From To 5-5+ Ax 4 AX 3 AX 2 Ax /PAI{EL v lls To 6:00 f,li 03:00 PH 03: 15 Px 6,EA 0.&Z 2.95X 1.274 6.75281 .43r 03:15 Pf,l03:30 Pr 2,032 0.11/. 4.077 0.002 1.07X,a9 ,L3l I PEAKfl(liR t 03:30 Fl.l03:45 P 7,681 0,OOZ0.88* 1.10X3.512U.&L Frorr 03:30 Ftl 03:45 Pf,l04:00 Pfi 11.932 0.417.5.767. 1.234 2.17X78,1 . To 04:30 Pil 04:00 P 04:15 Pli 9.72L 0.352 7.zyt 0,692 o.694A1 ,254 I 04: 15 Px 04:f0 Pll 9.47A 0.282 1.452 0.567 1.39t 83.&X 04!30 Pll 04:45 PH 6.88X 0.00U,3.67X 0.462 1.38187.61X '1.03x PEAXIIqJR 04145P[ 05:00 PN 7.731 0.00X 3.09U 0.00x 88.14X FACToR: 0.71 05:00 Pt{ 05:15 Pit 2.081 0.002 o.001 0.122 0.12/ 97.OAt I 05:15 Pil 05:30 Pil 2.53t 0.63: 0,001 0.63x 1.90?94.301 05:10 PL 05:45 PH 5.881 0.00X 2.352 1.182 0.00i 90.592 05:45 PN 06:00 PH 5.13U 0.00u t.28X 0.002 1.282 92.312 I *ii 15-N tuTE PERI(DtOtALS **r ]NUCKS TRUCKSIRUCKS TRUCI(S PICK-UP roTAt- Fr(m To 5-5+ AX 4 AX 3 AX 2 AX /PANET VOLUIIE T 03:00 Pll - 03r1t Pf4 162 7 316 193 0000 00237 03:15 Px - 03:30 Pil tl 10 0102200000 0 0 2t6 03130Pll - 03:45 Pil 3t0 4 5163960000 00156 I 03:45 P - 04:00 Pl,l 29 1 3 6 190 0 0 0 0 00213 04:00 PH - 04:15 Pfl 28 1 2l 2 2231 0000 00288 't6 04|'15 Pll - 04:30 Pl'l 34 1 2 5 301 0000 00t59 04130Pl - 04:45 Pi J5 0 t 3 191 0 0 0 0 00218 I 04:45 Pll - 05:00 Pll 15 0 0 2171 0000 0 0 194 05:00 PN - 05!15 Pr 0 112330000 00210 05!15 Px - 05:10 PH 0 131190000 001t8 05:30 PH - 05:45 Pl 10n0000 0085 I 05:45 Pl'l - 06:00 PL 40 I 01720000 0074 I r.r X0JRLYTorAts ** TRUCKS 'NUCKSTRUCKS TRUCKS PICK.UP IOTAL From To 5-5+ AX 4 AX 3 AX 2 AX /pAr{EL AUTOS voLullE 0l : 00 Fl{ - 04 : 00 Pr,l 85435 tt 48 999 00000 0 I ,182 I 't0 0l:15 PH - 04:15 P 97319 l1 1,040 00000 o 1,213 03:30 Pf'l - 04:30 Pil 126 3 55 00000 0 |,316 0J345 Pf,l - 04:45 Pl,l 106 3 59 8 16 916 00000 0 1,108 I 04100 P[ - 05:00 Pl{ 92211 5 12 897 00000 0 1,059 04:15 Pl . 05:15 Pil 69 130 1 11 896 00000 0 1,01I 04:30 P|| - 05rf,0 P t9 114 00000 8r0 04!45 Pl,l- 05:45 PI 29 18 36630 00000 677 I 05:00 P{ - 05:00 Pil 18 13 35531 00000 0 561 I CSDTRAFFIC DATA I t I PORT-AM. CMD Tue Dec 24, L993 09:59:04 Page 3-1 Port of OakLand - L.o.S Analvsis Al,! Peak Peak - Existing condition I Dowling Associates Inpact Analysis Report Level of Service Intersection Base Future Change DeL/ v/ Del/ vl in LoS veh C LOS Veh C # 10 Market / 3rd A 0.0 0.'000 A 0.0 0.000 + 0. o00 v/c # 20 Uarket / Embarcadero A 1.3 0.080 A 1.3 0.080 + 0.000 v/c # 2L I.l. L. Kinq / hbarcadero A 1.1 0.018 A 1.1 0.018 + 0.000 v/c # 22 JeffeEson / hbarcadero A 0.0 0.000 A 0.0 0.000 + 0.000 v/c J\rteri.aI Base Future . Change TrvI Avcr. Trvl '3"318'1 Dir Los Tine spe6a los tine "iIEa PORT-AM.C!,rD Tue Dec 2A, L993 09:59:03 Paqe 1-1 Port of Oakland - L.O.S Analysis All Peak Peal< - Existing condition Dowling Associates ?urning llove ent Report Volume Northbound Southbound Eastbound Type Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right o"rlTf;:3"ltn*'3i:fi: I #10 llarket / 3rd Base 861555 25 225 14 54 10 '3 ,z 63A Added 0000 00000 "l l Total 861555 25 225 t4 64 10 15 L7! 25 633 #20 Uarket / Erobarcadero Base 5 56 2 51 4 5 0 4 11 3 T4,l Addedo000 o0000 00 0 Total 556 2 3 61 4 5 0 4 11 3 143g #2L VI. L. King / Enbarcadero Baseo2092 03 0 102 2 Addedo000O 00 o o00 TotalO2092 03 0 102 2il f22 Jefferson / Embarcadero Base O o 0 o6 1 8513 Added 0 o o 00 00 0 000 3l o o 05 L I 5 13 2 Traffix svsten version 6,7 (c) 1992 DA Lj,censed to Donlinq Associates I I I I 2000-Al{. CMD Tue Dec 28, 1993 15.27.42 Page 5-1 Port of oakland - L.o.S Analysis Au Peak Peak - Existing + Project + cunulative Year 2000 I Dowling ABaociateE lmpact Analy3ia Report I Level Of Servlce InterEection Ba6e Future change DeI/ vl DeI/ v/ in Los veh C LOS Veh C I t 10 ltarket / 3rd F O.O O.O00 F O.O 0.000 + o.ooov/c I t 20 l,tark€t / Embarcadero A 2.0 0.209 A 2.I 0.225 + 0.016 V/C t 21 u. L. King / Embarcadero A 1.2 0.045 A 1.2 0. O49 + o.oo5v/c I l 22 Jef.fetaon / Embatcadero A 0.0 0.000 A O.O O.000 + 0.ooo v/c Arterial Base Future change I lrvl Avg. Trvl Avg. ln Avg. Dir Los Tlme Speed Los Time Speed spe€d T 2000-AM.cMD Tue Dec 28, L993 L5r2'lr4L Ps.ge 3-1 Port of Oakland - L.O.S Analysis AM Peak Peak - Existing + Project + glgtBf-a3:vs Year 2000 t Dowlino Asaociatea I Turning ovement RePort volune Northbound southbound EaEtbound Weatbound total I rype Left Thru Right Left Thru Right L€ft Thru Right Left Thru Right vo Iume tl,O Uarket / 3rd EaEe 2L 16 39 143 65 585 36 156 25 5t 445 65 1546 Added 0 0 0 o 100 002 o0 L7 I Total 2L 15 39 143 ?q qRq 35 155 2A 45 445 55 1663 a l le 10 13010 338 377 I o o ooo 200 19 538 396 I I 1?6 10 13010 lf JrJ5 55 020 I 325 #22 Jefferson / Embarcadero Base 00 o 16 3 2L 13 34 109 Added oo 000 020 2 'l 'l I TotaI oo rlii n 16 21 15 34 1'l I Traffix system verBion 6.7 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Dowling Agaociates I I 2000-A ' cllD Tue Dec 28. 1993 15;27:41 Page 4-1 I Port of oakLand - L.o.s Analysis Ax Peak Peak - Exiating + Project + cumulative Year 2000 Dorrlinc ABaociatea I link Volume ReDort I volume NB Link sB l,ink EB f.ink wB Link Total Type In Out Total In Out Total In out Total In Out lotal Volume tlo ltarket / 3rd I Ba6e 75 130 205 793 117 910 229 1050 L279 549 348 897 3292 Added 0 1.? I7 10 010 2 60 634 Total 7s r47 223 803 LL7 920 10so 1281 554 348 903 3326 I #2O xalket / Embarcadero BaBe L64 172 335 777 L66 343 23 26 49 13 13 26 754 Added 0 19 19 !7 01?000 238 I Total 164 191 354 194 165 350 23 26 49 1^ 1? 2A 792 t21 I't. I.. trlng / Embarcadero Base581334 10 44 951.38 31 39 109 I Added oo oo 0222 024 lotal Etl 13 34 10 44 8715 10 31 41 113 #22 Jefferaon / Ernbarcadero I Base O 31 31 23 34 57 18 18 36 68 26 94 2L8 AaldedOOOO o002 22024 Total O 31 31 23 34 57 18 20 38 70 26 96 222 T I 2000-Ar.r.cl{D Tue Dec 28, 1993 !522724L Page 2-1 I Port of oakland - L.O.s Analysis N,t Peak Peak - Existlng + Project + Cueulative Year 2000 Doi.rl,i,no Aaaociatea I frip Dlstribution RePort Percent of TripE I To categ 123 4 Zone I 'I 50.0 30.0 10.0 1.0. o I I traffix syatem veraion 6.7 (c! 1992 DA LicenEed to Dowling AEaociateE I I I I PRJT-A!{. IN Tue Dec 2A, f993 10:51:39 Page 5-1 Port of oakland - L.o.s AnalyEi.s Al{ Peak Peak - ExiEting + Project t Dor.rling Asaocj,ateg Impact Analysis Report I Level of Service Inte!aection Baae Future chenge DeI/ v/ DeL/ vl in LOs veh C LOS Veh C I # 10 Market / 3rd A 0.0 0.000 A o.o 0.000 + 0.000 v/c I t 20 Harket / Ernbarcadero A 1.3 0,080 A 1.4 0. oa6 + 0.006 v/c I 2! l,l. L. King / Embarcadero A 1.1 0.018 A 1.1 0.019 + 0.002 v/c t , 22 JetfetEon / Enbarcadero A 0.0 0.000 A 0.o o. 000 + o.ooov/c Arterial Base Future change I lrvl Avg. Trvl Avg. in Avg. Dir Los Time speed LOS lj.me speed sPeed I PRJT-AM.IN Tue Dec 24, !993 10:51:38 Page 3-1 Port of Oakland - L.o.s Anatysis Al.l Peak Peak - Exi.sting + Project I Dowling Assocj-ateE I Turnlng Iov€nent Report volume Northbound I southbound EaBtbound lleatbound TotaI Type Left Thru RiSht Left Thru Right Left Thru Rlght Left Thru Rtght vo Iume I I I #1O Malket / 3rd I Baae I 6 15 | 55 25 22s 14 64 10 15 t?l 2s 533 Added 0 o 0l 0 10 0 002 600 L7 Total 8 6 15 ss 35 225 14 64 L2 21 171 25 650 I | L f2o arket / embarcaderE\ Base 5 56 21 3 61 4 504 llJ 145 I Added 0 o ol 0 17 0 000 200 19 rotal 5 s6 21 3 78 4 504 313 L64 I ,2L lt. L. King / Ernbarcadero I Baee o 2 Ol 9 2 2 030 102 2L Added 0 0 ol o o o o00 020 Toral o 2 0l I 2 2 030 tzz 23 I t U22 Jeffeeelor. / Embarcardero Baee O O Ol 4 3 2 061 8513 42 Acrdear o o ol o o o o00 020 T Total O O Ol 4 3 2 051 a713 44 I traffix syatem verBion 6.7 (c) 1992 DA LicenEed to Dowllng Asaociates I I PRJ?.AM.IN Tue Dec 28, 1993 1O351:38 Page 4-1. I Port of Oakland - L.o.S AnaIyEiE A!! Pea* Peah - ExiEtj.ng + Project Dowling AssociateE I Link Volume Report I volume NB ltnk SB Llnk Ea !,ink t{B Llnk Total TyPe In Out total ln out TotaL In Out Total In Out Total Volune t10 uarket / 3rd I Base 29 50 79 305 45 350 88 404 492 211 134 34s 1266 Added O 17 f7 10 0 10 202 606 34 Total 29 67 95 45 360 90 404 494 2r7 134 351 1300 I ,2O Market / Embarcadero Baae 53 66 129 68 64 LJZ 910 19s 510 290 Added O 19 19 !7 o L7 0002 o2 ?e I total 63 85 148 85 54 149 910 197 s12 328 *2L u. L. xing / Embarcadero BaEe23513 4r73253!2 15 42 I Aaldeal oo 0002220 Total 23 477347sL2 r7 46 I ,22 Jeffergon / E0,barcadeto Baae o f2 12 9 13 22 L4 26 10 36 84 AddedOO0O o2 2 o 2 4 Total o 12 12 9 13 22 16 2A 10 38 88 I I PR.IT-AT{. IN Tue Dec 2A. L993 10:51:38 Page 2-1 Port of oakland - L.o.s Analysia t AN Peak Peak - Existlng + Project Dolrling Aasociatea Trip DiEtrlbution RePort I Percent of Tripg t To cateE L23 4 zoe I 1 50.0 30.o 10.o 10.o t I Traffix syEtem version 6.? (c) 1992 DA LicenBed to Dowling AEEociates I I I I PORT-AM. CMD wed Dec 22, L993 L2.52.35 Page 2-1 Port of oakland - L.o.S Analysis I Au Peak Peak - Existing condition Dowling Associates Leve1 of Service conputation Report I 1985 Hcl,l Unsignalized Uethod Base volurne Al-ternative ****************************************************************************** I Intersection #10 l,larket / 3rd *****************+*+***********************************************!t********** L,evel Of Service: A ****************************************************************************** I Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound lfest Bound !'tovenent: L-T-RL-T RL-T-RL-T-R ------:-----rl I 't------l l------I Control: stop sign stop sign Uncontrolled Uncontrol led - Rights: rnclude Include Include IncLude L,anes: 01010 102r0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 I------r------il----- t------ll I Volume Modu1e: Base VoI: 8 6 15 55 25 225 L4 64 10 15 7-77. 2 r Growth Adj: 1.00 1.0o 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0 I Initial Bse: 8 6 15 55 25 zz2 L4 64 10 15 771 2 - user Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0 PHF Adj : 1. o0 1.00 1. oo 1. 0o 1. OO J.... oo 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 - PHF Volume: 8 6 15 55 25 zz2 t4 64 10 15 !7r I Reduct vol: o o o o 0 o 00 000 ! Fina1 vol .: I 6 15 55 2a 225 74 64 10 15 r7r -::------| tl tl I Adjusted Volune Module: I- crade: oZ 0* oz 0a I Cycle/Cars: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx - * Truck/Conb: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx I PCEAdj: 1.10 1. X0 L. L0 1.10 1. 10 1.10 1.10 1.00 1. oo 1.10 1.00 1. I Cycl/Car PcE: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Trck/Crtrb PCE: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Adj vo1.: 9 77 61 28 244 15 64 10 L7 L?7 ll1-ll1:--- '---l--- , ,----- ll------l I tl t-- -critical GaD Modute: >> PopulAtion: 0 << >> Run speed(E/W): 30 MPH RT Rad/Ang: 20.o fE/go.0 deg 20.0 ftl90.0 deg 20.O fL/9o.0 deg 20.0 ftl90.0 I Critical------:- GD: 6.5 6.0 5.5 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.O xxxx xxxxx 5.O xxxx xxxx I- t------| t------| t------I t------Capacity Module: Cnflict Vo1: 544 294 69 308 2a7 184 196 xxxx xxxxx ?4 xxxx I eotent cap.: 459 77.o 1o0o 62a 7r7 go7 982 xxxx xxxxx ]'ooo xxxx I ? Used Cap.: 1.9 0.9 1,.7 9.6 3.8 27.3 1.6 xxxx xxxxx 1.7 xxxx Impedance: xxxx 1.00 O.99 xxxx 0.98 0.80 0.99 xxxx xxxxx 0.99 xxxx Actual Cap.:. 353 697 1000_. 