Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Dublin, California Section 3

Home , Army Reserve (Ireland), Santa Rita Jail, Tassajara Formation

Environmental Assessment Implementation of the Real Property Master Plan Update

Parks Reserve Forces Training Area

Dublin, California

November 2020 Contract No. W912QR-18-D-0018 Delivery Order W912QR19F0969

Prepared for Parks Reserves Forces Training Area Dublin, California

and

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District Louisville, Kentucky

Prepared by Jacobs

Contents Environmental Assessment November 2020

Contents

Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... v 1. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ...... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Need ...... 1-1 1.2.1 Purpose of the Action ...... 1-1 1.2.2 Need of the Action ...... 1-9 1.3 Scope and Content of the EA ...... 1-9 1.4 Decision(s) to be Made ...... 1-9 1.5 Public and Agency Participation ...... 1-10 2. Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 2-1 2.1 Description of the Proposed Action ...... 2-1 2.1.1 Short-Range Projects ...... 2-1 2.1.2 Mid-Range Projects ...... 2-7 2.1.3 Long-Range Projects ...... 2-8 2.1.4 Building Demolition ...... 2-9 2.2 No Action Alternative...... 2-10 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Consideration ...... 2-10 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation ...... 3-1 3.1 Resources Eliminated from Further Consideration ...... 3-1 3.1.1 Resources Considered in Detail ...... 3-1 3.1.2 Land Use ...... 3-2 3.1.3 Aesthetics ...... 3-13 3.1.4 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases ...... 3-13 3.1.5 Biological Resources ...... 3-23 3.1.6 Cultural Resources ...... 3-27 3.1.7 Water Resources and Water Quality ...... 3-29 3.1.8 Geology, Soils and Seismicity ...... 3-45 3.1.9 Noise ...... 3-47 3.1.10 Transportation ...... 3-55 3.1.11 Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste ...... 3-65 3.1.12 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ...... 3-66 3.1.13 Utilities and Infrastructure ...... 3-69 3.1.14 Cumulative Effects ...... 3-71 4. Findings and Conclusions ...... 4-1 4.1 Findings ...... 4-1 4.1.1 Consequences of the Preferred Alternative ...... 4-1 4.1.2 Consequences of the No Action Alternative ...... 4-1 4.2 Conclusions ...... 4-1 5. References ...... 5-1

Appendixes A Coordination Letters and Responses B Notice of 30-Day Period for Public Comment C Air Quality Emission Calculations

iii Contents Environmental Assessment November 2020

Tables 2-1 Short-Range Construction Project List ...... 2-7 2-2 Mid-Range Construction Project List ...... 2-7 2-3 Long-Range Construction Project List ...... 2-8 2-4 Building Demolition List ...... 2-9 3-1 Existing Cantonment District Land Use Categories ...... 3-2 3-2 Proposed Cantonment District Land Use Categories ...... 3-7 3-3 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ...... 3-14 3-4 Attainment Status in Alameda County and Contra Costa County ...... 3-18 3-5 Air Monitoring Data Summary ...... 3-19 3-6 Construction Emissions – Proposed Action ...... 3-21 3-7 Operation Emissions – Proposed Action ...... 3-21 3-8 Comparison of Proposed Action Emissions and General Conformity De Minimis Thresholds .. 3-22 3-9 Construction and Operational Emissions of Greenhouse Gases – Proposed Action ...... 3-23 3-10 Special-status Species and Species of Special Concern ...... 3-25 3-11 Noise Levels of Construction Equipment at 50 and 100 Feet ...... 3-53 3-12 Cantonment District Road Types ...... 3-55 3-13 Planned Projects in the Vicinity of PRFTA ...... 3-72 4-1 Summary Level of Impact to Each Resource Area ...... 4-1

Figures 1-1 Site Location Map ...... 1-3 1-2 Cantonment District Map...... 1-5 1-3 Range District Map ...... 1-7 2-1 Cantonment District Projects ...... 2-3 2-2 Range District Projects ...... 2-5 3-1 Cantonment District – Existing Land Use ...... 3-3 3-2 Range District – Existing Land Use ...... 3-5 3-3 Cantonment District – Proposed Land Use ...... 3-9 3-4 Range District – Proposed Land Use ...... 3-11 3-5 Cantonment District – Existing Natural Resource Constraints ...... 3-31 3-6 Range District – Existing Natural Resource Constraints ...... 3-33 3-7 Natural Resources Constraints – Proposed Conditions – Cantonment District ...... 3-39 3-8 Natural Resources Constraints – Proposed Conditions – Range District ...... 3-41 3-9 Green Infrastructure Plan – Cantonment District ...... 3-43 3-10 Cantonment District – Noise Zones ...... 3-49 3-11 Range District – Noise Zones ...... 3-51 3-12 Transportation Network – Cantonment District ...... 3-57 3-13 Transportation Network –Range District ...... 3-59 3-14 Sidewalk and Bikeway Plan – Cantonment District ...... 3-63

iv Acronyms and Abbreviations Environmental Assessment November 2020

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AB Assembly Bill ACM asbestos-containing material APE Area of Potential Effect ARB California Air Resources Board BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit BMP best management practice CAA Clean Air Act CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CalEEMod California Emission Estimator Model CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CH4 methane CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent CWA Clean Water Act dBA A-weighted decibel DoD Department of Defense DPW Directorate of Public Works DSRSD Dublin San Ramon Services District EA environmental assessment EIS environmental impact statement EO Executive Order EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FHL Fort Hunter Liggett FNPA finding of no practicable alternative FNSI finding of no significant impact GHG greenhouse gas HAP hazardous air pollutant HMWMP Hazardous Material and Waste Management Plan ICRMP Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LRC Logistics Readiness Center

v Acronyms and Abbreviations Environmental Assessment November 2020

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NO2 nitrogen dioxide NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places

O3 ozone PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter

PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter PRFTA Parks Reserve Forces Training Area PSD prevention of significant deterioration PV photovoltaic QRP qualified recycling program ROG reactive organic gases ROI region of influence RPMP Real Property Master Plan RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard RV recreational vehicle RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SB Senate Bill SF square foot SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SIP State Implementation Plan

SO2 sulfur dioxide SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan SY square yard USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USAR U.S. Army Reserve USC United States Code USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

vi Section 1. Purpose and Need Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Action November 2020

1. Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

1.1 Introduction

The U. S. Army Reserve (USAR) is preparing an environmental assessment (EA) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to assess potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with implementing a Real Property Master Plan (RPMP) Update for Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (PRFTA), Dublin, California. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared in 2009 to analyze the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the 2006 Master Plan which included redevelopment of PRFTA and a real property exchange. The 2006 Master Plan was updated in 2013. This RPMP would update the current RPMP, which was prepared in 2013 (The Urban Collaborative, LLC., 2014).

PRFTA, also known as Camp Parks, is a 2,281-acre USAR training site in northern California, approximately 40 miles east of San Francisco, in Alameda and Contra Costa counties, near the cities of Dublin and San Ramon (Figure 1-1). PRFTA was initially established in 1942, as a military installation for the Navy Seabees, on 3,900 acres of land, including the former Dougherty Ranch. After World War II, Camp Parks was transferred within the U.S Department of Defense (DoD) several times. In 1951, the U.S. Navy transferred the property to the U.S. Air Force. The U.S. Air Force modified PRFTA for use as an Air Force training base. From 1959 to 1980, the Army managed PRFTA and used it for various activities. In 1980, the Army activated the facility as a mobilization and training center for USAR components. With the reorganization of the USAR component, command and control passed from U.S. Army Forces Command in 1993, to the USAR Command. In 2005, a Base Realignment and Closure decision resulted in relocating the 91st Training Support Division from PRFTA to Fort Hunter Liggett (FHL); the relocation was completed in 2009. In 2009, the USAR designated FHL as a Combat Support Training Center to support collective field training exercises for USAR Combat Support and Combat Services Support brigades (USARC, 2009). PRFTA is part of the U.S. Army Garrison FHL and is located approximately 160 miles north of FHL.

PRFTA is divided into two areas: the Cantonment District in the southern portion of the installation and the Range District in the northern portion of the installation (Figures 1-2 and 1-3). The 1,931-acre Range District is used for military field training exercises. The 350-acre Cantonment District accommodates facilities for the PRFTA garrison and tenants supported by the installation.