510 7O3 9O7..982 xxxx xxxxx. xxxx Ir ------:-- |------| t------| |------| |.1000----- r Level of service Module: Unused Cap.: 344 59O 9e4 550 676 659 966 xxxx xxxxx 984 xxxx xxxx ILOS by Move: * * * A A * A * * A * * I Movenent: LT - LTR- RT LT- LTR-RT LT -LTR- RT LT - LTR-RT -! Shared-,__-- cap.: 447 xxxx 889 xxxx xxxx 881 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xx unused caD.: 432 xxxx 866 xxxx xxxx 606 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xx I Shared LO-S: A * A * * A * * * * * I Traffix systern Version 6.7 (c) 1992 DA r.,icensed to Dowling Associa I I I RT-AM.CMD wed Dec 2?, 1993 \2152.35 Page 3-1 Port of oakland - L.o.s Analysis AM Peak Peal< - Existing Condition I Dowlinq Associates Level of service Computation Report 4-way stop Method I Base volume Alternative ****************************************************************************** tersection #20 }tarket / Embarcadero ****************************************************************************** I 1e (sec): 1 Critical VoI. /cap. (X) : 0.080 Tirne (sec): 0 Averagre Delay (sec/veh) : 1.3 L cycl-e: 0 Level of service: A I *******i********************************************************************** proach: North Bound south Bound East Bound west_Bound_ I ?enent: L - T - R L - T --R R L, - T - R,, L - T - R,l r____--______rr______l! ----rl ' 'r -----tl ntrol: -stop -iicrude Sign stop sign stoP sign stop sign [;ht;;-ghts: Include rircrudeIncLude r^ncludeInclude rirc]-udeIncLude - I iies: o o 1!o1! o o0 o 1o 1o o 01!0 0 0 011 0 0 I l------l l------l | ----l l------i )1ume Module: rse Vol: 5 56 2 3 61 4 5 o 4 1 1 3 I rowth Adj: 1.oO 1.00 1.00 1.Oo 1.oo 1.oo 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I ritial- Bse: 5 55 2 3 61 4 5 0 4 1 1 3 3er Adj 3 1.oo 1.oo 1.00 1.oo 1.00 1.0o 1.oo 1.00 1'00 1.09 1.99 1.99 I 1,oo 1.00 1'00 1.00 1.00 1.09 IF Adj; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.oo 1.oo | IF VoLune: 5 56 2 3 51 4 5 o 4 1 1 3 :duct vol: o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :duced VoI: 5 56 2 3 61 4 5 0 4 1 1 3 I :E Adj: 1.00 1.oo l-.00 1.oo 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.99 I LF Adj: 1.OO 1.OO 1.OO 1.OO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0o L.00 1'0O inal Vol.: 5 56 2 3 61 4 5 0 4 1 1 3.- ::::-:::::-;---I---II-----:11---:---::-----:ll---:----:-----:ll---:----:------l I rturation Flord Module. t rt/Lane: 7A3 7A3 783 539 539 539 242 242 242 96 96 96 tjistment: 1.0o 1.00 1.00 1.oo 1.oo 1.00 1.00 1'0o 1.oo 1.00 1.99 1.qq r ries: O.OB 0.89 0.03 O.O9 L.79 O.L2 0.56 0.0O O.44 O.2O O.2O 0.50 I inal Sat.. 62 696 25 48 967 63 L34 0 108 19 19 58. ! l--:------ll------ll ----ll------l rpacity Analysis-o.oe Module: I riTsati o.oa o.oB 0.06 0.06 o.06 o.04 o.oo 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.0s I :it UOVeS: **** **** **** **** :::--:-::--t------tt------ll ----li ----i' _ )ve1 of serrlice Modu1e: I rlav/Veh: 7..4 r.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.0 L.2 L.2 L.2 1-.2 I :lai'Adj: 1.oo 1.00 1.00 1.oo 1.00 1.oo 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.oo 1.00 rjDal/Veh: L.4 r.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 r.2 1.O L.2 L.2 L.2 L.2 r leue: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx I t****************************************************************************** I I I Traffix System Version 6.7 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Dowring Associates t I I PORT-AI{. CMD Wed Dec 22, L993 L2352t35 Page 4-1 Port of oakland - L.o.s Analysis t AM Peak Peak - Existing condition Dowling Associates Level of service conputation Report I 4-Way Stop Method Base Volume Alternative ****************************************************************************** t Intersection #2I YI. L. King / Ehbarcadero ****************************************************************************** cycLe (sec): 1 critical Vol./cap. (x) : 0.018 Loss Time (sec): o Average Delay . (sec/veh) : 1.1 I Optinal Cyele: 0 Level of service: ********************************************************************+********* Approach: North Bound south Bound East Bound West Bound Movement:------t-- L-T-RL-T-RL-T-RL-T-R I tl 'r------l Control, : Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign stop sign Rights: IncLude IncLude Include IncLude t Lanes : o200 0 0 1! 0 0 00100 0 0 1! 0 0 ------t--- ll l------l Volume litodule: Base Vo1: o2 092 203 010 t Growth Adj : 1. OO 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. O0 1.00 1.00 1 Initial Bse: o2 092 203 o10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OO r-.OO 1.00 1.OO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. oo 1. oo 1. O0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0 I ili"+iiil.,o2 092 203 010 Reduct Vol: 00 000 000 000 o2 092 203 010 1. 00 1. oo 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0 lff"$*i:""'' 1. 00 1. 00 1. OO 1. OO 1.OO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. o0 1.00 1 Final Vo}.: o2 092 203 010 tl tl I Saturation FlowI Module: Sat/Lane: 351 351 351 736 736 736 236 236 236 203 203 20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. oo 1.00 1. OO 1.00 1.0 0,00 2.00 0.00 0.70 0.15 0.15 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.33 0.oo 0.6 tii#i::".::o 702 0 510 113 113 0 236 0 68 0 13 -t---- il- tl ------l t------I capacity analysis Module: I- vot/Sat: 0. 00 o.00 0.00 0,02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0. oo 0.0 crit }loves : **** **** **** **** -t------tl ll------ll Leve1 Of Service Module: I Delay/Veh: 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.O 1. Delay Adj: 1.O0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0 AdjDel/Veh: 1.O 1.0 1.0 1.L 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1, Queue : xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx I *********::******************************************************************** t t Traffix Systen Version 5.7 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to DorrrLing Associa I I I )RT.A-I,I, CMD Wed Dec 22, L993 12252136 Page 5-1 Port of oakland - L,o.S Analysis Al{ Peak Peak - Existing Condition I Dowling Associates Level of Service conputation Report 1985 HcM Unsignalized llethod I Base volume Alternative r**********::******************************************************************* rtersection #22 Jefferson / Enbarcadero ,****************************************************************************** I Level of Service: A r**********************+*+***************************************************** )proach: North Bound South Bound East Bound west Bound I rvenent: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L-T-R r------ll------ll----ll' :-l rntrol: Stop Sign stop Sign Uncontrotled uncontrolled .qhts: IncLude Include Include Include I rneS : o 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! o o o 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 t---- I l------l | ------l | ------i )1une lilodule: .se VoI: O 0 O 4 3 206 18513 I 'owth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1. oo 1.00 1.00 1. o0 1.00 1,00 ritial Bse: 0 0 0 4 3 206 18513 er Adj: 1.o0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 I iF Adj : 1. O0 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 :F Volume: o 0 o 4 3 206 18513 rduct VoI: O 0 0 0 0 000 0000 nal Vo].: o 0 0 4 3 206 18513 I r------ll ll I .iusted volume Module: 'ade : 03 oz oz 08 Cycle/cars: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx I Truck/conb: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx rEAdj: 1.10 1..10 1.10 1,10 1,10 1,10 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 'cl/car PcE: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ck/Cnb PCE: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx t .'i Vol.: o 0 0 4 3 2 0 6 1 9 5 13 ----=------:------| | | ----tt----tt------l 'itical Gap llodule: >> PopuLa tion: 0 << >> Run speed(E/W) : 30 l,!PH << I Rad/Ang: 20.o ft/90.o deq 2o.o ft/go.o deq 20.0 ftl90.0 deg 20.0 ftl90.0 deg itical GD: 6.5 6.0 5.5 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 xxxx xxxxx 5.0 xxxx xxxxx ------| ------| t------il ----l l------l pacity Module: I flict Vol: 38 33 7 27 27 L2 18 xxxx xxxxx 7 xxxx xxxxx tent cap.: 883 96L 1000 894 968 1000 1000 xxxx xxxxx 1000 xxxx xxxxx Used Cap.: O.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 o.2 0.0 xxxx xxxxx 0.9 xxxx xxxxx pedance: xxxx 1,00 1.00 xxxx 1.0o 1.00 1.00 xxxx xxxxx 1.00 xxxx xxxxx I tual Cap-: 883 961 1OOO 894 968 l-O00 1000 xxxx xxxxx 1000 xxxx xxxxx ------:-- | ------| t------l r ----| ------l vel of service Module: I used cap.: 883 961 looo 889 965 99A 1000 xxxx xxxxx 991 xxxx xxxxx S by Move: * * * *** ** *A ** vement: LT - LTR - RT LT-I.,TR-RT LT - LTR-RT LT-LTR-RT ared cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 940 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx I used cap.: xxxx 0 xxxxx xxxx 930 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx ared Los: * * * *A* ****** Traffix systen version 6.7 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Dowling Associates t I I I Port of oakland - L.o.s Analysis AM Peak Peak - Existing + Project + cunulative Year 2ooo I Dowlinqr Associates Level of service Conputation Report I 1.985 HCMoPerations Method I Base volune Alternative - ****L***************************ttr**************:t:**:t****************:t*****++ Intersection #10 Uarket / 3rd ***************************************************************::************* I cvcle (sec): 60 critical vol./caP. (x): 0.841 l6ss Tine isec): I Average Delay. (sec/veh): 13.1 optinal Cycle:' 63 Level of service: B ***************************************************************************** I Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound west Bound Iilovement: L - T - R L - T - R L-T-RL-T tl control: Pernitted Pernitted Pennitted I Rights: Include Include IncLude Include Min. Green: 000 000 000 00 Lanes : 010r-0 1 0 2 L 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! o ------:-: ------l I I t------l | I I volume Module: Base Vol: 8615 55 25 225 t4 64 10 15 \7r crowth Adj : 2.60 2.50 2.60 2 .60 2 .60 2.60 2 .60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 I Initial nse: 2L 16 39 r43 65 585 36 166 26 39 445 User Adj : 1. O0 1. OO 1.00 1.00 1.OO 1. OO 1. OO 1.00 1. 00 1. oo 1.o0 1. PHF AdJ: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0 PHF Volune: 21 16 39 143 65 585 35 156 26 39 445 6 I Reduct vol: 000 0 0 000 000 Reduced vol: 21 16 39 143 65 585 36 166 26 39 445 6 PcE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 l-. 00 1.00 1. oo 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. oo l_.0 I MLF AdJ: 1. O0 1.00 1. 00 1. 05 1.00 1. oo 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. oo L.0 Vol.: 27 r.6 39 L43 od 585 36 165 26 39 445 6 Final . tt - I ------I I I---- tl Saturat ion Flow Module: I Sat/Lane: 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 180 Adjustment: o.58 0.58 0.85 0.81 1.00 o.85 0.67 0 .67 o.67 0.88 0.88 0.8 Lanes: o.57 0.43 1.00 1.00 2.00 1. OO 0.16 0.73 0.11 0. 07 0.81 Final Sat. : 593 451 1530 1458 3600 1530 t90 475 !37 LL3 r2A4 l.6 T -t------tl tl tl Capacity Analysis ModuLe: vol/Sat: 0.04 0.04 0.03 0. 10 0. 02 0.38 o. 19 0.19 0.19 0.35 0.35 0.3 crit Moves: **** **** I creen/Cycle: 0.45 O.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 o.45 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 Vo1une/Cap: 0. 08 0.08 0.06 o.22 0.o4 0. 84 o.46 0 .46 0 .46 0.84 0.84 -t------ll I LeveL Of Service Module: I T I Traffix system version 5.7 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Dottl ing Associat I I Thu Dec 30, 1993 L5.26247 Page 2-1 T Port of Oakland - L.o.s Analysis AM Peak Peak - Existing + Project + Cunulative Year 2000 Dowlino Associates I Level of service Detailed conputation Report |l 1985 HcM operations Method I Base volume Alternative ****************************************************************************** tersection #10 l[arket / 3rd ***************************************+************************************** I : North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound :L-T-R L-T-R L -T-R L-T-R I il---- Lane UtilizA E ion Module : I .n 1001 1 o20 1 0 0 1! 