PRFTA is the home station for proximately 38 DoD units. PRFTA presently supports 13 major tenants and 36 individual tenants that require primarily administrative facilities (DoD, 2020). Most of the office space at the installation is in direct and indirect support of training and unit stationing activities. PRFTA is the most accessible and economical training area for an estimated 250 military reserve component units and 20,000 reservists in northern California, supporting the USAR; Army National Guard; and reserve units of the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps (DoD, 2020). Other federal, state, and local agencies and groups also use the installation (U.S. Army Garrison Camp Parks, 2009).

1.2 Purpose and Need

Purpose of the Action

The purpose of the Proposed Action of implementing the RPMP, is to provide adequate land use and infrastructure development at PRFTA to effectively support the mission of the USAR at the installation over the next 30 years.

1-1 Section 1. Purpose and Need Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Action November 2020

This page is intentionally left blank.

1-2 ^_

^_ PRFTA

Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Cantonment District Boundary

Figure 1-1 Miles ¯ 0 0.25 0.5 1 Site Location Map Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Source: Imagery Source: ESRI World Street Map Dublin, California Section 1. Purpose and Need Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Action November 2020

This page is intentionally left blank.

1-4 C

O LD AIRFIE A

M N D W E E Parks RReserve Forces Training Area L S P E L I O R 1184 L T N L S I R CanD tonment District Boundary I B A O TH E 16 O D S L M R O W A A N Building G D E 15TH Road

495 L 494 L

C 490 12TH

1152 387 373 1151 0396A 389 1150 S 11TH 0396B 12TH 370 393 M 390

A 394398 12TH 10TH 10TH D D

R 360361 363364 350 332 M

Y I H 342 T T

T C I H R

S 511 M E 521 E

S M L

L L H

E 321 323 340 N

D G 320 510

T O

A I

U 9TH N 514 M T

A A L O O 313

Y 300 C R 310 520 D 515

E R 311 U 301 C 312 516 519 B 517 H D

C E 8TH T 8TH

E I JONES

O 275 282 M MAIN ENTRANCE 278 R 677 628 POWE 960 N RS O S

M POWERS CAMP PARKS 690 N

2340 H H 2352 2362 2340 C 952

2300 TIMBER WOLF S 659

U I 922 950

H 2216 2236 V F N 650 665 923920 G A

E E 6TH

6TH

L D C 2146 2166 E L G

A N

A 635

2142 L

M S

21022108 2140 2160 610 E

H 620

F 2050 2066 2082 2096 A

A A B V

2050 20122018 2082 T E R 20002004 2036 I 20102016 2028 G 140 5TH M

Feet Figure 1-2 ¯ 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Cantonment District Map Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Source: ESRI World Imagery Dublin, California Section 1. Purpose and Need Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Action November 2020

This page is intentionally left blank.

1-6 Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Range District Boundary

Y R Building O T C I Road V

V IC C T E O O G M R ID Y M R A N H D I L L D T O N E P B

O R F

1202T T OW 1206 ER 1192 J1218 1194 R A

A N A NG LB E D USAF C R GE E N E O RA R O L R K G In-Holding O

S A

O E

N E FIELD BA L AIR R L NE IP T TR S 1184 IR 16TH A LD O M E A L D L 15TH I B 494495 E S

490 12TH 1152 387 373 1151 0396A 11TH 389 393 1150

Feet Figure 1-3 ¯ 0 1,250 2,500 5,000 Range District Map Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Source: ESRI World Imagery Dublin, California Section 1. Purpose and Need Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Action November 2020

This page is intentionally left blank.

1-8 Section 1. Purpose and Need Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Action November 2020

Need of the Action

The need for the Proposed Action is to ensure the military readiness of the USAR at PRFTA. This means growth and development at the installation should occur in a clear and sustainable manner that meets current and future mission needs driven by real property requirements, addresses infrastructure deficiencies, and preserves the military capabilities and readiness of training units over the long term. The USAR cannot maintain readiness to fulfill its mission without adequate facilities.

The PRFTA RPMP is needed to comply with DoD master planning policies Army Regulation 210-20 Real Property Master Planning for Army Installations (Department of the Army, 2005), and Unified Facilities Criteria 2-100-01 Installation Master Planning (DoD, 2019). Army Regulation 210–20 requires that RPMPs be updated every 5 years (Department of the Army, 2005).

1.3 Scope and Content of the EA

The purposes of an EA are to: inform the public, determine if a proposed action would result in significant impacts to the environment, and enable leadership to make informed decisions on that proposed action. This EA will be prepared in accordance with: the NEPA (42 United States Code [USC] 4321 through 4347); Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500 through 1508) (CEQ, 1978); Army Regulation 200-1, Environmental Protection and Enhancement; and Environmental Analysis of Army Actions, 32 CFR Part 651.

1.4 Decision(s) to be Made

This EA will discuss the affected environment and analyze the potential impacts from both the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative on the physical, natural, and socioeconomic resources. NEPA requires that federal agencies consider the environmental effects of all proposals for federal actions that could affect the quality of the human and natural environment. The USAR will use this EA to identify and analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Action, including direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. This EA will address the impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative on affected resource areas. Per CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1501.7[a][3]), only those resource areas that may be impacted by the Proposed Action and alternatives will be analyzed in detail in this EA. The following resource areas will be analyzed in this EA for potential impacts from implementation of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative: • Land use • Aesthetics • Air quality and greenhouse gases (GHGs) • Biological resources • Cultural resources • Water resources and water quality • Geology, soils, and seismicity • Noise • Transportation • Hazardous materials/hazardous waste • Socioeconomics and environmental justice • Utilities and infrastructure

The information presented in the EA will serve as the basis for deciding whether the Proposed Action would result in either: (1) a significant impact to the human and natural environment, requiring a notice of intent to prepare an EIS; or (2) no significant impacts occurring, in which case, a finding of no significant impact (FNSI) would be appropriate. The Garrison Commander is the decision-making authority at PRFTA. If execution of the Proposed Action would involve construction in a wetland, as defined in Executive Order (EO) 11990, Protection of Wetlands, or action in a floodplain under EO 11988,

1-9 Section 1. Purpose and Need Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Action November 2020

Floodplain Management, then a finding of no practicable alternative (FNPA) would be prepared in conjunction with the FNSI.

1.5 Public and Agency Participation

The NEPA process is designed to inform the public of the potential environmental consequences of a proposed action and involve them in the federal decision-making process. The USAR recognizes public involvement and intergovernmental coordination and consultation as essential elements in developing an EA. Formal notification and opportunities for public participation, as well as informal coordination with government agencies and planners, are incorporated into the EA process. Early coordination and consultation letters and received responses will be included in Appendix A of the final EA. Comments received during the scoping period will be considered in developing the EA.

In addition to evaluation under NEPA, the Proposed Action is subject to other federal laws and regulatory requirements. EO 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, requires federal agencies to provide opportunities for consultation by state and local government agencies and elected officials who would be directly affected by a federal proposal. Therefore, state and local government agencies and officials will be provided with the opportunity to review and comment through the process of Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination for Environmental Planning.

The USAR is coordinating with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California State Historic Preservation Office. In addition, government-to-government coordination is being conducted with Native American tribes and nations, in accordance to EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. Consultation will be initiated if requested by the Native American tribes and nations.

Agencies, organizations, federally recognized Native American tribes, and members of the public who have a potential interest in the Proposed Action will be invited to comment on the Proposed Action. Early coordination or consultation letters were mailed on April 13, 2020 to the agencies and groups. Copies of the letters and a list of agencies, groups contacted, and responses received are in Appendix A.

A notice of availability for the draft EA was published in the Tri-Valley Herald, the Valley Times, the Independent, and the Pleasanton Weekly newspapers. A copy of the public notice is included in Appendix B of this EA. Publication of the notice of availability will initiate a 30-day public review period. The draft EA will be available on the internet at www.jacobs.com\EA1. Due to Coronavirus restrictions, hard copies of the documents will not be available in public libraries. Printed copies of the EA and FNSI can be sent through mail as hard copies or printable CDs upon request. Point of Contact, Mr. Robert Pike, can receive requests for mailed materials. Written comments will be directed to: Robert Pike, NEPA Coordinator, Directorate of Public Works Environmental Division, Building 233 California Avenue, Fort Hunter Liggett, California, 93928.

At the end of the 30-day review period, the USAR will review all comments. If implementing the selected alternative would result in significant impacts that the USAR cannot mitigate to less-than-significant levels, then the USAR will: publish in the Federal Register a notice of intent to prepare an EIS; choose not to proceed with the selected alternative; or modify the Proposed Action to alter or remove elements of the project that would result in significant impacts, revising the EA and FNSI accordingly. If the USAR concludes that comments received would not require substantive changes to the EA or draft FNSI, then the USAR would sign the FNSI and proceed with implementing the selected alternative. A final decision, in the form of a FNSI or a notice of intent to complete an EIS, would be completed after the 30-day review period.

1-10 Section 2. Description of Environmental Assessment Proposed Action and November 2020 Alternatives

2. Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

Development of facility and land-use planning strategies for the RPMP included a screening analysis of specific alternatives. The screening analysis involved the use of accepted criteria, standards, and guidelines, when available, and the best professional judgment to identify planning practices for achieving the USAR’s objective of a cohesive Cantonment District to support USAR readiness and training. The screening analysis included conducting in-depth interviews with PRFTA personnel and tenants from December 17 to 19, 2019, to determine unit needs, and conducting a three-day workshop from February 4 to 7, 2020, to update and validate the vision, goals, and objectives of the RPMP and determine the future layout of the Cantonment District.

The outcome of the screening analysis led to the development of the Proposed Action, which is described in this section. Consistently with the intent of NEPA, this screening process focused on identifying a range of reasonable planning alternatives and then developing a plan that could be implemented, as a whole, in the foreseeable future. Planning alternatives deemed to be infeasible were not analyzed further. As a result of the screening process, the EA formally addresses two alternatives: the Proposed Action (that is, implementation of the RPMP) and the No Action Alternative as required by CEQ regulation 40 CFR 1502.14(d).

2.1 Description of the Proposed Action

The Proposed Action is to implement the updated RPMP on PRFTA in Dublin, California. The RPMP would guide land-use planning and infrastructure development within the Cantonment District at the installation over approximately 30 years, from 2020 to 2045, with implementation dependent on funding for projects in the RPMP that need to be constructed. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 show planned projects in the Cantonment and Range districts.

The RPMP has been developed to meet the real property requirements of current USAR missions; address structural damage and deficiencies of old or functionally inadequate buildings and infrastructure; and support the military readiness of training units over the long term. During the initial planning phases of the RPMP, proposed projects were cited so that construction would only occur in areas of the Cantonment District that have been previously disturbed or developed.

Proposed construction would not occur in sensitive areas such as wetlands, waterbodies, or threatened or endangered species’ habitat. The RPMP construction and demolition project lists are presented in the following sections.

2-1 Section 2. Description of Environmental Assessment Proposed Action and November 2020 Alternatives

This page is intentionally left blank.

2-2 Feet Figure 2-1 ¯ 0 100 200 400 Cantonment District Projects Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Source: ESRI World Imagery Dublin, California Section 2. Description of Environmental Assessment Proposed Action and November 2020 Alternatives

This page is intentionally left blank.

2-4 Feet Figure 2-2 ¯ 0 600 1,200 2,400 Range District Projects Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Source: ESRI World Imagery Dublin, California Section 2. Description of Environmental Assessment Proposed Action and November 2020 Alternatives

This page is intentionally left blank.

2-6 Section 2. Description of Environmental Assessment Proposed Action and November 2020 Alternatives

Short-Range Projects

Short-range projects are listed in Table 2-1. These projects would be scheduled to take place within 5 years.

Table 2-1. Short-Range Construction Project List

Project Number Project Description Quantity Unit of Measure

1 Construct Recreational Vehicle (RV) 8,500 square yard (SY) Storage Lot

2 Construct Network Enterprise Center 2,500 square feet (SF)

3 Renovate Wash Rack 1 each

4 Construct Solar Array Security Fence 2,600 SY

5 Construct Drinking Water Resiliency Well 800 kilograms

6 Construct AMSA Military Equipment 5,200 SY Parking Expansion

7 Construct Directorate of Plans, Training, 7,100 SF Mobilization and Security Classroom

8 Pave Existing Military Equipment Parking at 16,000 SY B. 490

9 Preserve/Relocate Historic Camp Parks 1 each Sign

10 Construct Hotel 65,300 SF

11 Construct Container Storage Yard 7,000 SY

12 Construct Classrooms and Alternate EOC 14,700 SF

13 Construct Visitors Control Center 1,800 SF Expansion and Personally-Owned Vehicle (POV) Parking

14 Construct Commercial Vehicle Inspection 1 EA Facility

15 Construct Future Mission Facilities 20,000 SF

Mid-Range Projects

Mid-range projects are listed in Table 2-2. These projects would be implemented within 6 to 15 years.

Table 2-2. Mid-Range Construction Project List

Project Number Project Description Quantity Unit of Measure

16 Construct Marching Band Practice Pad and 3,600 SY POV Parking

17 Construct DPW Admin Facility 6,000 SF

18 Construct Post HQ 75,300 SF

19 Construct Enlisted Barracks (Three-Story 45,800 SF Transient Training)

20 Construct Organizational Maintenance 10,800 SF Shop Addition

2-7 Section 2. Description of Environmental Assessment Proposed Action and November 2020 Alternatives

Table 2-2. Mid-Range Construction Project List

Project Number Project Description Quantity Unit of Measure

21 Expand Paved Military Equipment Parking 14,100 SY at B. 490

22 Construct Enlisted Barracks (Three-Story 45,800 SF Transient Training)

23 Construct Convoy Staging Area 8,100 SY

24 Construct Range Control Facility 3,800 SF

25 Construct regional Training Site – Medical 10,600 SY Training Area

26 Construct Paved Equipment Concentration 5,100 SY Site

27 Construct Fitness Center 64,800 SF

28 Construct Physical Training Track 4,328 SY

29 Renovate/Expand Mission Training 39,375 renovate SF Complex 84th Training Command (B. 370) 9,600 new construction

Long-Range Projects

Long-range projects are listed in Table 2-3. These projects would be implemented within 16 to 30 years.

Table 2-3. Long-Range Construction Project List

Project Number Project Description Quantity Unit of Measure

30 Construct Logistics Readiness Center 14,400 SF Maintenance Building

31 Construct Community Activity Center 27,500 SF

32 Renovate/Expand Military Treatment 4,446 renovate SF Facility (B. 517) 3,400 new construction

33 Construct RV Campground 1 EA

34 Construct TRADOC-Compliant Barracks 91,600 SF

35 Renovate/Expand Chapel (B. 501) 8,095 renovate SF

5,000 new construction

36 Construct Child Development Center 25,900 SF

37 Construct Non-Commissioned Officers 67,800 SF Academy

38 Construct Ammunition Holding Area 1,000 SF

39 Construct Central Package Receiving 15,200 SF Facility

40 Construct Shoppette/Fuel Pumps 11,400 SF

2-8 Section 2. Description of Environmental Assessment Proposed Action and November 2020 Alternatives

Table 2-3. Long-Range Construction Project List

Project Number Project Description Quantity Unit of Measure

41 Construct Western Army Reserve 30,000 SF Intelligence Support Center Addition

Building Demolition

Table 2-4 lists facilities that would be demolished with implementation of the Proposed Action.

Table 2-4. Building Demolition List Facility Number Facility Description Area (SF)

300 Transient Training Enlisted Barracks 11,599

301 Transient Training Enlisted Barracks 11,404

302 Transient Training Enlisted Barracks 11,404

303 Physical Fitness Center 11,404

304 Transient Training Enlisted Barracks 11,404

306 Army Lodging 11,820

309 Housing Furniture Storage 313

310 Transient Training Enlisted Barracks 11,820

311 Storage Building, General Purpose 1,045

Administrative Building, General Purpose 1,635

312 Administrative Building, General Purpose 9,812

313 Storage Building, General Purpose 975

320 General Instruction Building 11,404

321 U.S. Army Reserve Center 11,266

323 U.S. Army Reserve Center (Intermediate Level Education School) 11,285

330 Administrative Building, General Purpose 11,404

331 Administrative Building, General Purpose 31,654

360 Transient Training Enlisted Barracks 11,280

361 Transient Training Enlisted Barracks 11,300

362 Transient Training Enlisted Barracks 11,280

363 Transient Training Enlisted Barracks 11,280

364 Transient Training Enlisted Barracks 11,280

390 Transient Training Enlisted Barracks 11,280

391 Transient Training Enlisted Barracks 11,280

392 Transient Training Enlisted Barracks 11,280

393 Transient Training Enlisted Barracks 11,280

394 Transient Training Enlisted Barracks 11,280

2-9 Section 2. Description of Environmental Assessment Proposed Action and November 2020 Alternatives

Table 2-4. Building Demolition List Facility Number Facility Description Area (SF)

0396A Recreational Support Building 450

0396B Recreational Support Building 300

398 Unaccompanied Personnel Housing Laundry (Detached) 2,400

521 Consolidated Open Dining 16,692

522 Storage Building, General Purpose 450

1150 Army Lodging 10,600

1151 Army Lodging 24,044

1152 Army Lodging 24,044

TR670 Exchange Main Store 2,500

2.2 No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the current RPMP would not be updated; however, projects listed in the 2013 RPMP could be implemented as funding becomes available. Mission requirements for land use and facilities that have changed since 2013 would not be recognized or addressed through the Army RPMP process. The No Action Alternative serves as a benchmark against which federal actions can be evaluated. Inclusion of a No Action Alternative is prescribed by CEQ regulations; therefore, the No Action Alternative has been analyzed in the EA.