0 0 o o 1! o 0 Group: LT LTR L T R LTR LTR LTR LTR LTR I.,TR 2 111 11 1 il ------l r------ll I ops Inpu saturation Adj Module: widrh: t2 12 L2 t2 L2 L2 T2 12 12 \2 12 !2 Hev Veh: o 0 0 o I oz 0* oz 0? king/Hr: No No No NO Stp/Hr: 0 0 0 0 ea Type: t Ped/Hr: o o 0 0 lusiveRT: Include Include Include Include RT Prtct: o 0 0 0 tl tl rl Case FloduLe : xxxx xxxx 77 2 xxxx xxxx trt i,l ----il ------l ---l 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 r..o0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 !v Veh Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. o0 1.00 1.00 1. o0 1.00 1.00 1. oo 1,00 I 'ade Adj : 1, 0o 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. O0 1. OO 1.00 rrking Adj: xxxx xxxx 1.00 xxxx xxxx 1.0o 1. OO 1.00 1. OO 1.00 1.00 1.00 rs stp Adj: xxxx xxxx 1.oo xxxx xxxx 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.o0 :ea Adj: 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I I Adj: xxxx xxxx 0.85 xxxx xxxx 0.85 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.88 I Adj: 0.58 0.58 xxxxx 0.81 xxxx xxxxx o.75 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 :M Sat Adj : 0. 58 0.58 o. 85 0.81 1.00 0.85 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.88 0.88 0.88 rr sat Adj: 1.oo 1.00 1.oo 1. O0 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I ,F Sat Adj: 1.OO 1.00 1.oo 1. OO 1. OO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 rl sat Adi: 0.58 0.58 0.85 0.81 1.00 0.85 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.88 0.88 0.88 .------:- l------| | ----tl------l t------l 'oqresssion Adjustnent Factor l{oduLe: I .gnal Type: )lume/Cap: 0.08 0.08 0. 06 o.22 O.043 0.84 0.46 0.463 0.46 0.84 0.843 0.84 :rivalType: 3 I :ogAdjFctr: o.85 0.85 0.85 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 I Traffix systen version 6.7 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Dovtlinq Associates I I T .,-t.aa- , ! MITIGS Tue Dec 28, L993 L5,42246 Page 1-1 Port of Oakland - L.O.S AnaLysis A![ Peak Peak - Existing + Project + cumu].ative Year 2000 T Dowlinq Associates Level of service Conputation Report circular 212 Planninq Method I Future volume Alternative *****************************tr************************************************ Intersection #10 llarket / 3rd ****************************************************************************** I cycle (sec). 47 Critj.cal vol./Cap. (X): 0.607 l6ss line isec): o Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx optinal Cycle: 47 Level of service: B I *****************************************++*********************************** Approach: North Bound south Bound East Bound west Bound tMblenent: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------| | ---- | | I ______It______- | | I control: Permitted Protected Perrnitted Pernitted Riqhts: Include Inelude IncLude Include I Uii. creen: 0 O 0 o o O o o 0 o 0 ! Lanes: ---r------ll------ll----llo 1 o 1 0 1 0 2 L o o o 1! o o o o 1! o o - vol.une Modu1e: I Base vor: 8 6 15 55 25 225 L4 54 10 15 17L 2 I crowth edi: 2.60 2.50 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.6 Initial Bie: 21 16 39 143 65 585 36 166 ?6 39 445 6 rAdded Vol: 0O 0O 0O 0 10 O 0o Oo 2 6 0 I tnitial. put: 2L 16 39 143 75 585 36 166 2a 45 445 6 r User Adj: 1.oo 1.oo 1.oo 1.oo 1.oo 1.oO 1.oo 1.00 1.00 1.Oo 1.00 1.0 PHF Adj: 1.OO 1.OO 1.OO 1.OO 1.OO 1.OO 1.O0 1.00 1.00 1.O0 1.00 1.0 I PHF Vol:ume:vol.ume: 2L21 16 39 143 75 585 36 156 2A2a 4s45 445 6 -I Reduct vol: o o 0 0 o O 0 0 0 o 0 ReducedVol: 2L 16 39 143 75 585 36 ]-66 2a 45 445 6 PCE Adi: 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 L.0O 1.57 1.00 1.00 1.21 1.00 1.0 I ur.r aai: 1.oo 1.oo 1.oo 1.oo 1.oo r-.oo 1.oo 1.00 1.oo 1.oo 1.00 1.0 I ninal fol .: -r------ll------ll----ll23 16 39 L43 75 585 57 L66 2a 54 445 6 I- saturationeg' r-ur a Lr!, Flohr Modul.e: I sat/l,ane: 1,425 1425 L425 7425 L425 L425 L425 L425 ].425 7425 f425 742 r Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.oo 1.00 1.00 1.00 l.oo 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0 Lanes: 0.57 O.43 1.OO 1.00 2.O0 1.00 0.23 0.66 0.11 0.10 O.79 0.1 Irl'inal Final------sat.:sat-: ------851451 649 15oo L4251425 28502a5o L4251425 ------341 992 !67167 -----144 1184 L7 -I | | l------r | il capacityCapacity Analysis Module: vo1/sat: 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.10 0.03 0.41 0.11 0.17 o.J.7 0.31 0.38 0.3 I Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** lGreen/cycle: 0.04 0.04 0.04 o.L7 O.2L O.2L 0.17 0.28 o.28 o.52 0.62 0.6 Volune/eap: O.61 0.61 0.64 0.51 O.13 1.99 O.51 O.51 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.6 _ ****************************************************************************** I I t Traffix systen version 6.7 (c) 1992 DA Licensed to Dowling Assoc I I -{. ' :..',':-'--- G8 Tue Dec 2A, 1993 L5242t34 Page 1-1 I Port of oakland - L.o.s Analysis AM Pealc Peak - Existing + Project + cumuLative Year 2000 Dolrling Associates T Level of service conputation Report Circul-ar 212 Planning l.{ethod Base Volune Alternative I ****t************************************************************************* tersection #10 Market / 3rd **********************************t******************************************* cle (sec): 46 Critical VoI. /cap. (X) : 0.599 I ss Time (sec): o Average Delay (sec/veh) : xxxxxx timal cycle: 46 Level of service: A ****************************************************************************** I oach: North Bound South Bound East Bound west Bound L-T-R T-,-T-R L-T-R L-T- l- l-r ntrol : Perrnitted Protected Permitted Pernitted I ghts: Include hclude Include IncLude . Green: 000 00 000 00 01010 102LO 0 0 1! o o 0 0 1! 0 oo,I tl tl tl vol- : 6 15 55 25 225 14 64 10 15 L7L 25 2.50 2.60 2 .60 2.60 2 .60 2.60 2.60 2 .60 2.60 2.60 2 .60 16 39 143 65 585 36 166 25 39 445 65 I er Ao 1.OO 1. 00 lnn 1.00 1.00 1. OO 1. O0 1.O0 1. OO 1.OO 1. 00 F Adj 1.OO 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 F Vol IO 39 143 65 585 36 165 26 39 445 65 I duct 0 0 0 0 0 000 00 0 duced IO 39 143 65 585 36 166 26 39 445 o5 E Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.57 1. OO 1.00 1.21 1.00 1.00 F Adj 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. oo 1. oo 1. O0 1.OO 1. 00 I na1 V 16 39 L43 55 585 57 165 26 47 445 65 I ---tl -il ------l ----l rturation Flow1 llodule: rt/Lane: L425 1425 L425 L425 L425 t425 7425 7425 1425 1425 7425 L425 I ljustrnent: 1. 00 1, 00 1. OO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.o0 tnes : 0.57 0.43 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.23 0.67 0. 10 0.08 0,80 0. 12 Lnal Sat.: 851 649 1500 1425 2850 7425 343 1000 \57 127 1198 L75 I tl tl ModuLe: o.02 0.03 0.10 0.02 o.41 0.10 0.17 0.17 o.tt 0.37 **** **** l;il I :een/CycLe: 0.04 O.04 0.04 0.17 0.21 0.21 O.17 O.28 0.28 0.51 0.62 O.62 >1une7cap: o.60 O.50 0.63 0.60 0.11 L.97 0.60 o.50 0.50 0.60 0'60 9:99 I r****ir**-*********************************************************************** I I I Traffix Systen Version 6.7 (c) 1992 DA L.,icensedto Dowling associates t I t I I I AppendixD I AJR QUALITY I tll I I I I I I I I T I I I t D-1 t CHARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAI- E(TENSION JUNE 1994 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDTX D: AIR QUALITY JUNE 199{ CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL EXTENSION t ENVI RONMENTAL IMPA T REPORT APPENDIX D: AIR QUALITY I CALINE.4 AIR QUALITY MODELING I The CAI.INE-4model is a fourth-generationline sourceair qualitymodel that is basedon the Gaussiandifhrion equationand employsa mixingzone conceptto characterizepollutant dispersionover the roadway.r Given source I strength,meteorologr, site geometryand site characteristics,the model predictspollutant mnc€ntrations for receptorslocated within 150meters of the roadway. The CALINE-4 model allowsroadwap to be broken into I multiplelinl$ that canvary in traffic volume,emission rates, height, width, etc. A screening-levelform of the CALINE-4 programwas usedto predict I concentrations.2The intersectionmode of the screeningmodel was employed,which superimposes the worstcase concentrations of the two intersectingroadways. Normalized @ncentrations for eachroadway size (2 T laneg4 lanes,etc.) are adjustedfor the two-waytraffic volume and emission factor. Calculationswere made for distancesof25 feet from the roadway I curbline. Emissionfactors were derived from the CaliforniaAir ResourcesBoard EMFAC-7Fcomputer model. Averagevehicle speed at eachintersection was I assumedto be 5 MPH. The CALINE-4model calculates the localmntribution of nearbyroads to the I total concentration.The other mntributionis the backgroundlevel attributed to more distanttrafnc. The l-hour backgroundlevel was taken as 4.6 PPM in I 1995and 3.7PPM in Z)00. To calculate8-hour concentrations from the l-hour outputof the CALINE-4 t model,a persistencefactor of 0.65was employed, which was the ratio of 8- hour to l-hour annualmaximum mncentrations measured at the Oakland I monitoringstation in 1992. I I ! Califomia Department of Trans?ortation, CALINE-+ A Dapertion Model for Predicting I Air Pdhuant ConcentrationsNear Roadwalts,Report No. FHWA'/CA/IL-8+15, 1984. ' B"y 4t"" Air Quality Managemeot District, ,4il Quahty and, Uban Develoryent' I Guidelinq. Norrember 1985, Revised 1q91. I D-3 I CTIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSTON JUNE 1994 EIIVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I A}PENDIX D: AIR QUALITY I METTIODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING REGIONAL EMISSIONS Employee Travel I Estimatesof regionalemissions generated by projectemployees were made usinga programcalled URBEMIS-3, URBEMIS-3 estimatesthe emissions t basedon trip generationthat wouldresult from variousland usedevelopment projects. I URBEMIS-3mntains default values for muchof the informationneeded to calculateemissions. However, project-specific, user-supplied information can alsobe usedwhen it is available. I The followingis a descriptionof the parametersthat wereused in the regional air qualityanalysis of the proposedproject: I AmbientTemperature: 60 degreesF. I Trip Irngths: Work 11.2miles T Non-Work 4.7miles Year of Analysis:1995 I AverageSpeed: 35 milesper hour for all trip types. T Shipsand Tugs I The peakday emission calculation assumed 1 shipmovement. It wasassumed that the shipwould travel 1.5 hours within the air basin,with one 3600- horsepowertug providingassistance over a 1.0hour period,The shipwas T assumedto be in the cruisemode, while the tug wasassumed to be operating at two-thirdsof capacity.While mooredat the wharf,two dieselshipboard 500Kw generatorswere assumed to be in useat 25 percentload, I The total fuel usagewas calculated for eachof thesesources. The tugboat fuel usagerate was assumed to be 170gallonsArour, the shipfuel usagerate I wasassumed to be 200gallons/hour, and the shipgenerators were assumed to I T I D4 I tuNE 1994 CI{ARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION I EWIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT APPENDTXD: AIR QUALIfi I use 12.3gallons per hour each.3The fuel usagewas multiplied by emission factors for eachsource published by the U. S. EnvironmentalProtection I Agency.a I Truck Travel The daily increasein Vehicle Miles Travelled for trucks was calculatedbased upon the maximumdaily truck genemtionresulting ftom the project. Iocal T trips wereassumed to involve50 milesof travelwithin thc SanFrancisco Bay air basin. Intermodaltrips wereassumed to resultin an averageof5 milesof travel within the SanFrancisco Bay air basin. The total daily VMT estimated t for all newtruck travelwithin the air basinwas 88.890. The emissionsassociated with this truck travelwas estimated by multiptying I the VMT by emissionfactors for heavyduty dieseltrucks generated by the EMFAC-7Fmodel, the currentemissions model for vehiclesin California. The analysiswas carried out assuminga 1995vehicle fleet, an average I temperatureof 75 degrees,and an averagevehicle speed of 45 milesper hour. t I t t I I t I ! Environmental Science Associates. UIS-POSCO Indtstiq Endrownental AsteJsmetn, January 1991. ' U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Faclort, I Volume II, AP42, Fourth Edition. 