Although an evaluation of this scenario is required, such evaluation fails to rectify the recently identified issues with the current land-use patterns or the need for improved force protection measures at existing facilities on PRFTA. The No Action Alternative also fails to address the current situation in which many facilities are outdated, needing repair, and nearing or exceeding population capacity. The existing layout of PRFTA is inefficient in ways that include: unavailability of adequate parking in certain areas; facilities not being large enough to accommodate required training needs; facilities being overutilized and undersized; and anti-terrorism force protection distances being inadequate in some areas. These inefficiencies impact the USAR’s ability to conduct required training and maintain a safe perimeter.

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Consideration The development process for the RPMP update heavily relied on the existing conditions of the installation and its current mission deficiencies. For example, most of the barracks at PRFTA were built in 1951 and are well past their intended serviceable life. Many other facilities were identified as undersized or built to old standards. From an operations perspective, additional mission requirements created the need for additional facility types, such as Army Reserve centers, storage buildings, and general administrative facilities. The RPMP Course of Action development process focused on strategic investments, improved resiliency and disaster response, and provided facilities that enable PRFTA to generate combat-ready units and Soldiers for mobilization and deployment. The resulting COAs minimize constraints and maximize sustainable development opportunities.

During the RPMP planning workshop, from February 4 to 7, 2020, stakeholders were split into three groups. Each group was given a different development scenario (or alternative). Group One was budget constrained, meaning they could only develop existing projects and regular sustainment, restoration, and modernization projects, and could not adjust road alignments or renovate major infrastructure. Group Two had a training and operations focus and could develop the same as Group One, but could build two or three military construction projects. Group Three was the high-capacity group with no budget constraints; they could realign roads and build as many military construction projects as necessary. Each group

2-10 Section 2. Description of Environmental Assessment Proposed Action and November 2020 Alternatives presented their concepts and all participants voted for preferred projects and locations from each concept alternative.

The Proposed Action, which is the Preferred Alternative, was created based on the discussion generated from the presentation of the three alternatives, and the group consensus of each project and its corresponding location. The project phasing portion of the Preferred Alternative was generated after the workshop, with input from the Army Reserve and the PRFTA stakeholders.

2-11 Section 2. Description of Environmental Assessment Proposed Action and November 2020 Alternatives

This page is intentionally left blank.

2-12 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

3. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation

Information gathered from site visits, interviews, existing documentation, and correspondence with federal, state, and local agencies was used to characterize the affected environment. This section identifies the potential environmental consequences of the Preferred Alternative and the No Action Alternative for the Proposed Action on land use, geology, soils and topography, water resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise levels, visual resources, transportation and traffic, utilities, hazardous materials, public services, socioeconomics, and environmental justice.

Three categories of potential environmental consequences (impacts or effects) were evaluated: direct, indirect, and cumulative. A direct impact is the result of the Proposed Action and occurs at the same time and place. Indirect impacts are caused by the Proposed Action and “are later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable” (40 CFR Part 1508). Cumulative effects result from incremental impacts of the Proposed Action, when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of which agency, person, or private entity undertakes such actions.

In the following sections, the duration of each impact is described either as short term, such as with construction-related impacts, or long term, such as with impacts related to the operation of the proposed facility. Types of impacts can be beneficial or adverse. Beneficial impacts improve the resource or issue analyzed. Adverse impacts negatively affect the resource or issue analyzed. The intensity of a potential impact refers to its severity and accounts for: the level of controversy associated with impacts on human health; whether the action establishes a precedent for further actions with significant effects; the level of uncertainty about projected impacts; and the extent to which the action threatens to violate federal, state, or local environmental protection laws, or constrain future activities. Potentially beneficial impacts are discussed separately from potentially adverse impacts. The thresholds of change for the intensity of impacts are defined as follows: • Negligible: When the impact is localized and not measurable at the lowest level of detection • Minor: When the impact is localized and slight, but detectable • Moderate: When the impact is readily apparent and appreciable • Major: When the impact is severely or significantly disruptive to current conditions

Intensities that are classified as “negligible,” “minor,” or “moderate” are considered as less-than-significant impacts in this analysis. Significant impacts are classified as “major.” Measures that would be implemented to avoid or minimize potential impacts to the environment, including those that would otherwise be significant, are also presented. 3.1 Resources Eliminated from Further Consideration

Analyses of environmental impacts in an EA typically address numerous resource areas that may be affected by implementing the Preferred Alternative. In accordance with NEPA, CEQ, and Army guidance and regulations, the analysis in the EA focuses on resources that may be impacted by the Preferred Alternative. Resources were examined and all were determined to warrant further consideration because of their relevance to the alternatives.

3.2 Resources Considered in Detail

The following resources were determined to warrant consideration because of their potential relevance to the alternatives. This section provides information on existing conditions and summarizes the analysis of impacts that either would occur or would have the potential to occur if the Preferred Alternative were to be implemented.

3-1 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

Land Use

3.2.1.1 Definition of Resource Land use involves the general planning and management of natural and built environments. In the Army, land-use planning is the mapping and planned allocation of the use of all installation lands based on 12 general land-use categories. The region of influence (ROI) for impacts to land use in this EA includes PRFTA and the immediately adjacent areas.

3.2.1.2 Affected Environment PRFTA is located in northern California, approximately 40 miles southeast of San Francisco in the Livermore-Amador Valley of Alameda and Contra Costa counties, as shown in Figure 1-1. The installation is situated in the City of Dublin, near the cities of Pleasanton and San Ramon. The jurisdictional boundary between Alameda and Contra Costa counties traverses the northern portion of the installation. The Alameda County portion of PRFTA is situated on the northern side of Dublin Boulevard, between Dougherty Road and Tassajara Road in the City of Dublin, California.

PRFTA encompasses 2,281 acres, or approximately 3.5 square miles, which includes Cantonment District (totaling 350 acres) and the Range District (totaling 1,931 acres). Existing land uses within the Cantonment and Range Districts are shown on Figures 3-1 and 3-2. As shown in Table 3-1, the existing Cantonment District land uses include nine categories: administration, barracks, commercial, community support, entry control, family housing, industrial, open space, and recreation. The 1,931-acre Range District, located north of the Cantonment District, is used extensively year-round for annual training and weekend drills.

Table 3-1. Existing Cantonment District Land Use Categories Area Land Use Category (acres) Percentage

Administration 106.5 30.4

Barracks 17.8 5.1

Commercial 11.9 3.4

Community Support 9.4 2.7

Entry Control 14.0 4.0

Family Housing 29.1 8.3

Industrial 60.8 17.3

Open Space 68.8 19.6

Recreation 32.2 9.2

Total 350.5 --

3.2.1.3 Consequences

The threshold level for significant impacts on land use is defined as a change in land use that is incompatible with an adjacent land use.

Proposed Action

Implementation of the Proposed Action would not change the overall land-use designation of military use at PRFTA or negatively impact adjacent land uses in the public sector.

3-2 Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Cantonment District Boundary Building Existing Land Use Administration Unaccompanied Housing Commercial Community Support Entry Control Family Housing Industrial Open Space Recreation Range District

Feet Figure 3-1 ¯ 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Cantonment District - Existing Land Use Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Source: ESRI World Imagery Dublin, California Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

This page is intentionally left blank.

3-4 Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Range District Boundary Building Existing Land Use Commercial Industrial Open Space Recreation Ranges & Training

Feet Figure 3-2 ¯ 0 2,000 4,000 8,000 Range District - Existing Land Use Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Source: ESRI World Imagery Dublin, California Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

This page is intentionally left blank.

3-6 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

The open space areas within the cantonment area were designated as such in a 2009 EIS, which was prepared in support of a previous iteration of the Master Plan. Development on PRFTA land designated as “open space” was not included in the consultation conducted during preparation and approval of the 2009 EIS. Therefore, prior to new construction within an area designated as “open space” in the 2009 EIS, the PRFTA Natural Resources Manager would review the project and would coordinate with USFWS to determine if the project requires formal consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 regarding loss of threatened and endangered species’ habitat.

Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in the following changes in military land use within PRFTA: a decrease in administration barracks (4.3 percent), commercial (2.6 percent), open space (1.4 percent), and recreation (1.9 percent) land uses, and an increase in community support (3.4 percent) and industrial (6.1 percent) land uses (Figures 3-3 and 3-4). Negligible changes to entry control and family housing land uses would occur. These changes would not result in incompatible adjacent land uses; therefore, the change is not significant.

Implementation of the Proposed Action would result in a long-term, minor, adverse, direct impact to land use within PRFTA because of a conversion of open space land use to other land use types. Construction of the range control, convoy staging area, and recreational vehicle (RV) parking projects would require a portion of land (approximately 1.4 acres), currently designated as open space to be converted to the industrial land or community support use; however, these areas are or were previously disturbed. Construction of the range control building and the RV storage lot would occur in areas where other buildings, which have since been demolished, previously stood. The convoy staging area is proposed in an unpaved area that is being used for temporary vehicle storage and has ruts in the soil from vehicles driving through the area.

Table 3-2 shows the future proposed Cantonment District land-use acreages and percentages and the percent change from existing conditions.

Table 3-2. Proposed Cantonment District Land Use Categories Area Percent Change from Land Use Category (acres) Percentage Existing

Administration 91.4 26.1 4.3% decrease

Barracks 13.7 3.9 1.2% decrease

Commercial 9.3 2.7 2.6% decrease

Community Support 21.3 6.1 3.4% increase

Entry Control 15.1 4.3 0.3% increase

Family Housing 28.5 8.1 0.2% decrease

Industrial 82.0 23.4 6.1% increase

Open Space 63.7 18.2 1.4% decrease

Recreation 25.5 7.3 1.9% decrease

Total 350.5 --

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, projects within the current RPMP would continue to be implemented. Land use under the current RPMP would change as certain projects are implemented. For example, the current RPMP proposed to demolish the IHG Hotel and change the land-use designation in the area from Commercial to Open Space. Construction and demolition would follow the approved plan and facilities would be placed in areas suitable for their function. Therefore, implementation of the No Action Alternative would result in long-term, minor, beneficial impacts to land use on the Installation.

3-7 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

This page is intentionally left blank.

3-8 Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Cantonment District Boundary Building Proposed Land Use Administration Unaccompanied Housing Commercial Community Support Entry Control Family Housing Industrial Open Space Recreation Range District

Feet Figure 3-3 ¯ 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Cantonment District - Proposed Land Use Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Source: ESRI World Imagery Dublin, California Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

This page is intentionally left blank.

3-10 Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Range District Boundary Building Proposed Land Use Administration Community Support Industrial Open Space Ranges & Training

Feet Figure 3-4 ¯ 0 2,000 4,000 8,000 Range District - Proposed Land Use Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Source: ESRI World Imagery Dublin, California Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

This page is intentionally left blank.

3-12 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

Aesthetics

3.2.2.1 Definition of Resource

Aesthetics refer to the natural and constructed features that give a particular environment its visual qualities. In undeveloped areas, landforms, water surfaces, and vegetation are the primary components that characterize the landscape. Constructed elements, such as buildings, fences, and streets, also may be visible. These may dominate the landscape or be relatively unnoticeable. Attributes used to describe the visual resource value of an area include any significant views or vistas, landscape character, perceived aesthetic value, and uniqueness.

The ROI for impacts to aesthetics considered in this EA includes viewsheds on PRFTA and into PRFTA from surrounding areas.

3.2.2.2 Affected Environment

The Cantonment District of PRFTA is mostly developed and landscaped. Views within the Cantonment District are typical of a small military installation. They include various office and training buildings, barracks, outdoor recreational areas, military family housing, parking lots, open space, and roads. The Range District is mostly undeveloped. Views in the Range District are of rolling hills, open grasslands, trees along water courses, and some wetlands.

3.2.2.3 Consequences The threshold level for significant impacts to aesthetics is defined as a change in the viewshed that causes it to be dominated by views that are inconsistent with the existing visual character of the area.

Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would result in minor, beneficial impacts to aesthetics because old, outdated buildings would be demolished, and new facilities would be constructed. Improvements to the transportation network would facilitate a pedestrian-friendly campus environment. The PRFTA Installation Design Guide (IDG) (The Urban Collaborative, LLC, 2013) provides design guidance for standardizing and improving the visual impact of features on the Installation, to include features of the built and natural environments. The IDG provides installation-specific design data and is used by individuals in decision- making for design, construction, and maintenance of facilities at PRFTA. The projects constructed under the Proposed Action would be consistent with the IDG guidance; therefore, the visual appearance of new facilities would be consistent with visual character of existing development on PRFTA and the changes would not be significant.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, projects within the current RPMP would continue to be implemented. Some projects would continue to occur, adding benefits to the aesthetics as older buildings are replaced with new and as roadways are upgraded. Therefore, there would be minor, beneficial impacts to aesthetics under the No Action Alternative.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

3.2.3.1 Definition of Resource

This subsection identifies the federal, state, and local laws and regulations that are applicable to the project and need be considered by the lead agency when rendering decisions on aspects of the project that would have the potential to result in air emissions. The ROI for impacts to air quality considered in this EA includes Alameda and Contra Costa counties.

3-13 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

Federal

Federal Clean Air Act and National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Federal air quality policies are regulated through the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). Pursuant to the CAA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (40 CFR Part 50), to identify the maximum allowable concentrations of selected pollutants in ambient air. NAAQS were developed for the following criteria pollutants: ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter less than 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM10) and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. NAAQS include: primary standards that protect public health and the secondary standards that protect public welfare. A summary of the NAAQS is in Table 3-3. The federal CAA requires EPA to classify areas in the country as “attainment” or “nonattainment” with respect to each criteria pollutant, depending on whether the area’s monitored air quality meets the national standards. An area that was designated as nonattainment and has been redesignated as attainment and has a federally approved maintenance plan is in “maintenance” for that pollutant. Areas may be designated as attainment for some standards and as nonattainment or maintenance for others. Table 3-3. National Ambient Air Quality Standards Primary Secondary Pollutant Averaging Time Standard Form Standards Standards

Ozone 8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppma Annual fourth-highest, daily, maximum, 8-hour concentration, averaged over 3 years

3 3 PM10 24 hours 150 µg/m 150 µg/m Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average, over 3 years

3 3 PM2.5 Annual arithmetic mean 12 µg/m 15 µg/m Annual mean, averaged over 3 years 24 hours 35 µg/m3 35 µg/m3 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years

CO 8 hours 9 ppm — Not to be exceeded more than once per year 1 hour 35 ppm —

NO2 Annual arithmetic mean 0.053 ppm 0.053 ppm Annual mean 98th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum 1 hour 100 ppb — concentrations, averaged over 3 years

SO2 3 hours — 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded more than once per year 1 hour 0.075 ppmb — 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years

Lead Calendar quarter 1.5 µg/m3 1.5 µg/m3 c Not to be exceeded (certain areas) Rolling 3-month average — 0.15 µg/m3

Source: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table, accessed July 2019a. a Final rule signed October 1, 2015, and effective December 28, 2015. The previous (2008) ozone standards additionally remain in effect in some areas. b The previous SO2 standards (0.14 ppm 24-hour and 0.03 ppm annual) will remain in effect in certain areas, as follows: 1) any area for which 1 year has not yet passed since the effective date of designation under the current (2010) standards; and 2) any area for which an implementation plan providing for attainment of the current (2010) standard has not been submitted and approved and which is designated “nonattainment” under the previous SO2 standards or is not meeting the requirements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) call under the previous SO2 standards (40 CFR 50.4[3]). A “SIP call” is an EPA action requiring a state to resubmit all or part of its SIP to demonstrate attainment of the required NAAQS. c In areas designated as “nonattainment” for the lead standards prior to the promulgation of the current (2008) standards, and for which implementation plans to attain or maintain the current (2008) standards have not been submitted and approved, the previous standards (1.5 µg/m3 as a calendar quarter average) also remain in effect. µg/m3 = microgram per cubic meter ppb = part per billion (by volume) ppm = part per million (by volume)

3-14 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

The 1977 CAA amendment requires each state to develop and maintain a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for each criteria pollutant that violates the applicable NAAQS.