1985. t D-5 I CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMTNAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 EN!'IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDrX D: A|R QUALITY I I AppendixE I TIAZARDOUSMATERIALS I lta I I I I CIIARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNET994 DRAFT EI'VIRONMENIAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDTX E HAZARDOUS MATERIAIJ CharlesP. HowardTerminal Expansion AdministrativeDraft EIR I T SummaryReport PreviousInvestigative Activities and Results I At and NearHoward Terminal Site t Portof Oakland April 14,1994 Preparedfor Port of Oakland Oakland,California Preparedby Uribe & Associates Oakland,California SummaryReport of PreviousInvestigative Activities and Results At and NearHoward Terminal Site, Port of Oakland Prgc 2 SITEHISTORY 3 3 SUMMARY 1 1 DISCASSION TS 4.1 Summary 4.2 Soil Conteminetion l6 4.3 GroundwaterConttmination l1 t I r INTRODUCTION This report summarizesthe scopeand resultsof variousinvestigative activities completed I at andnear the Howard Terminal Site, Port of Oakland,Califomia (Figure l), between about July 1985and March 1994. This summaryis subminedin responscto a request from the Port of Oakland(Port) to provide l) a convenientreference that collec{sinto one I documentan accountingofthe environmentalinvestigations and their results;and 2) a I discussionofthe perceivedenvironmental sigrificance of thoseresults. For the purposeofthis report, the Howard TerminalSite is dividedinto two parcels, referred to asthe Howard Terminal Site-West(HTS-W) andthe Howard Termind Site- I East ([ITS-E)- The parcelsare separstedby a southwestward"extension" ofthe cunent Market Street. The HTS-W is boundedon the north by the Embarcaderoand on the west by propertyoccupied by the SchnitzerSteel Products company. The HTS-Eis bounded I on the north by the irregularly-shapedPG&E "Gas l,oad Center" and on the eastby Martin LutherKing, Jr.,Way. Both parcelsare bounded on the southby theOakland I Inner Harbor(Figure 2). This summaryis basedon the informationcontained within: I l. A reportof an"Investigation of Soil Contaminationat theHoward Terminal Site, Oakland,Califomia," dated May 2?, 1986,prepared by ERM-Westof Walnut I Creek,California. A copyofthis reportwas provided by thePort. TheERM-West report documents the resultsof a siteassessment involving the drillingofa seriesof25 soilborings on the northemhalfofthe HTS-E(Figure 2). I Four of theborings were completed as groundwater monitoring rlells. The report summarizesthe resultsoflaboratory analysis of soil andgroundwater samples I collectedfrom theborings and wells. ERM-Westundertook the investigation becauseofthe concernthe Port hadregarding the pastuse ofthe propertyand I implicationsfor planneddevelopment activities. 2. A *PreliminaryEndangerment Assessment Repon for PG&E'SFormer ManufacturedGas Plant Sites" (Volumes I and2), datedSeptember 1991, T preparedby EbascoEnvironmental ofSan Francisco, Califomia. A copyofthis reportwas provided by the Port. Includedin the reportis a heathrisk I assessment. TheEbasco report documeflts the resultsofassessments at PC&E's "GasLoading Center,"located adjacent to the HTS-Eon its northside, and electric I generatingfacility "Station C," locatedto the northeastofthe HTS-Eacross the Embarcadero(Figure 2). The assessmentsinvolved the collectionand laboratory analysisofa) a seriesof8 surfacesamples (refened to by Ebascoas I 'background" samples);b) samplescollected from 8 shallowholes augered by I I I handfrom 0.5 to 5.0 feet belowground surfaceOgs); c) samplescollected between0.5 and 10.5bgs fiom 7 drilledsoil borings:and d) groundwatersamples I collectedfiom two monitoringwells completedin two of the drilled borings. plus locarionand I J. SeveralU&A memorandato the Port recent sample analyticalrezults information $bmitted to the Port by RiedelEnvironmentd Services,Inc. (Riedel),of Richmond,California. I The U&A memorandarefer to soil andgroundwarer sampling requested by the Port and rezultinglaboratory rnalytical data following collectionof a) soil samples from trencheso ThePort providedcopies ofthe sheetsto U&A with the requestthat the dredging' l excavation,and filling ofthe southernportion ofthe HowardTerminal Site, as indicatedon the plans,be accountedfor in this report. Figure3 ofthis report indicatesthe portionofthe HowardTerminal Site (extending across both the HTS' t W andHTS-E) where the dredgingand filling wascompleted. An inquiryto N{r. JerryServenti, of thePort's Engineering Design Department, revealed the filling. wasbegun in December1980 and was completed in July l98l ' Thefilling was I accomplishedby the placementof cleanfill material(mostly sand) imported from locationswithin the SanFrancisco Bay Area. I The angineeringplan sheetsalso indicate that PG&E facilitiesoccupied at leastthe easternportion of theIITS-W (in additionto the IITS-E) at the timethe plans I were drawn. Pastuse of this portion of the Howard TerminalSite by PG&E was not accountedfor in eitherthe ERM-west or Ebascoreports. I I I I I I I 2 SITEHISTORY The site history informationsummarized in this sectionis takenmainly from the May 27, I 1986,report by ERM-Westwith additionalinformation taken from the l99l repon by Ebasco. I Developmentof at leastthe portion of the HTS-E investigatedby ERM-West datesto around the turn ofthe century. The OaklandG8s, Light urd Heat Companyowned and operatedthe propertyuntil the formation ofthe Pacific Gasand Electric Company T (PG&E) in 1905. The propertywas the former location of a manufacturedgas plant that went into operationin 1903and producedgas from crudeoil. I'he gasifcation process produceda by-productknown as'lampblack." Lampblackis a sootysubstance, formed of I nearly pure carbor\ that is producedfrom the incompletecombuslion ofcarbonaceous materialssuch as crude oil. Lampblackwas used as boiler fuel. Surpluslampblack was madeinto briquettesfor useas an altemativefuel to coal. Largequantities of lampblack I (asmuch as 50,000 tons) were stockpiled on the propeflyfor dryingprior to use. Wastes typicallyassociated with suchplants include tar residues,sludges, spent oxide wastes, and I ashmaterials: r Tar sludgeswere formed from residualheavy hydrocarbons in the coke feedstockor whenoil was injectedinto the gasby-product. Tars were often I sold for refininginto various products suchas creosoteand fuel. The chemical constituentsfound in tarsare primarily polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons t (PAHs). r Oxidebox wasteswere generated from the use of iron oxide as a purifier to l removehydrogen sulfide from the gasproduct. Thesewastes usually contain highconcentrations of sulfuq cyanide,and ammonia compounds. l r Emulsionsand contaminated liquors were formed during cleaning of the gas product,especially as excess water vapor was condensed. I r Ash andclinkers were generated from the ashin the cokeor coal feed. These materialsare relativelyinert dthough someleaching oftrrce elementsmay have t occurred. The formergas plant facilities included crude oil tanks,lampblack separators (assumed by ERM-West to be wherethe lampblackwas stockpiledand allowed to dry), gas holders, I purifiers,a boilerhouse, a stationmeter housg andseveral pump houses. Ebasco reportd theplant was dismantled in I 961. Basedon the engineeringplans supplied by the I Port, it is likelythe manufactured gas plant activities, if not relatedfacilities, extended to includeportions of theHTS-W in additionto the HTS-E. Theseactivities may have includedthe stockpilingofthe lampblack.In fact,Mr. Serventialso indicated that during I constructionactivities undertaken by the Port in 1980and 1981, either lampblack or a materialwas encountered in trenchesexcavated near the southeastcorner of I sludgeJike T I theponion ofthe tlTS-W, nearthe sreaofdredging and filling referrcdto above(Figrrre 3). I I 3 SUMMARY The summarythat follows is organizedchronologically. Each sectionbriefly describesthe I scopeand results ofthe investigationby the respectiveconsulting firm. The locations where soil and groundwatersamples were collected,including boringsand wellg are indicatedon Figure2 and are differentiatedby consultant. Tbe rezultsofthe soil and I groundwatersample analyses are summarizedin data tables includedin a'Tabled' section. Following the summaryis a discussionofthe environmentalsignificance ofthe resultsof I the investigations. I PRIOR TO AUGUST 2, 1985: ERM-WEST As a preliminaryscreening step to subsequentinvestigations, including a "reconnaissance I soilgas zurvey," soil boring and soil sampling, and monitoring well instdlationand samplingERM-West examined soil boring logs prepared by Woodward-Clydc Consultantsof PleasantHill, Califomia. The logs were generatedas a resultof a I geotechnicalinvestigation ofthe propertycomprising the HTS-E. On thebasis ofthe logs,tkee samplesstored by Woodward-Clydewere selected by ERM-Westfor laboratoryanalysis. The ERM-West report did not containany information about either I the mannerofthe storageor the lengthoftime the sampleswere stored prior to analysis. Also, ERM-Westdid not report the locationsof the geotechnicalborings from which the sampleswere selected. However, the depthsof thethree samples were indicated as T between2.5 and8.5 feetbgs. Thethree samples were mmposited into onefor analysisof PAHs. Theresults of the I analysiswere reported to the Port by ERM-Westin a letterdated August 2, 1985.ERM- Westreported the total PAH concentrationat 22,480mglkg. The resultsof individual I PAH constituentsare summarizedin Table I of this report. No laboratoryanalgical reportsor chain-of-custodyform(s) accompanied the copy ofthe August2, 1985,letter. t Becauseseveral of the detectedPAHs are knownor suspectd carcinogens,ERM-Wes recommended:"any planned activity at this site(i.e., that portionofthe HTS-E)be restrictedto minimizedirect contact to humansto thesesubsurface materials." The t August2, 1985,letter did not addressthe portionofthe Port propertyreferred to hereas theF{TS-W. I l t I I t APRIL l9t6: ERM-WEST ERM-West reported that its investigationin April 1986was conductedin two phases. The first phaseincluded a reconnaissancesoil gas zuwey. However,no detailed I documentationregarding the survey w8s included in the May 27, 1986,report except for a) it was conductedon April 2, 1986;b) a portable soil gas sensorwas used for thc