General Conformity

Federal actions located in nonattainment and maintenance areas are subject to conformity requirements. Under the conformity provisions of the CAA, no federal agency can approve or undertake a federal action or project unless it has been demonstrated to conform to the applicable SIP. The EPA Final Conformity Rule implements Section 176(c) of the CAA, as amended in 42 USC 7506(c). The Proposed Action is subject to general conformity requirements. A conformity demonstration is only required for the alternative that is ultimately selected and approved.

The general conformity rule only applies in areas designated as nonattainment or maintenance for NAAQS. The rule prohibits any federal action that does not conform to the applicable air quality attainment plan or SIP. General conformity applicability analysis requires quantifying direct and indirect construction and operational emissions for the project in tons per year, and comparing those emission levels to baseline emission levels. An action is exempt from further general conformity analysis if the total net project-related emissions would be less than the de minimis thresholds identified in 40 CFR 93.153(b). An action that would produce emissions that exceed conformity thresholds is required to demonstrate conformity with the SIP through mitigation or other accepted practices.

Air Toxics

Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the CAA amendments of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that the EPA regulate 188 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). National emission standards for HAPs are standards developed to protect the public health, with an ample margin of safety, and prevent any significant and adverse environmental effects.

For mobile sources EPA identified nine compounds with significant contributions from mobile sources that drive or contribute to the national- and regional-scale cancer risk estimates and/or non-cancer hazards identified in the 2014 National Air Toxics Assessment (EPA, 2018). These compounds, called priority mobile source air toxics, are 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, diesel particulate matter, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter (FHWA, 2016). No federal or state ambient air quality standards exist for air toxics at this time.

GHG GHGs include both naturally occurring and anthropogenic gases that trap heat in the earth's atmosphere. GHGs include, but are not limited to, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. These gases trap the energy from the sun and help maintain the temperature of the Earth’s surface, creating a process known as the greenhouse effect. The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere influences the long-term range of average atmospheric temperatures. EPA’s authority to regulate GHG emissions stems from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet the definition of air pollutants under the existing CAA and must be regulated if these gases could be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. On December 7, 2009, EPA signed the “Final Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases” under Section 202(a) of the CAA. The endangerment finding states that current and projected concentrations of the six key GHGs in the atmosphere (CO2, CH4, nitrous oxide, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) could threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. Furthermore, EPA found that GHGs from motor vehicles contribute to the GHG concentrations that threaten public health and welfare. Climate change and its associated effects are being addressed at the federal level through various efforts to improve fuel economy and energy efficiency. Based on the endangerment finding, the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) took coordinated steps to enable the production

3-15 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation of a new generation of clean vehicles with reduced GHG emissions and improved fuel efficiency. With the NHTSA, EPA issued a series of GHG-emission standards starting in 2014, and significantly increased fuel economy standards.

State and Local Regulations

California Ambient Air Quality Standards

California Air Resources Board (ARB) oversees California’s air quality policies and regulations. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) were first established in 1969 pursuant to the Mulford-Carrell Act. CAAQS are generally more stringent than the NAAQS and include the NAAQS pollutants and four additional pollutants: sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particulates. Relevant CAAQS are listed in Table 3-1.

The California CAA, which was approved in 1988, requires each local air district, where ambient concentrations violate the CAAQS, to prepare an air quality management plan to achieve compliance with the CAAQS as a part of the SIP. ARB has ultimate responsibility for the SIP for nonattainment pollutants but relies on each local air district to adopt mandatory statewide programs and provide additional strategies for sources under their jurisdiction.

Air Toxics California regulates toxic air contaminants through its Air Toxics Program, which is mandated in its Health and Safety Code, Chapter 3.5 (Toxic Air Contaminants) and Part 6 (Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment) (California Health and Safety Code, §§39660 et seq. and 44300 et seq.). The ARB has adopted the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan (ARB, 2016) and a series of airborne toxic control measures for mobile and stationary sources, which are intended to reduce overall diesel exhaust emissions in California. ARB and local air districts have authority to enforce the federal National Emission Standards for HAPs regulations for asbestos.

Local Air District The project is located in Alameda and Contra Costa counties, within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the primary regional agency responsible for attaining and maintaining air quality conditions in the SFBAAB through a comprehensive program of planning, regulation, and enforcement (BAAQMD, 2017b). The BAAQMD is responsible for rulemaking, permitting, and enforcement activities affecting stationary sources in the Bay Area. Specific rules and regulations adopted by the BAAQMD limit the emissions that can be generated by various activities and identify specific pollution-reduction measures that must be implemented in association with various activities. BAAQMD has promulgated 13 separate regulations (BAAQMD Regulations 1 through 12 and 14). Each regulation contains a rule or set of rules that establishes general provisions, permitting requirements, and fees, and defines the requirements for various types of emission sources. Regulations applicable to the proposed project may include general provisions, permitting, new source review requirements, and source-specific requirements.

Greenhouse Gases With legislation and EOs, California launched an innovative and proactive approach to address GHG emissions and potential climate change-related impacts. These regulations include: • Assembly Bill (AB) 1493, Vehicular Emissions: Greenhouse Gases, 2002: This bill requires ARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce automobile and light-duty truck GHG emissions. These stricter emissions standards apply to automobiles and light-duty trucks, beginning with the 2009 model year. • EO S-3-05 (June 1, 2005): The goal of this EO is to reduce California’s GHG emissions to: (1) 2000 levels by 2010; (2) 1990 levels by 2020; and (3) 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. These goals were further reinforced with the passage of AB 32 in 2006 and Senate Bill (SB) 32 in 2016.

3-16 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

• AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: AB 32 sets the same overall GHG emissions reduction goals as outlined in EO S-3-05, while further mandating that ARB create a scoping plan and implement rules to achieve “real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases.” In November 2017, ARB released California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target (California ARB, 2017).

3.2.3.2 Existing Conditions

Regional Climate and Meteorology The Proposed Action is in the SFBAAB, which is characterized by complex terrain, consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, and bays, which distort normal wind flow patterns.

The Livermore Valley, where the project is located, is a sheltered inland valley near the eastern border of SFBAAB. The western side of the valley is bordered by 1,000- to 1,500-foot-high hills, with two gaps (, the Hayward Pass and Niles Canyon) connecting the valley to the central SFBAAB. The eastern side of the valley also is bordered by 1,000- to 1,500-foot-high hills with one major passage (the Altamont Pass) to the San Joaquin Valley and several secondary passages. To the north lie the Black Hills and Mount Diablo. A northwest-to-southeast channel connects the Diablo Valley to the Livermore Valley. The southern side of the Livermore Valley is bordered by mountains that are approximately 3,000 to 3,500 feet high.

Maximum summer temperatures in the Livermore Valley range in degrees Fahrenheit, from the high 80s to low 90s, with extremes in the 100s. At other times in the summer, a strong, Pacific, high-pressure cell from the west, coupled with hot inland temperatures causes a strong onshore pressure gradient, which produces a strong afternoon wind. With a weak temperature inversion, air moves over the hills with ease, dispersing pollutants. In the winter, except for an occasional storm moving through the area, air movement is often dictated by local conditions. At night and early morning, especially under clear, calm, and cold conditions, gravity drives cold air downward. The cold air drains off the hills and moves into the gaps and passes. On the eastern side of the valley, the prevailing winds blow from north, northeast, and east out of the Altamont Pass. Average winter maximum temperatures range in degrees Fahrenheit from the high 50s to the low 60s, while minimum temperatures are from the mid-to-high 30s, with extremes in the high teens and low 20s (BAAQMD, 2017b).

Attainment Status and Air Quality Monitoring Data

Attainment Status

EPA and ARB designate counties in California as being in attainment or nonattainment for the NAAQS and CAAQS. Table 3-4 provides the current NAAQS and CAAQS attainment status for ozone, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Under the NAAQS, the two counties are designated “nonattainment” for the 8-hour ozone and 24-hour PM2.5 standards. On January 9, 2013, EPA issued a final rule to determine that the Bay Area has attained the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard. The Bay Area will continue to be designated as “nonattainment” for the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard until a “redesignation request” and a “maintenance plan” are submitted to EPA, and EPA approves the proposed redesignation (BAAQMD, 2017a).

Under the CAAQS, Alameda County is in nonattainment for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards. It is in attainment or unclassified for all other pollutants.