detectionofhydrogen srlfidc andrn€rcaptan compounds to indicatclocalized areas of I elevatedgas mnc€ntrations;and c) res.rls of the suwey werebriefy noted on four of the boring logs @l through 84) generatedduring the secondphase of the investigstion. I The secondphase of the ERM-Westinvestigation included drilling andsampling 25 soil borings@l throughB25) on April 8 through10, 1986,to depthsbet'ween l0 and I1.5 feetbgs. Four of theseborings @2, 85, 88, andBl4) werecomptaed as 2-inch-diamaer I groundwatermonitoring wells. The other 21 boringswere backfilled with drill cuttings. The locationsofthe boringsand wells, all on the HTS-E, areindicated on Figure2 ofthis ) report. Analysisof22 ofthe 26 soilsamples collected from the borings(represenring 2l ofthe 25 I boringlocations) indicated detectable concentrations of semi-volatileorganic compounds, includingPAHs, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and non-priority organic pollutants. Total PAH concentrationsranged from 0.9 to 6,370mg&g. Thehighest pAlI l concentrationswere foundin samplescollected from the boringsdrilled in the centraland south-centralportions ofthe areainvestigated. Samples collected from 84, BZ, Bl9, and 825 (Figure2) were analyzedfor VOCs,including benzeng toluene, ethylbenzene, and I total xylenes(BTEX), andthe non-priority pollutants. Only rhe sample from B19 did not indicateany detectableconcentrations ofBTEX. In the othersamptes, benzene ranged from 0.13to 0.72 mgkg. Tolueneranged from 0.009to 0.30mg/kg. Ethylbenzene t rangedfrom 0.22to 0.33mgltg. Totalxytenes ranged from 0.0?8to 0.49 mg/kg. The analyticalresults are summarized in Table2 of this report. t ERM-west reportedthat the 25 boringswere drilled in andaround the former tocations of lampblackseparators and stockpiles. These facilities were associated with the historicusc. datingback to the earlyl900s, of whatis now the HowardTerminal Site as a I manufacturedgas plant. Thesubsurface materiats encountered during the drillingofthe boringsincluded l) a layerof "surfacerubble" to approximately2 to 3 feetbgs; and 2) a t 0.5- to 3-foot layerof"sludge-like" material between approximately 3 and 7 feerbgs @etween9 and l0 feet bgsin oneboring). The sludgeJikemarerial was describedas black and extremelydense and tarry, with a strong asphalt-likehydrocarbon odor. This t layerwas encountered mainly in theborings located within thecentral portion ofthe area investigated. I During the drilling groundwaterwas encounteredfrom 3.7 to 9 feetbgs and stabilizedin the wells at about 4 feet bgs. ERM-west assumeda groundwaterftow direction toward I the Inner Hartor to the south-southwest. I I I Laboratoryanatysis of goundwatersanples collected ftom the wellsinSatled in 82,85, 88, andBl4 indicatedlow mg/l conoenttationsof PAI! BTEX anda non-priority i pollutant organiccompound (styrene). Total PAH concentrationsranged from 0.10 to i Z. O .gI @8). Conccntrationsof one or more of the BTEX compoundswere detectedin the samptesfrom three @2, 88, andBl4) of thewelts and ranged from 0.008to l2'0 mg/l I @2 and BS). This wasthe samerange of concentrationsfor benzenc. Tte andyticd results are summarizedin Table 3 of this report. ERM-Westr€ported the highest concentrationsofthe constituentsdetected in the groundwatersamples coincided with the I area of highes concentrationsofthe constituentsdetect€d in the soil boring samples. Neither the ERM-Westreport nor its appendedlaboratory analyticd reportsand chain-of' custody formsindicated the groundwatersamples were filtcred prior to analysis'No t standardoperating proc€dures, including samplecollection and preparUioq wereincluded with the report. I The ERM-Westreport did not addressthe FITS'Wportion of the Port property' I MARCE 1991: EBASCOENVIRONMENTAL I The samplingactivities conducted by Ebascofor thePreliminary Endangerment Assessmlntincluded a) surfacesoil samplingand shallow subsurface soil samplingby hand augerat PG&E'sStation C; b) soil boringand sampling and groundwater monitoring w_ell I installationand sampling at PG&E's GasLoad Center; and c) "background"surface soil samplingat four differentparcets located to the northand northeast ofthe GasLoad Center(Figure 2). Noneof Ebasco'ssampling locations were at eitherthe HTS-W or I HTS-E. The depthsofthe soil samplescollected from the 8 hand-augeredborings ranged from 0.5 I to 5.0 feetbgs. Thedepths ofthe soil samplescollected from the 7 boringsdrilled for soil samplingand the monitoring wells ranged from 0.5to 10.5feet bgs, depending on where groundwaterwas €ncountered. During the drilling groundwaterwas encountered I between4 and7 feetbgs. On the basisof incompteteinformation, Ebasco infened the directionofgroundwater flow to be towardthe southwest.All boringsnot completedas I wells wereabandoned by backfillingwith cementgrout. The materialsofthe subsurfaceencountered during the drillingincluded 4 to 6 feetof fill, I describedas consisting of silty to gravely sandwith occasionalfragments ofwood, steel, concreteand brick. Encounteredbelow the fill, extendingto approximately8 le€tbgs' wasa fine,silty sand with discontinuousctayey zones. Between approximately 8 and19 I feet bgs,the materials primarity conslsted offine siltysand to sandysilt- Blackstaining and/orblack liquid (either lampblack or sludge?)was noted as shallow as approximately 2 fe€t bgsto asdeep as between 16.5 and l8 feetbgs ftoring for well MW'OAK-I). I I I 6 I I The soil and groundwatersamples collected for the PreliminaryEndsngerment Assessment I were analyzedfor: r PAII compounds I o VOCs,including BTEX o Totd petroleumhydrocarbons, characterized as gasotine(TPH-G), diesel I (TPH-D), kerosene(TPH-K), and motor.oil (TPH-MO) o Maals (CAM 17) o Ammoniaand total cysnides I o Sulfidesand rotal phenols r Acidity (pH) I In additiorL selectedsamples collected from the borings augeredby handat StationC were analyzedfor polychlorinatedbiphenols @CBs). The "background"samples were I analyzedonly for PAHs and metals. The followingsubsections summarize the analyticalresults as reported by Ebasco: t PG&E StationC and"Background" Surface Soils As indicatedby Ebasco,the areasincluding and surrounding the HowardTerminal Site are I zoned asHeavy and GeneralIndustrial and exposedsoils in the vicinity "aretypical ofan I areawith an industrialhistory such as Oakland" The laboratoryresults for the StationC and"background" surface soil samples are I summarizedin Table4 of thisreport. PAH Compounds I Total PAll concentrationsdetected in the StationC surfacesoil samplesranged from I .98 to 5.26 mg/kg.Total PAII concentrationsdetected in the "background"samples ranged I from 1.3to 41.8mg/kg. BTEX I Concentrationsofone or moreofthe BTEX compoundswere detected in all the surface soil samplescollected at StationC. Benzeneranged from 0.015to 0.12mglkg. Toluene rangedfrom 0.008to 0.05mg/kg. Ethylbenzeneranged from belowthe method detection I limit to 0.01 mgftg. Totalrylenes ranged from 0.006to O.03mg/lq. I TPH Of the four TPH characterizations,only TPH-MO was detectedabove the method I detectionlimits in the surfac€samples from StationC. Theseconcentrations ranged from 24 to 310mgAg. t t t Metals I With the exceptionof cadmiurn,Ebasco reported that the metalsdeected in the StationC surfac€soil sampleswere atl lessthan or within the rangeofconcentrations detected in the "background" samples.Cadmium was detectedin one StationC surlbc€ssmple, but not I in any "background" sample. I Ammonia and Cyanida Ammoniaand total cyanideswere detectedin all the StationC surfaccsoil samplesat I concentrationsranging from ?.5 to I 0? mg/kg and0. I I to 0' I 2 mg/kg resPectively. Sulfides and Phenols t Concentrationsof sulfideswere below the methoddetection limit in all the StationC surfacesoil samples.Total phenols were detected in onlyone sample at l. I mg/kg. I ShallowSubsurface Soils - PG&E StationC I To e4secomparison ofthe results,Ebasco grouped the shallow boring samples (i.e'' 0.5 to 5.0 feetbgs) according to whereat StationC theborings were augered l) the property's easementare:l (surrounding Station C); 2) a graveledarea, coinciding with formerpurifier t locations;and 3) the pavedarea within the station'syard. Thelaboratory results for the shallowsubsurface soil samples from StationC aredescribed below and summarized in Table5 ofthis report. I PAH Compounds I Total PAH concentrationsdetected in the easementsamples ranged from 0.l2 to 2-6 jn mg/kg. Ebascoreported thal theseconcentrations were comparable to thosedetected t the surfacesoil samplescollected from adjacentlocations and were within the rangeof concentrationsdetected in the"background" samples. t Total PAll concentrationsdetected in the paved-areasamples ranged from 0.01to 51.8 mg/kg. The highestPAII concentrationswere detectedin the graveled-areasamples rangingfrom 7.3 to 2,7& mglkg. I BTEX I Concentrationsofone or moreofthe BTEX compoundswere deteded in augersamples collectedfrom all threeofthe StationC samplingareas indicated above. Benzeneranged from 0.003to 1.1mg/kg. Tolueneranged Fom 0.0o5to 0.53mg/kg. Ethylbenzene I rangedfrom belowthe method detection limit to 0.006mg&g. Totalrylenes ranged from 0.003 to 0.084 ng/kg. The highestBTEX concentrationswere detected in the samples collectedfrom the graveledarea. I t I t I TPH Of the four TPH characterizations,only TPH-D andTPH-MO were detectedabove the method detectionlimits in the shallowsubsurface samples from Station C. These I concentrationsranged from 500 to 530 mg/kg and 30 to 6,300 mgAg respectively. Consistentwith Ebasco'sobservations for PAIIs andVOCs, the highestTPH t oonoentrationswere found in the graveled-areasamples. Mdals I Particularlyfor arsenic,mercury, and nickel, the distributionof metalswas consistent with the distributionof organiccompounds. The highestconcentrations were daected in thc I graveled-areasamples. Ebascoreported that the metalsconcentrations detected in the ssement-areasamples I werewithin therange of concentrationsdetected in the"background" samples. l Ammonia and Cyanides The concentrationsof ammoniawere consistent with theother observations ofanalyses. Theywere highest in thegraveled-uea samples. These concentrations ranged from 5.9to I 126 mgkg. Ammoniaranged from 0.5 to l8 mglkg in the easement-areasamples and was belowthe methoddetection limit in the paved-areasamples- I The highestconcentration oftotal cyanideswas also detected ln a graveled-areasample and rangedfrom 0.1I to 20.7 mglkg. Concentrationsin the easement-areasamples ranged from 0.3 to 12.0mg/kg. Concentrationsin the paved-areasamples ranged from 0.I I to I 9.3 rll,g/r.g. I Sulfiiles and Phenols Concentrationsof sulfideswere below the methoddetection limit in all theshallow t subsurfacesamples from StationC. Total phenolswere detected in onlyone sample, directlybelow the pavement, at 3.8 mg/kg. I P€Bs Selectedsamples from StationC wereanalyzed for PCBsbecause ofthe concemthat oil- I filled electricalequipment is housedthere, including transformers, oil circuitbreakers, regulators,and capacitors. However, Ebasm reported there is no historyofoil or PCB I spillsat StationC. Concentrationsofall PCB compoundstested (Aroclor series)were below the method detectionlimits in all samptessetected for this analysis.The samplesselected were the I shallowestcollected from all the graveled-areaborings and one ofthe paved-areaborings. I 9 I I BoringsDrilled for Soil Samplesand Groundwater Monitoring Wells ' PG&E GasLoad Center I To easecomparison ofthe resrlts, Ebascogrouped the soil boring samples(collected between0.5 and 10.5bgs) accordingto whereat the GasLnad Centerthe boringswere I drilled l) the psvernentarea within the Gasl.oad Centeryard; and2) the pipeline easementarea paralleling the Embarcadero.The laboratoryresuhs for the drilled-boring soit samplesfiom the GasLoad Centerare describedbelow and summalizedin Table 6 of T this report. PAH Compounds I ConcentrationsofPAII compoundswere detectedin all the GasLoad Centersoil boring I samptesranging from 0.004 to 880 mg/kg. The highestconcentrations wer€ detectedin samplescollected from boringMW-OAK-I, completedas a monitoringwell andlocated on the southeastside ofthe GasL,oad Center yard (Figure 2). Thislocation is feportedly t nearthe locationsofformer gasholders. Ebasco reponed observing "product" during both tbe drillingand developmcnt of the well installedin MW-OAK-I. Ebascoreported that no apparentrelationship existed between the detectedPAII concentrationsand I sampledepth, but cautionedthis observationwas conditioned by the factthat shallow groundwaterprecluded deeper sampling. I BTEX Conc€ntrationsof oneor moreof theBTEX compoundswere detected in the majorityof I the GasLoad Center soil boring samples. The highest concentrations for all theBTEX compoundswere detected in samplescoltected from MW-OAK-I between3.5 to 6.0 feet bgs. For all samplesbenzene ranged from 0.003to 2,600 mg/kg,toluene ranged from I 0.003to 430mglkg, ethylbenzene ranged from 0.@4 to 8?0mgkg andtotal xylenes rangedfrom 0.005to 460 mg/kg. I Concentrationsofall the otherVOCs tested, including chlorobenzene and 1,2-, 1,3-, and I,4-dichlorobenzene,were betow the method detection limits in eachof thesoil boring T samplesselected for VOC analysis. TPH I Of the four TPH characterizations,only TPH-D andTPH'MO were detectedabove the methoddetection limits in the soilboring samples collected at theGas Load Center. I Theseconcentrations ranged from t.8 to 130,000mg/kg and 53 to 5,000mglkg respectively. Consistentwith Ebasco'sobservations for PAHs andVOCs, the highest TPH-D concentrationswere found in samplescollected from MW-OAK'I. The highest I TPH-MO concentrationwas found in a samplecollected from B-OAK-{. Analysisof samplescollected from the four boringsdrilled within the GasLoad Centeryard (B-OAK- I T t0 I I I tkough -3 and MW-OAK- | ) indicatedconcentrations of TPH-MO rangingfrom 170ro l 4,?0Omg/kg. I Mdals Ebascoreported that relativelyhigh arsenic concentretions were detected in samples collectedfrom B-OAK-4 (2.9to 14mgAg) andB-OAK-S Q.8to 19.7mgkg) andthat I the highestconcentrations oftotal leadand mercurywere detectedin samplescollected from B-OAK-4 (at 534and I1.9 mg/kg respectively). I Ammonia anil Cyaniila Detectedconc€ntrations of ammoniaranged from 0,54 to 36 mg/kg. The highest t concentrationswere found in samplescollected from B-OAK-I drilledin the northeast comerofthe GasLoad Center yard. Detectedconcentrations oftotal cyanidesranged I from 0.18 to 106mg/kg. TheNghest concentrations were found in samplescollected from B-OAK-4. Ebascoreported this trend agreed with thoseobserved for arsenic,lead, I andmercury as indicated above. Sulfida and Phenols l concentrationsofsulfides ranged from 200 to 300 mg/kg. Ebascoreported they exhibited no apparentspatial trend. Thehighest sulfide concentration was detected in a sample collectedfrom B-OAK-3. Concrntrationsof total phenols,ranging from I.4 to 9.9 mg/kg, I weredetected only in samplescollected from MW-OAK-I. I GroundwaterSamples - PG&E GasLoad Center Oily two groundwatermonitoring wells were installed at lhe GasLoad Center MW- OAK-I andMW-OAK-2). Well MW-OAK-l wasinstalled at the southeastend of the I GasLoad Centeryard and MW-OAK-2 was installednear the southem end of thepipeline €asement(Figure 2). Exceptwhere noted otherwise, the resultssummarized below apply t only to the samples(initial and duplicate) collected from MW-OAK-1. Thelaborarory resultsfor the GasLoad Center groundwater samples are zummarized in Table7 of this report. Neither the Ebascoreport nor its appendedlaboratory analytical reports and I chain-of-custodyforms indicated whether or not thegroundwater samples were filtered prior to analysis.No standardoperating procedures, including sample mllection and preparatio4were included with thereport. However,Ebasco did statethat all their I samplingactivities were conductedaccording to a "Fina.lOakland PEA Work plan,- submittedto theCalifornia Department of HealthServices on March6, 1991. A copyof I the Work Planwas not availablefor reviewbv U&A. t t ll t I Analysisof the samplescollected from MW-OAK-2 indicatedthat concentrationsof all the constituentsofintcrest @basco's"manufactured gas plant-related constituents," t including PAlIs, BTEX TP[I, rnd metals)wefe belowthe respectivcmethod detection limits. On this basis,Ebasco suggested MW-OAK'2 maybe in an upgradient position. I PAE Compounds I Ofall the PAH compoundstested for, only naphthdenewas detectedin the samples collectedform MW-OAK-I (at 7.1 rnd 8.8 mg/kg). I BTEX Concentrationsof the BTEX compoundswere detectedin the samplescollected from I MW-OAK-I at 60 and67 mgAg for benzene,1.2and 8.6 for toluene,3.2 and 3.6 for ethylbenzene,and 3.5 and4.0 mg/kgfor total rylenes. I Concentrationsofall theother VOCs tested, including chtorobenzene and 1,2-, 1,3-, and 1.4-dichlorobenzene,were below the methoddetection limits. I TPH Of the four TPH characterizations,only TPH-G wasdetected above the methoddetection I limit in the samplescolleaed from MW-OAK-I (at 100mg/kg and at 120mg/kg in a duplicatesample). In additior\the laboratoryindicated that "unknown heavy hydrocarbons"weri detectedin the samplecollected from MW-OAK-I (at 23 ng/kg). I Despitethe statementabove that the constituentsof interestwere below the method detectiontimits in thesarnple mllected from MW-OAK-2,the laboratoryindicated that I "light hydrocarbonswhich do not havea gasolinepattem" were detected in the sample cotlectedfrom thiswell (at 88 mgilg). This resulttends to call into questionEbasco's l suggestionthat MW-OAK-2 may be in an up-gradientposition. Mdals t The metalsdetected in the samplescollected from MW-OAK- l were bariumat 0.043and 0.040mg/kg, chromium at 0.025and 0.085 mg/kg manganes€at 0.?35and 0.765 mgltg I vanadiumat 0.013and 0.010 mg&g, and zinc at 0.016and 0.030 mglkg Ebasoo reported:"Of theseconstituents, only chromium in theMW-OAK- I duplicatesample (0.085mg/l) exceeds the corresponding EPA or DHS MCL." I Ammonia and Cyanides I Detectedconcentrations of ammoniawere 4.5 and5.4 mg/tg. Detectedconcenlrations of total cyanideswere 0.23 and 0.57 mgftg. I t t2 I I I Sulftdes aad Phenols Concentrationsofsutfides were below the method detection limit. Concentrationsof total I phenolswere 0.1 5 ^/kg in both samples. t DECEMBER 1992TO MARCE 1994: IIRIBE & ASSOCIATES Summarizedbelow are the five roundsofsampling conductedby U&A from December 1992to March 1994. The majority of the samplinginvolved collectionof soil samples. I Theseincluded samples from stockpilesand trenches. Three water sampleswere also l collectedfrom groundwaterthat hadfilled holesexcavated for light poles. The sampleswere analyzedfor TPH-G, TPH-D, TPH-K TPH-MO, total recoverable petroleumhydrocarbons (TRPH), PAH compounds,purgeable organic compounds I (includingBTEX), andtotal metals(Title 22). Onetrench sample (TRl-C-2) andone stockpilecomposite sample (S-Composite) were also analyzrAfor concentrationsof lead I by both the STLC andwaste extraction test (WET) methods. CompositeSoil Sample- December1992 I Four discretesoil sampleswere collected from a pile of soilthat hadbeen excavated from a trenchbeing dug for powerlines. Thesamples were composited into one("S-l Composite)for analysisofPAFIs only. Constituentconcentrations ranged from I 6 mg/kg T (acenaphthene)to 75 mg&'g(naphthalene). The laboratoryresults for the S-l Compositesample are summarizedin Table8 of this I repon. I GroundwaterSamples - December1992 Water samplesW-1, W-2, andW-4 wereanalyzed for PAHs only. Constituent I concentrationsranged from betowthe method detection limits to 5,600mg/kg (naphthalene)in W-2. SampleW3 was not analyzeddue to an enor in samplehandling at l the laboratory. The water samplescollected by U&A were not filtered prior to analysis. The laboratoryresults for the water samplesare summarizedin Table9 of this repo . I CompositeSoil Sample- February1993 Four discretesoil sampleswere collectedfrom the samestockpile that wassampted in I December1992. The sampleswere composited into one fS-Composite")for analysisof TRPH, PAHs, total metals,and Ieadby rhe STLC method(the samplehad a total lead concentrationof 100 mg/lcg). The only purgeableorganic compounddetectcd was I benzeneat 0.014mg/kg. Concentrationsofall othersuch constituents were below the I l3 I I methoddetection limits. Theconc€ntration of TRPH was 1,300mg/kg. Concentrations of PAHs rangedfrom below the methoddetection limits to 28 mg/kg(pyrene)' I concentratio-nsoftotal metatsranged aom below the methoddetection limits to 150 mglkg (zinc). The concentrationof rc"a by the STLC methodwas 5.7 mg/. Thc STLC level for leadis 5.0 mg/l. I The laboratory resrlts for the S-Compositesample rre summarizedin Table 8 of this T report. Trench Soil Samples- March1994 I Four soil sampleswere collectedftom two trenchesnear the IITS scales.Two samplas (TR2-C- l -i fnZ-C-21 *ere collectedfrom a north-south-trendingttenct! tocatedwest T of the weighstation, and two samples(TRl -c-l andTRI-G-2) were collected ftom an east-west-irendingtrench locatedsouthofthe weighstation. The samples were analyzed for TPH-G, TPH-k, TPH-D,TPH-MO, PAHs, andtotal metals'In addition,sample t TRI-C-2 wasanalyzed for leadby the STLC method(the sample had a total lead concentrationof 210 mgikg). I ConcentrationsofTPH-G rangedfrom below the methoddetection limit to 530mg/kg (TRI-C-2). Concentrationsof TPH-Kwere below the methoddetection limit in TR2'C'I and TR2-C-2. For TRI-C-I andTRI-G-2, the laboratoryindicated the kerosene-range I hydrocarbonconcentrations wef€ not reported due to overlappingpeaks. c-oncentrations oifpff-O rangedfrom 3?Oto 20,OOOmg/kg (TRl'C-l). Concentrationsof TPH-MO rangedfrom z,sooto 25,OOOmgag (TRl-C-l). However,the laboratory stated that the I chr6matogramsdid not resemblefuel patterns,except perhaps somewhat for TR2:9:2 The laboratoryattributed the high corrcentrationsof TPH-D ard TPH-Mo to the high I levelsof PAHsin the samples. Concentrationsof PAHsranged from below the methoddetection limits to 3,900mgftg I for pyrenein TRI -C-1. Totalmetal conc€ntrations ranged from below the method detectionlimits to 210mg/tg for leadin TRI-c-2. In thissample, the concentration of leadby the STLCmethod was 6.1 mg/I. t The laboratoryresults for the trenchsamptes are summarized in Table8 ofthis report. I Agregate BaseSamples - March 1994 Three samples(AG-I, AG-2,and AG-3) were collectedfrom a stockpileof aggregate I basethat had been€xcavated at the HTS. The sampleswere analyzed for TPH-G, TPH- K TPH-D, TPH-MO, PAHs,and total metds. I Concentraiionsof TPH-G,TPH,K, andTPH-D wereall belowthe method detection limit. Concentrationsof TPH-MOranged from 140to 380 mg/kg(AG-3). I I l4 I t Concentrationsof PAHsranged from belowthe method detection limits to 1,300mgftg l for pyrenein AG-3. Total metal concentrationsranged from below the methoddeteclion limitsto 110mgftg for zinc in AG-3. The concentrationsof metatsdid not appearto bc I elevated.Total lead concentrations ranged