3-17 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

Table 3-4. Attainment Status in Alameda County and Contra Costa County

Criteria Air Pollutant Averaging Time Federal Status California Status

O3 1 hour -- Nonattainment 8 hours Marginal Nonattainment Nonattainment

CO 1 hour Maintenancea Attainment 8 hours Maintenance Attainment

NO2 1 hour Unclassified/Attainment Attainment Annual Arithmetic Mean Unclassified/Attainment Attainment

SO2 1 hour Unclassified/Attainment Attainment 3 hours Unclassified/Attainment -- 24 hours Unclassified/Attainment Attainment Annual Arithmetic Mean Unclassified/Attainment --

PM10 24 hours Unclassified/Attainment Nonattainment Annual Arithmetic Mean -- Nonattainment

b PM2.5 24 hours Nonattainment -- Annual Arithmetic Mean Unclassified/attainment Nonattainment

Sources: EPA, 2020a; ARB, 2020a. a The CO maintenance period expired on June 1, 2018. The urbanized areas of Alameda and Contra Costa counties are still listed as maintenance in the EPA Greenbook. (EPA, 2020a). b On January 9, 2013, EPA issued a final rule to determine that the Bay Area attains the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard. This EPA rule suspends key SIP requirements as long as monitoring data continue to show that the Bay Area attains the standard. Despite this EPA action, the Bay Area will continue to be designated as “nonattainment” for the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard until such time as the BAAQMD submits a “redesignation request” and “maintenance plan” to EPA, and EPA approves the proposed redesignation. -- = no standard has been adopted for this averaging time

BAAQMD is the primary regional agency responsible for attaining and maintaining air quality conditions in the SFBAAB through a comprehensive program of planning, regulation, and enforcement. The 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan is BAAQMD’s contribution to the SIP for demonstrating attainment of the federal 1-hour O3 standard (BAAQMD, 2001). The 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan is the latest district-approved O3 clean air plan, which shows how BAAQMD would make progress towards meeting the state 1-hour O3 standard (BAAQMD, 2017c).

Monitored Ambient Air Quality The BAAQMD monitors air quality conditions at multiple locations throughout the air basin. Monitoring data from two stations closest to the project are reviewed for the project. The stations are at 9885 Alcosta in San Ramon, approximately 2 miles northwest of PRFTA, and at 739 Ricon Road in Livermore. Ambient air quality concentrations for CO, O3, NOx, and PM2.5 measured between 2016 are 2018 are summarized in Table 3-5. Monitoring data from the 739 Ricon Road station were used in the summary table because these data show higher monitored concentrations than the San Ramon station. CO and PM10 concentrations were not monitored at the two nearby stations. The highest monitored CO and PM10 concentrations from other stations in Alameda and Contra Costa counties were used in the summary to be conservative. The relevant NAAQS and CAAQS are also presented for comparison. As shown in these tables, O3 and PM2.5 concentrations have exceeded NAAQS and/or CAAQS in the past 3 years. PM10 exceeded the NAAQS 24-hour standard in 2018.1

1 The unusually high PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations measured in 2017 and 2018 are a result of smoke from numerous fall wildfires across California, Oregon, and Canada; these results are considered anomalous (BAAQMD, 2019).

3-18 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

Table 3-5. Air Monitoring Data Summary Pollutants Parameters 2016 2017 2018

CO Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 2.6 3.2 3.6 Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 2.2 2.2 3.1 Number of days > federal 1-hour standard of > 35 ppm 0 0 0 Number of days > federal 8-hour standard of > 9 ppm 0 0 0 Number of days > California 8-hour standard of > 9 ppm 0 0 0

O3 Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.102 0.109 0.099 Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.085 0.086 0.078 Number of days > Federal 8-hour standard of > 0.070 ppm 4 6 3 Number of days > California 1-hour standard of > 0.09 ppm 2 5 2 Number of days > California 8-hour standard of >0.070 ppm 6 6 3

NO2 Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.0413 0.0454 0.0564 Annual average (ppm) 0.008 0.008 0.008 Number of days > California 1-hour standard of > 0.18 ppm 0 0 0

PM2.5 Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 22.3 41.5 172.6 Annual average (µg/m3) 7.5 8.4 11.3 Number of days > federal 24-hour standard of 12 µg/m3 0 2 14

PM10 Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 33 95 191 Number of days > Federal 24-hour standard of 150 µg/m3 0 0 1

Sources: ARB, 2020b; EPA, 2020b.

Sensitive Receptors

Sensitive receptors include hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, elderly housing, and convalescent facilities. These areas have occupants more susceptible to the adverse effects of exposure to toxic chemicals, pesticides, and other pollutants. The proposed project site is located in an area with mixed commercial and residential land uses. The closest residential area is adjacent to the western boundary of the project site. There are several schools and daycare centers within .5 mile from the site boundaries.

Site Operation and Compliance Status Camp Parks currently has five permits issued by BAAQMD for the standby emergency generators. Operation of the equipment at Camp Parks comply with the BAAQMD rules. Emissions from the emergency generators are minimal from the routine maintenance and testing. The site is not a major emissions source, therefore, is not subject to the federal Title V permitting requirements.

In the United States, the main source of GHG emissions is transportation, followed by electricity production (EPA, 2020c). In California, however, transportation sources (passenger cars, light-duty trucks, other trucks, buses, and motorcycles) compose the largest category of GHG-emitting sources (ARB, 2019). The dominant GHG emitted is CO2, primarily from fossil fuel combustion. According to the 2015 Bay Area Emissions Inventory Summary Report: Greenhouse Gases, 86.6 million metric tons of CO2e GHGs were emitted in the San Francisco Bay Area in 2011 (BAAQMD, 2015). Combustion of fossil fuels in the transportation sector was the largest source of the Bay Area’s GHG emissions in 2011. The transportation sector contributed about 39.7 percent of GHG emissions in the Bay Area, followed by the industrial and commercial sector (35.7 percent) and energy production (14.0 percent).

3-19 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

3.2.3.3 Consequences

The threshold level of significance for air quality is defined as a violation of an ambient air quality standard or regulatory threshold.

Proposed Action

The project is located in an area that is designated as marginal (a value of 0.071 up to, but not including, 0.081 ppm; EPA, 2020d) nonattainment for ozone and moderate (a value of 0.081 up to, but not including, 0.093 ppm; EPA, 2020d) nonattainment for PM2.5. The applicable general conformity de minimis levels for the project are 100 tons per year for reactive organic gases (ROG), NOx, SO2, and PM2.5, according to the general conformity rule in 40 CFR 93.153(b).

Project construction and operation emissions are quantified and compared to the applicable general conformity de minimis thresholds to determine the air quality impacts from the project. If the project emissions are below the de minimis thresholds, then the project is not expected to cause substantial air quality impacts, and a detailed conformity demonstration would not be required. Detailed emission evaluation methodologies and the comparisons to the general conformity de minimis levels are discussed in the following sections.

Construction Emissions Construction emissions from the project include engine exhaust from vehicle trips traveled by construction workers, haul trucks, offroad construction equipment, and off-gas emissions from paving and architectural coating activities. These emissions would primarily consist of CO, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, SO2, ROG, and GHG. In addition, earth-moving activities would result in fugitive dust emissions. Construction of the Proposed Action would start in 2021 and complete in 2050. Construction emissions from the Proposed Action were calculated for each of the short-range (2021 to 2025), mid-range (2026 to 2035), and long-range (2036 to 2050) projects, using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) (CAPCOPA, 2016). The calculation was based on anticipated project size, such as building or area square footage. The proposed projects were classified into the following CalEEMod land-use categories, depending on the project features: • Light industrial buildings • Office buildings • Education buildings • Fitness center • Parking lots • Hotels • City parks (for RV site only) Default equipment and construction phase settings in CalEEMod were used for each land-use category and for different project sizes. Project sizes were rounded to the nearest 1,000 square feet, as input to the CalEEMod model. To be conservative, 2021 emission factors were used for all short-range projects, 2026 emission factors were used for all mid-range projects, and 2035 emission factors were used for all long- range projects. The estimated construction emissions represent conservative estimates of the project emissions. Actual emissions are expected to be lower. Construction emissions from the short-, mid-, and long-range projects were averaged over the construction duration to obtain the annual emissions to be compared to the general conformity de minimis thresholds. A summary of the construction emissions of the Proposed Action are in Table 3-6. Detailed assumptions and emission calculations are in Appendix C.