from 15to 19mg/(g(AG-l). The taboratoryresults for the aggtegatebase samples are summariz€din Table8 ofthis I report. t MARCH 1994: RIEDEL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES' Il{C. I ScaleExcavalion Pit Soil Samples Four soil samples(Scale-4E, Scale-4W, Scale-7E, and Scale-7W) were collected from two scaleexcavation pits at the [ITS-W. The sampleswere analyzedfor TRPH and PAlIs. I Only Scale-4Wwas analyzedfor total metals. All four sampleswere analyzedfor STLC metals. I ConcentrationsofTRPH rangedfrom | 50 to 2,500mg/kg (Scale-7W). Concentrationsof PAHs rangedfrom below the methoddetection limits to 69 mg/kg for t benzdg,h,i)perylenein Scale-7W.Total PAH concentrationsranged from 76 to 385 mg/kg(Scale-7W). Total metal concentrations ranged from belowthe methoddetection limitsto 92 mgkgfor anc. Thetotal leadconcentration was 50 mgAg. Concentrations I of the STLCmetals ranged from belowthe methoddetection limits to 5.6mgAg for zinc in Scale-7E.Concentrations oflead by the STLCmethod ranged from 0.2to 2.8 mg/kg I (Scate-7W). The laboratoryresults for the scaleexcavation pit samplesare summarizedin Table8 I (total andSTLC metals) and Table l0 (TRPHand PAHs) of this report. I 4 DISCUSSION I 1.7 Summary I l. Analysisof soilsamples collected from locations on the IITS-W portionofthe Port propertyindicated detectable concentrations ofPAlI compounds,total I petroleumhydrocarbons, and metals. Analysisof soil and groundwatersamples collected from locationson the IITS-E I indicateddetectable concentrations ofPAHs, BTEX andother VOCs. I t5 T I 3. Analysisof soil andgroundwater samples collected from locationsnear the IITS-E indicateddetectable concentrations of PAlIs, BTEX andother VOCs, total I petroleumhydrocarbons, metals, ammonia and cyanides,and sutfides and phenols. The differencesbetween these thlee areasin terms of what constituentswere detected is I mainly a functionof the laboratoryanalyses that were selected,mther than r function of concentratiolrnsince not all sampteswere analyzedfor the sameconstituents. Table I I I zummarizesthe rangeof samptedepths, categories ofanalyses, and detected constituents differentiatedby areaIITS-W, FITS-E,and nearthe IITS'8. I The arnountof analyticaldata collected to datefor the rITS-W portionofthe Port . property is limitedby the few samplelocations and shaltowdepths ofthe invesigations. in spite,of this, the risults ofthe variousanalyses indicate contaminationis pres€ntin the I fffs-W subsrrfaceand that it is, at least,similar in kind to thecontamination indicated by the earlierinvestigations conducted on theFITS-E and PG&E properties.This similarity of the detectedconstituents and the similarityof subsurfacematerials encountered during T rhe drilling of the soil boringsby both ERM-West and Ebascoindicates the contamination foundat to theHTS-E may extend under the portionsofthe HTS-Enot yet investigated"nd(i.e., "dj"..nt to the southof th€area investigated by ERM-West).This contamination I may alio enind underthe HTS-W portion of the terminalproperty. This.latter possibility is iso suggestedby the observatio4made by Port employeeMr. Serventi,that either lampbhcf-or a sluigeJlke materialwas encountered in trenchesexcavated on th€ HTS-W I in 1981. I 1.2 Soil Contamination I From the availableinformation U&A considersit likely the layerof "sludgeJike"material, found by ERM-Westin soil borings(between approximately 3 and7 feet bgs andbelween 9 and ld feetbgs in oneboring) e)dends fof somedistance beneath the portions ofthe I HTS-W andHiS-p adjacentto the areainvestigated by ERM-west.This is substantiated by the pastobservations ofat leastone Port ernployee(Mr. Sewenti).How far the (approximately0.5- to 3.o-footthick) layer actually extends and how thick it maybe can I only be determinedby further investigation.Howwer, becausethe areasouth of the l98l timit of filling wasfilled in afterthe manufacturedgas plant activitiesceased, contaminationis not expectedto extendbeyond the limit ofthe fill thatborders the I Howard TerminalSite (Figure3). The PAII, BTEX cyanide,phenol, and hexavalent chromium contamination detected in I soit samplescollected from theHTS-W and IITS-E may existbeneath portions ofthe Howard TenninalSite north of the limit of fill and not yet investigated'The contaminationmay be in concentrationssufficient to caus€concem regarding possible I exposureshould future activitiesthere (such as excavations, trenching, or drilling) distutb thi surfaceand increase the potentialfor contacteither with the skinor by inhalationof particulatesand/or vapors. For this reason,the implicationsofthe healthrisk assessment t I t6 t T preparedby Ebascoas part ofthe PreliminaryEndangerment Assessment for the PG&E I propertiesaxe directly applicableto the Howard TerminalSite as a wholc. Thus, all future activitiesthat involve disturbingthe Site's surfaceand subsurfaceshould I be plannedsuch that workers' expozureto contaminationis limited to the greatestdegee possible,including equipping trained workers with personalprotective equipment to bc usedunder the provisionsofapproved site heathand safetyplans. Suchpersonal t protective equipmentwould includerespirators (with cartridgesfor organicvapors and particulatefilters) as well asgloves and other clothing to preventdircct contact with the skin. In additio4 any materialsbrought to the surfacewill requirescreening by laboratory I analysisto determinethe mannerofproper disposal. Maintenanceof cappingofthe Site by asphdt and/orconcrete should provide adequate T protection from exposureto the toxic and/or hazardousmaterials underlying potentially large portions of the Howard TerminalSite. l 1.3 Groundwater Contamination I All the groundwatersamples referred to in this reportwere collected from locationseither at or tbe nearthe former locationof the manufacturedgas plant. So far as U&A is aware, no groundwatermonitoring wells exist and no samplesofgroundwater have been I collecteddowngradient of the wellsinstalled ERM-West (i.e., from locationstoward and/oradjacent to the InnerHarbor). Thus,it is not possibleto saywhether or not, or in what concentrations,the constituentsdetected in the groundwaterhave migrated either I nearor to the InnerHarbor, including beneath the material placed as fill at the Sitein 1980 and 1981. Despitethis lack of downgadientinformatioq it mustbe recalled that the detectedconstituents appear to haveremained in the soil sinceat lesst196l and I potentiallyfor the past90 years.This is particularlytrue for the sludge-likelayer. Giventhe ageofthe historicaluses ofthe properties,the availableanalyticd data, and the I proximityto the lnnerHarbor of thelocations investigated, U&A considersit likelythat BTEX andnaphthalene have reached the waters ofthe InnerHarbor, at leastto some I degree.In addition,U&A considersit likelythese constituents will continueto reachthe InnerHarbor until the residualsources of contamination,such as the sludgeJike layer, are l eitberremediated or aresuffciently degraded by naturalprocesses. So far as is knowr\ noneof the groundwatersamples collected from the wells were filteredprior to analysis.Thus, it is possiblethat someofthe concentrationsreflecl I constituentsthat adheredto soil or sedimentparticles, rather lhan dissolved concentrations. I In its report, Ebascoindicated a numberofconstituents exceeded the respectivestate- promulgatedmaximum contaminant levels and/or federal EPA healthadvisory levels and I Califomia Departmentof Health Servicesapplied action levels. Thescincluded the PAIIs I t7 I I (especiallynaphthalene), BTEX, ammoni4 cyanides,phenols, hexavdent chromium' and manganese. I As Ebascoreported, groundwater beneath the Howard Terminal Site, as well thc sr.rrroundingareas ofthe Port and City ofOakland, is not usedas a r€sourc€for 8ny purpose. Thus,the contaminationfound within the shallowgroundwater should not pos€ t a tkeat ofexposure as a resuttof"producing" this groundwaterto the surfac€srch asby meansofwells. However,protection from exposureto the groundwatershould be affirrdedall workers for whom there is a potentialof coming into contscl with the I groundwateras part of their worlq includingworkers who may continuewith subsurfacc investigationsat the HowardTermind Site. Suchprotection would alsoinclude personal I protective equipment,to be usedunder the provisionsof site healthand safety plans' including respirators,gtoves, fully-covering clothing and face shieldsto Protectagainst *incidentalsplash." I I I l I I I I I I I I T t8 I s tt t E c:ffiFah .t-+; eS o$ U' _.E .g- s a5 I .3 .t z .T Irl og F o oi os oE - iY ______--iof, n I Hl -J F _-__t an td I = I' I tt z lrJ llr t- o E CrE;*i++r I' _J = .T. 9fozonroN ;Fvfl ru. I I I :rie I I I I I I I ,r I tl |, I I I fiilw. I r-:l I l"r I I I TABI,E I I PoLynuclear AroDatl'c Hydrocarbons nq,/kq I 50 AcenaPhthene I{O0 I Acenaphthylene 850 Anttrracene (a) anttrracene 660 Benzo 1000 I l0o0 B:#3lil Hlili"p""" 900 380 iiii:"ii 340 I Flourene ":';i'lll*13.,," 3000 Flouranthene 5500 Naphttralene 3800 I Phenanthrena 3600 P:trens I 22,4Ao fotal. (PNIs) I Site' Contamination at the Howard Terminal Source: ERM-West, "lnvestigation of Soil Oakland. Califomi a" MaY 27'1986 I I I I I I I T I I I t I sg3.;a at Ia 3 t 6 =is.;i 3t a G o G :i3 Hc a o g c ii.3 t nisiF ri .aa 6 t (, i3 F90E9Ag l G F 3 E 6 3ie c c |! ! i3 o ii Ta .ii (t r.g o^ ;IE1 P^e R a tr8. I xo riaif, B F >u > OL. +{ 9o Irb -! I -t' 3 t F E a sxl t Elx. aG FI" Ec I tr'l EiE =o -ig.aa =r, TI.E 6t -. P I !5 t E Erg ;c .iB-aa ? g,/ a) E.g I (, +t R 8 g $e: a -iB E bi -c € .3e E E o I L I a si; L -i1 I 0 3 a .e= rle I o (, "?tsr: , t ? E ei B B n t:d l I .i1 o I a h !:e a ! I J-. I .\I T ;3 ii; ru 4 +, ra tr ! I Ee r! .-E I a.F :. ! !E F 13!E 3!; I E !ti 'Eilt ril ii i-.f I I E;.i. t i iii ii E, A I I R R g 3 ni9-;a a I I e it$ I g E B E I -ii t a i i I a ? E Fgs-a3 t C' qit a n .0 ? s E I I Fgs.ia E I o Bgt I ? o .;e o I I t egs.ae I E E ei9'i= I R R e E t a & I ! lis.ie B ? al t tu .E I I F eig t3i I o 3gg 39?F F 'i1 I o 4 sgg c I 5; c .;i I I ? ? I P ?i3 E t E n tea Y i E --- I T g t !'. E I ;= I E ; t Er el ll ?. !5t !E II i .lt !i t I!i :f 3i ! ti iiii riE l I Table2 (continued) RESUI,TS OF PRIORITY POLIIXIAIIT AITALYSIS OF FOIJRSELEel suBsttRFACE Sorl^s volatlle organlc! o.13 benzens o.72 chlorobenzenc 0.01? ethylbenzeno O.z2o o.33 Dethvlen6 chiorldc 0.006 0. 065 toluene 0.009 o.30 l{on-Prlorlty Pollutant Volatlle Orcranlcg 2-butanons o.016 ,l-nethyl-2- Pent-nons 0.010 t(ylene leouerr O.22 0. 49 o. 078 Extractable oroanlct llre onlY extractable organlce found ln eoll EaDPleB rere the PAHg lleted ln Tabls I TABT,E 3 ORGAI{IC PRIORITY POLIIJIIAIITS DETEETED IN SHII,IOTI GROI'NDI{ATER ' BB B1' Extractable organlcg 82 B5 acenaphthene o.02 tluoranthenc 0. 02 0. o20 12. O 0. 10 naphttralene o.20 phenanthrenc 0.02{ 0. 020 o. o20 Pyr€nc 0. 026 0.10 'IIUIAL PAII o.2? o. 060 12.0 12.0 0.008 benrene l2 ethYlbenzene II toluene o. ol2 Non-PrlorltY Pollutant atlrrene o. 005 rcylene leornerl 0. o59 I lZZZ Z itttt -l i33 I T; ;3;:3:33;:igsE€:A I a zZZZ Z , iii; l. t ; t EiF ! f g€E::3:E:EEE:3€33l ",3 t ;::". rt st;. }B :13 -1 il 2ZZZ Z ;tit7 =l ;lig=: ge :ll:l! =- I : ieeeFE 3:e : :i iiit; iE 1t tl :IB fl gF: 2ZZZ Z tii;t I rlSiEr :l:r; Bgs?::??g;33:Be:?l I :I t .:r.7:i::::: :: = zzzz z iiiiti i= E:::::l z I ! z^ ! 3oolo qi i: ?vt n !;E 229 o9cQl:EEEI Eo I ea i s- 3E;;EEE;Eig?EBE3A !: .Y t; J: r.':: 75 .!. g! = r' ,- z z z zz I e 6: ! I t: !' tl ti ::lii;Er:X3:::I a il ! I r-i - I la i I gl izzzzl g e =e:??i:1:i:i:?i?:l tI t I I -{ z tt A ;iti7 a is t I 5e t * t i::3:33s:3:3::E?3i I :r t9 t In t I l' 2zzzz. t? e a :::???i::i1:i::i::: r ; : I iY - t ; zrzzz 3 2 I :;:?;;::::;:i;i?:i E* : 3: g z J a z EI E' I la I .. f =='!l r:. I zI I *!l I r,ehlsi!, 9:e 2 fu**i!i fltiilll I I I 63:3 !: a:! F:c.;;: s Ell seF;lsisit: ti a 1 I qE{Et8 9Pr: i;33EiE3;:Bg:E33gll. vx 9t 1= l 9ir cv.,Y 5e- I E3:fff;9:3BEi:gE tE EEtEtr iFl'flli F;? r e(E FsEi;3tsF3;:A:E3FEl8 E5 I .99?to ?i?q: si !i iEs I qq$qEgEFigficEEEeeqEEBIg ? oo ooc dd d-i :t 9qq9< I I FEBEESBSSSE:€EgsEt::eEEI$vvi z .z T1 U I il' ges3Bi:ts:sEe:E::f]sgsE|fl;e;B' z2 g tttElt zz I 5!" BFs E s E s E:5 3t B$EEt: coo916 ;;;it €l !l T rl $ il il El il i I El sl i riz 6 t I : I .n.il !E furuf ii ! s**f$$s$$iirfl*,ufil,,,$f,iifli l .: q Fffsrle:ff:rgesss!tot I Hlu ? F:t;nn;:ag;Fg;a?I"g;E I I Ei g:ig:tgrtEri|3]3Bgtl ^ E{ I 5 t0" g tE: ?F g g !: Bs 3 E ! gg g i I3! ! i?t I E;I 5'l| <: 9r I BI$Bg:3:i:53ig$3m t I s:;9:l$p:335fii3fi99$ t 3:p;:t;3::3i;3fi?;s t s I ! t g:[gl;i .99 ' ; ;3; E:; i; F;lFlR "El0sEt-e -r ;8 Ll si I i> :3 g5;3!t$5Fl:399$3ii It:d I rrl ll E "l t F3 iF ,li I 3F iE" ?:ii3l;:;:Fiii0?fi.: s! :gFt-. I &9 R EE" :1 eff:s:e::fi$:ereiH=H6, -tta; q i3 I ?-flv'fliq .:lilc ol;lo ie;fl;r: :I c.t I F! €t tt }J o ag ! t .t _i I :i€ c I 5t l: !a c- I !| It ! i br BI i Et I d ,, , fl, Ei t I !.; ;{ {! '-E i al fl$u$iif*uiirt*ii, i* *t! _5a fu Et:n ir I 3 I .g I 1 5E:I I :sE Ei HEI E 9E g9: : TI ir A E 8Cr. s$.r t T!I f"sI ! Fqt 9.t F sq :g; I ii; -:B 6 F; ri ! rF5 I g -! 5 tr: A E ! .tT H ! * it : i _r tI I Fll fl: Eigii lg 'a I g B$:s3!3er!:lFsE::li vvv z- Ssggc ii: T I J c99P! 5 3i::::sr:::3;;3r31: EE!EI3 t v v F - ,-z I ddcglc a t888tS $EBE s3 F ; $EB €E 9'gdgl. 3: E I tFBslE ", ! EA:3::3:i::i$3E3ilil tEeetB f.7 I ;"'g99: 3 - tl I ?;3:r::;i:;36;;!:l! ;EIgIE ;0iq: $i l F$i: i F:::3::;:: F: ;00e: $? I !l n I g ; I flai x El t gt$gi*i*$$,ir,$is,fgi1E I fL*,ufflu,,,$'ii 3? I I 3 I z Pi I :6 ? rr .EHd" EiHi I ! l?t Efi! 5q I <: gx A I I I e rFilalclcq I qs EE q E E s qs s?8 I E'Mcgavonlovivvval ?e8 I a 8 a a I a e e eIEI;le c e e alElEl al;le o I - ic"*".ilslcls,ir,diEFl on6. I I I a eaeeef{lecleqsqqsqBc SsaF -ql= ?vsvnlllE o'6" I ! q;qE 8 88e?88 EiSSAqSee p.F' i:= E 9v-*tj.. 3ov5v0vE3 n I U sFsBsagegggglsleeeeg - a r * g. Et e' I v ! it dldlnS i, I t_-l qqq9qiglelqaqseq?sq1 3'FV-AilolRBcAsiVnhE I ' tl €! I IF -grt 6 t g :l Fl I d ac EI !l : '! t$ I flgisf,li;*i$3rtr si,ilii* 33 I I 6:sEEg:3;3i;sEFEEllBg;EII ;?EI; ?: g I is:' t; t €3r3iEE3;FiiF3:lil!.;EEEI! ;0s : 3q i; iir' o9icr6 RS I F issiFFsEFiFEeE:3elag95gg ;00.ee ee iEI EE li:' i3 I EE iE5' d'$3I3 H g F F g g g s g E 33ti €E€glEse?s.e e I I 66ii18igF!33qeggq!:gE5l! ;;3E3 ?: I *i3' q q q q q ev.erijfia e I -!i$-d\r-'itg! I c c r o o n oro l 3' FE:ElE nin_{F g! c 7 I q q.i4c*' ac.l .li !c I ' 9 9 5 = s :'. e : I !$,.fils cec:tEislas ? I e i;3 u T ! ::aeqqEqceEesE:EErrvv--:= EFgEll :;3S: o o o.ilq , I l::' n U ggsde I lEi' EBsBHsssBrgsB$Bsel:;3iE; I 35. FFgEBSFggggE€EEgElE3=E3l: I ;s E$3::i:;:::i::E:;lE 3EE3l5-3e9F3 I q:1qq9cer!000 Bf ?.i3:trrxgrg"iigfiltr l3:gl ?F9!.: ?5 I g rt 6 il I EI :l I rEl I gttui*$lti,fu,$*,i,*,$ffl,u'$fli I fl I i3E8 eesc3:?: :FF;Oi;E iEB.I i i i- I ?3 ! ?:;3: ! h:3.1?i 3 iF iE05 =! *' E 3I i Ev ii -Eq9A : e! I I qH: llii' i i Ei; i 33 i: i 0:? i ?iR B: .s t9 EE3' I I: r ti 98 :68 ?;s;?";:ia3:;Eii:: 33BEl e I B: s I o-6ee9Ca i :E3 i;=vv;iF i: a! ;E:ii?3?ae t I 6 EEE i:3 3::3 Fi s:3i": $ ?;e l: B! I :is i t9 r B I 3; ! i e;i 3aF E:85E ; g'l i ??'?:; 6 g ai I a I I I I :EE] i:s;?H3 ::3$C;ii:; :: F: g aa { n I tl :6t ?:!;?i?a:::ts:ii?i; 5!B: t! I Ee6ii?3?:; I ii'l ?i;?sl?: ffB Fe I :6s ?3i?i:?i1::ii?i ?:! a: I t'i. ?:t?;;;:;sEiE;3;Bt": B a I : i+ir -Fd 6 I I !l ii I 5l ei H ec , il I te I fl!t* il$iritilirue$ri;i!, I c I !!l I ;,r ^ ai iii,EE ! gF t ggHi.E tgi. i fiEt 3I! I t9 9i ,!i.iiiriliii ax t6 * I EFE55:F3B:seBsBEEEgFEBI' vvvEr t I EFEsEsFgssE:EsBEAlggEgl,rvi?z I €:5::::.8t:t3it:!:tg 5BEEIEi?3Et t I I 8!nrrsEecgsFcqtgRl! ;s" csscrn gEg93 ; I E -! gs. B::F3El333eg:if;Eit:sessE €tt€€ I * T1 EReBaEF:seRBs._*"]ll U I ng *_*ufl glilBg qc,!nr:c I F ;.r i i j g = D 3:ll gg3E|g;iieF I ;! FEgg::::gEg3t:F3!t!BggEIE ;iio; l qg' 6;3:!F3::ts:F3b55t9€BeqB q999. 3i eS.9l. I €+ I xt I i I gttu$$$t$$,ir*$ll,i I ,s*$iflu,,,$fli = I I li ^ =< T ! 96 -c ae! g rEl I : E5o iJ I: 'I I iEis ?:3?;r;3;t6iE?i?:: r:$t eE lr; I t6 I o I li58 ?3*9;;g:i3;fi!3F;t: :3F: t:: , I ?'";;l;;FE!ir;fi;33 ::BF t"i;igtr Y I ' I I d E q'! q9 q q.!.!"t! qq s Ivi3viFn69.9.,rr0?Sti ! I e6 r !:$! I Ii;5' l: t : ! +eFo i;n;?;;: ,=3$: I ixt I Y ll i:E' ?:$39;"::F;E$;3i;js ESBA I ?j: )Y I I q: v:r;ffi:::i:BdiBiii :eB3 I i;!' ;fli;::;:6nsfl:;g;;r i6B! inr- T i '{3" ?ls;:i3!:E3i;3$?;e id$! i:r I a a i:a* t I t.F6 ! -itr 5 E t z t F I a z a g € .i gl a I e ce ! tE ' B Ai ffutlli*,eirf*E3o Elll*i ?€ I H r I I ,a a!-: -a t ei I !l x< t I I I ft I :E' I I n c E , t a 3EEE :::i T u t i acoc 33335 I 7 ,2=?= aaei l- 5 o - 3 c = , Ci =i : EE iI' oQ ,'"i l< ; E9 9€?91 I gz E.l '-: -,r.- F l::J5 g -a XE- I El' o = El 6 * !: ci 6 tEp:t ? IE 5: I PO bt i!l.s ,. :5 I i 35F66 ii ?e I I : ii; I . I Ii a 7 i t ii I o i i slt ! ! !:i i I !:!i1! I 3 I g I I if,,n,,$ilui.iil.l I t c-{ Va!.\| Vl.t{(O(pNNNtv)ttNo|\ ,AE v v v F 6lN FF-61 6lF .; I t! o REEE (J I -g P2 I CD !: J \o \o (o € {tn < ! ar\ Pl EgTEE !O F.ti; ; - o x o' 9.e q. .+ ri cr ci - * 6g g(n f,g I ect fi' F6 RC I IFF ER8888888888e9 EfiEEg F vd)-a\cl ..t{ ln ar \o(.r6 ao Eil .= a !; RE N I + olN l!oooo = EE8 8R8399888RR88R $tEiI Ed "?vgJ - vF r., \o F F .t - (\ F ri ..) vv EZ fr'? ;? I I >.: $€ 'z"E!{ I c'g\s ET Ffi ?u 3g ?t .E r!rDa')rl!o :g e'E g EE Eg:R88=9R888?8e8v v vc.rN -F I g;€i ! !V o.v 5€FF oE t 8g c{ sgIF 92,"Y{ Ee O 0 '?t€ J..; EN8R8 ??9-s?'fiR3*'\o\o€9'n< F< (r,.Es d g I ; t- tu EF 6l Zn; Ee si0 b5'i 88 88 I '-o U FEE n? d' I v FFSEeFs$=e?B?E*eEEr* 66 r J .ri 66 6'o ti h I E ->. l\ a .=R€3==eEs-sv€v=g E E E E E E E Pd T E E E E E E I I E U tJ.' l\ R8,n55-9o.88,rE8?.:,: I o at ETEEEEESTEEgTEEEE ??'?ed?"t"'??o???-- ttt tn lI| I o I\ 8ts.oES-9o.g88EB?Pe o o d ci d ot- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ". a ai EgEEEEEEEETEEgESE e "i ? 9 E U) I o tut 3 = c, 8R ^8 .3 ff8E R8-sseee"EgaEgEqE o o i !?s-?rEa80?R??tR$ ?eJe??g'd???????- I tt) lrl !n i9 R 8 E 5 9. nrr€ E AP E.r - q o ".. o rt EEEEEEEEEEEEPEEEE ?d"i$ood;-?????-?" I o ]D U' -> Ft\L) 6 .!e cl|4 c o € {rO'- T ?.go!N&Rp.i?9?tB8= EEEEEEEEPEEEEEEE: !, 6 6 $ t = (J * 3.n- 3e Rtr o.ri o ci c.i q!-N.r- o or h d g\ € c' c{ o q\ 3 vFvvto(.)F' EEEEEEEEEEEPEEEEE o i-6-v F I 6 E - S-.e $e 8,', E o ?*sodNRNg-?9?tEsB EEEEEEEPPEEEgEEET o5 t GI .i cr r\ PRo -\ nu?u? p ol 'ricigo?6R$g?9R$?tRR & EETEEETgEEEEgEEEE c F I (,o I =R= ,,lqu) CO I 'doigci?dp\gdVRt?!FR..,o E,o .9 c{ EEEEEEggSgEEgEEET 0 & I a! F cl v e Hfi,,r P'l \Eul l: g I * dF$6?-:SFoVp-?tFR g E E g g E E P'E T E P E E E F F5' \06 PRo 8." n8,,? I 3v EEEEEETEEEPEEgEEE fFr g**bd?{1=EoVNt?tPE E* b b 3- E E t .oi !E u 4-t t, a-3 a E E' I la EF* EE=E'rf a gFs o U EfEEFEg8$iE3EE;EESfEe :i€r Esi i;F !* I I (uglll Table9: summary- of Analysesof watgr Fn'lptes collected1u17192 PolynuilearAromatlc Hydrocarbons I EPA Method 8310 I Naphthalene 30 5,6m 2,3W I Acenaphthylme <50 <500 <1,0m <400 Acenaphttrene I Tabfe1o: summaryof organlcAnarys€s, soil samplescollected gtlztgl (msfts) (Only compoundsthat were detectedare listed below) I I ScaIe-7W Scale-7E Scale-4W Scale-lE TRPH(418.1) 2,ffi 150 7,m 1,800 I PNAs (EPA Method 8270) TotalPNAs 385 208 728 76 Naphthalme 1.1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 I 2-Methylnaphthalene <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 TII9E ERM-w.rt x x x I I x Neat EBASCO I x x I x x IIISE HIgW U&A u x x I HTgW Ridel x x x T I l-ocatlon Strdy tfttrrb.r.nd TYp. of S.nPl.. Dcpth An.lytc./An.lvt.t DGt.ctcd t TTI}E ERM-Wed 25$[ ..mpler 3.0io ffs &et PAllt ND b 6rm lrgll(8 4 ril 3ampl.3 5,0to 9.0i.et BTg ND b r35 h8/Lg VC! 0Ol5 b 0.,19mg^g T ,l groundw.t€t s.!lPl€3 NA Ert( o.qlt b 23.0n mg/L PAH. 0.060to 120r'rcll surftae BTg 0.023to 0.23mg/k8 I Neer EBAS@1 3 soil sadples HIgE PAHS t{D b sla drg,/Lg TPH 2,1b160 drglkg c{VI) <1.0m8lkg I t9 soil samples 0,5to 5.0feet BTE( I'ID to 1-714Ergltg PAH3 0.0%ro ?,760oglk8 TPH 30 to 6310nglkg rc8s ND I Ph€nols ND b3.E mglk8 Cr(vD <1.0rng/lg Pb 5.0to 294Er8/kg I 15 soil sanples 0.5to 105 k BTD( NDto2,999!lg,/kg PAH3 . 0.1(nio32t5 o8lkg TPH ND io 110([ Erg/Lg PterEls ND b 9.9!rgl*8 I cr(vl) <1.0Erglkg Pb {.1 to 534mg^g 3 grouldwaler lamPles NA BTD( ND toE32 mg/l t PAH' ND lo 8.8Dt^ TPH 88lo tm org/l Pheno'ls ND b 0.154g,/l Cd\rD ND to 0-lB5Err,/L t PAHs tl5 io 13,090mglkg HT9W U&A2 7 soil saErplee suilce IPH 1{0 to 45,0mmglkg Pb 15b 210mg/lg I I :oil safi|ple; WET extrect surfac€ Pb 5.7.nd6.1crg/l 3 Eoundwater gamples PAllr 03{2 b 10.92.ntn HIgW 4 soil sampl€s iurtac€ PAH3 76to385 mtlkg Riedel3 TPH 15{ro 2J00hg/kg I I loil s.drple 3udrce Pb 5{tErg/},8 Pb 0: to 23mq/L I 4 !.dl sampl€; WEf e*tac{ 3urlce @ salrple3 for the ftrll ruite of CAM f7 merels;ottly 1cd ir repord h€'€. ri-roa"i"r. saalptocoilecre4 by rresco weiealso an.lyz€d for Ba,MD v, zL Amtoilr, .rd qnnue. Background strrfecesurfre samplessrmol6 colleded offdie|'enotoff dle rt not lnduded lnln thb $|.d|m.ry.mm.ry. iB I Soil !.trd; coU€dedby U&A were.n.lf2.d to( the full suiteot c M f7 l'"t b; only le'd r+orted tree 3 On€ e.'il'3.Erple collec{ia Uy n"iaa *"" -.tyzed tor rh€ tull sdte of CAtr. IT_het.b; d y l€.d b EPotted h€te WET extrrcc of samplescouectet'by Reidel were enalyred for the full suite of cAM 17 met.b; ot y lerd b rePofiedh6e. I I Appendix F SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION PORT OF OAKLAND, 1994 ltl C}IARLES P. HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT APPENDTX F: SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION I I E E I s t s ; I q 5 I B q 3 I I I c T g c I B I 5 H I E I I I E I 6 c r| E s5 e s Y I g I c € s T 5 6 I E s 8 t ".| I V I E I l 5 ! E E E _l 5 t) 5 5 ! I 5 T E E I 6 slI a I I E 6 € I I "t ,1"I s I I I +.t" I s , 1t_ .1" I I"t,I "l I It: 3 4 E "l 1 c e II I I e s t + I I I"l+ I E 'l' e I g + T t ll t I I 5 9 I +"t" t € I -1"! 5 4 _t I E e I "t" s iL I 1"1" s , t-t=1 t E I n I lcI rrl I 1l I z ,ll ; 6 lSli I a T I T tEti e It I I I I 3 B I , I p t 3 9 I !l 2 6 I tsN I e I s I 6 -4 I e I e e I q I q E I s I E I L P E 6 l! E I ! t-6 3 E ! r n 6 I 3 E E f r iE T T I 1E I I I 'l E I =l,lI "l ,l I =lI I I_l E I "l'l I I I e I -l-l ,l'l'l=l el l l I e e 'lI 9 I c - I I t e I ,t I I t I t I " I 9 E I s e I I e t" I e t' I l9 I E z € 6 r ! I 5 6 E 6 ! e itP ! i 5 I z t 6 I ; E t t e 1' I I 6 f !F 6 it6 I I ilT I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I T t I t t t I E T I I I I I T e e I I t E E I I I - I l- I l I r z c ; t t I 3 E I T r x r x 3 6 z g t r I 3 n E I : t I r E I I I 9te I t I "l-l T I I t I I I ete 1 I I .l' I ete=t- I I ete t I 919 '1'l'l= Et= I 2e I 'l=l="t" 'l'l.l= I 9te +bl I .t alatsts -l l= "l'l"l' I l.l-lT] !l L tl L l l$i 9l -i I I 6l E EI 11 t 131 EI FI 6l I :l E 5 tElPI t"l lTl tti .:.1'il l6 fl I il .8i=l .tE E:- : I; irt E z t,i :l I T I I I I t I , I 1 I I I I t I I I I I I t I I g r r 6 ! a 2 E T I E 3 i ! t: { I Pl"i I e I i- I t=E *g .Ei EO I Eig EEUg €3' . lEE it*a3EEEcE E;*?.85EE;€ E 5 =os& 8*EE I HEE E€i: =d wE Ei.E 6t FEFE o f o = !D 'o 49-.; TE €€:EE tl aa EE$x aa o:i =_>, HFE g 6 9l 5 sEl r! EE g E ?gE I I +slP ^EE,gE3 rU a a EE€9E8E: E :! S I r E!iE$EEEE i €'E :gt tr- "rs st;g(l o Y F