3-20 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

Table 3-6. Construction Emissions – Proposed Action

Project Category ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM 2.5

(tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year)

Short-range Projects (2021 - 0.940 5.212 3.957 0.010 0.415 0.263 2025)

Mid-range Projects (2026 - 1.095 2.860 2.679 0.008 0.308 0.140 2035)

Long-range Projects (2036 - 0.360 0.688 1.031 0.003 0.087 0.030 2050)

Operational Emissions Direct operational emissions associated the Proposed Action would be from vehicle travel to and from the newly constructed facilities, and from equipment and energy consumption that support the facility operation. Because the Proposed Action would not generate additional vehicle trips to and from the site, emission increases from vehicle trips are not expected, except for the new hotel and the RV campground.

Project operation of the new and renovated facilities would have direct emissions of criteria pollutants and GHG emissions from onsite equipment and activities that support the facilities’ daily operation and maintenance, and from vehicles travel to/from these facilities. In addition, the Proposed Action would have indirect emissions of GHG resulting from energy use. Criteria pollutants and GHG emissions from the Proposed Action operation were estimated using CalEEMod. These include the following emission sources: • Mobile sources: These are included for hotel and RV campground vehicle trips only. Other facilities would not have increases in vehicle trips. • Area sources: These include criteria pollutants and GHG emissions from consumer product use, architectural coatings, and landscape maintenance equipment. • Energy use: These include emissions resulting from activities that consume energy in the form of natural gas and electricity. It was assumed that the electricity would be supplied by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). • Water and wastewater: These include indirect GHG emissions as a result of the energy used to supply, distribute, and treat the water and wastewater. • Solid waste: These include indirect GHG emissions associated with waste that is disposed of at a landfill. Default operational settings in CalEEMod were used to estimate the emissions from the Proposed Action. A summary of the operation emissions of the Proposed Action is in Table 3-7. Detailed parameters used for the modeling are in the CalEEMod output files in Appendix A. Table 3-7. Operation Emissions – Proposed Action

Project Category ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM 2.5

(tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year)

Short-range Projects (2021 - 2025) 1.161 0.687 1.114 0.005 0.275 0.092

Mid-range Projects (2026 - 2035) 3.663 0.887 0.758 0.005 0.067 0.067

Long-range Projects (2036 - 2050) 1.875 0.668 1.291 0.009 0.795 0.238

3-21 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

Impacts – Criteria Pollutants

Criteria pollutants emissions are compared to the general conformity de minimis thresholds to determine the level of impacts, and if the project meets the general conformity requirements. Table 3-8 shows the annual emission increases associated with the Proposed Action and the comparisons with the de minimis thresholds. Table 3-8 Comparison of Proposed Action Emissions and General Conformity De Minimis Thresholds

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5

Activity Ton/year Ton/year Ton/year Ton/year Ton/year Ton/year

Short-range projects construction emissions 0.940 5.212 3.957 0.010 0.415 0.263 2021-2025

Construction emissions 2026-2035 plus 4.823 1.574 1.872 0.010 0.343 0.160 operation emissions of short-range projects

Construction emissions of 2036-2050 plus 5.183 2.262 2.903 0.013 0.429 0.190 operation emissions from short- and mid-range projects

Operation emissions beyond 2050 6.698 2.242 3.163 0.019 1.138 0.397

De Minimis Threshold 100 100 NA 100 NA 100

Exceeds De Minimis Threshold? No No NA No NA No

As shown, emissions of ROG, NOx, SO2, and PM2.5 during construction and operation of the project are well below the de minimis thresholds. On the basis of the conformity applicability criteria, the project is anticipated to meet conformity requirements, further conformity demonstration is not needed, and it is exempt from a detailed conformity demonstration. Because of the conservativeness of the emission calculation methodology, actual emissions would be lower than what are presented in Table 3-7. Nonetheless, construction and operation of the project would comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulatory requirements, and implement the best management practices (BMPs) to minimize the pollutant emissions. Any new stationary source to be installed under the Proposed Action would comply with the local air district’s permitting requirements, unless the equipment is exempt. There would be a minor, short-term and long-term, adverse, direct impacts to air quality from operational emissions at PRFTA; however, these impacts would not be significant. Impacts – GHG

Global climate change is a cumulative impact; therefore, an individual project is not expected to generate enough GHG emissions to significantly influence global climate change. Currently, no federal agency has adopted a quantitative threshold to evaluate the significance of an individual project’s contribution to GHG emissions in the context of NEPA. Nevertheless, GHG emissions were estimated for the project construction and operation in terms of CO2 equivalent (CO2e).

GHG emissions would occur during Proposed Action construction. These would include emissions from fuel combustion in construction equipment, haul trucks, and worker commute vehicles. During operation, energy consumption and equipment uses supporting the facility operation would generate direct and indirect GHG emissions. GHG emissions from construction and operation of the Proposed Action were estimated using CalEEMod and followed the same methodologies as discussed above for criteria pollutants. Estimated GHG emissions for the Proposed Action are in Table 3-9.

3-22 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

Table 3-9. Construction and Operational Emissions of Greenhouse Gases – Proposed Action

Construction Year Emissions (metric tons/year) in CO2e

Short-range projects construction 2021 - 2025 921

Construction 2026 - 2035, plus operation of short-range projects 5,124

Construction 2036 - 2050, plus operational short and mid-range projects 5,411

Post 2050, after all construction projects in the Proposed Action have been 7,322 completed

GHG emissions for the projects were overestimated, to be conservative. Most of the construction project sizes were rounded up in the CalEEMod modeling, and the eliminated GHG emissions from the demolished buildings were not taken into account in the GHG-emission evaluation. In addition, while indirect emissions of GHG from power generation are expected to be getting lower in future years because of improved technologies and the use of greener energy, default GHG-emission factors remain the same in the CalEEMod modeling. Because of the conservativeness of the emission estimate methodology, actual GHG emissions from project construction and operation are expected to be lower than those presented in Table 3-8. During construction and operation, BMPs would be implemented. BMPs would include using cleaner and more efficient equipment and minimizing unnecessary vehicle trips and idling time, which would reduce GHG emissions and make the overall GHG emissions even lower.

In addition, because the Proposed Action would improve the resiliency of the facilities to withstand more severe weather conditions, personal injury and property damage associated with the extreme weather events would be reduced. As a result, the Proposed Action would have long-term benefits, reducing direct and indirect GHG emissions from activities associated with personnel and property damage from weather and other natural disasters. These long-term GHG reduction benefits would be expected to offset part of the GHG emissions from the Proposed Action.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the current RPMP would continue to be implemented. However, new construction proposed in the updated RPMP, and the associated construction emissions, would not occur. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would have a minor, short-term, beneficial, impact when compared to the Proposed Action because less construction would occur.

The No Action Alternative would have a minor, long-term, adverse, indirect impact on air quality because aging buildings with older heating and cooling equipment would not be replaced with more modern, energy-efficient heating and cooling equipment.

Biological Resources

3.2.4.1 Definition of Resources

Biological resources consist of plants and animals, and their habitats. These resources provide aesthetic, recreational, and socioeconomic benefits to society. This subsection describes plant and animal species that occur, or are likely to occur, in the project area.

Laws that are applicable to the analysis of biological resources for the project include: • The ESA requires the government to protect threatened and endangered plants and animals (listed species) and the habitats upon which they depend. The ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that any action it authorizes, funds, or conducts does not “adversely impact” listed species or “destroy or adversely modify” critical habitat for that species. Critical habitat is defined as a specific geographic area that contains features for the conservation of an endangered species and that may require special management and protection.

3-23 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

• The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, as amended, implements various treaties and conventions between the United States and Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia for the protection of migratory birds. Under the MBTA, taking, killing, or possessing listed birds is unlawful, unless permitted by regulation. • The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 provides for the protection of bald eagles and golden eagles by prohibiting, except under certain specified conditions, the taking, possession, and commerce of such birds.

The ROI for impacts to biological resources considered in this EA includes PRFTA.

3.2.4.2 Affected Environment

Vegetation Natural habitats across PRFTA include grasslands (approximately 1,884 acres), riparian areas (approximately 14 acres), wetlands (approximately 50 acres), and mitigation wetlands sites (approximately 2 acres). PRFTA also includes developed and landscaped areas. The Cantonment District is mostly developed, and approximately 41 acres of developed area are in the Range District.

Grasslands cover most of PRFTA and include a mix of native and non-native grasses and forbs along with scattered trees. Riparian areas include the vegetation along streams and rivers. These areas are considered to be sensitive habitats by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Riparian areas on PRFTA are dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), with grey willow (Salix exigua), ash (Fraxinus sp.), and Fremont poplar (Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii). Understory hydrophytic plants include purslane speedwell (Veronica peregrina), watercress, and curly dock, and non-native species, such as cattails. Detailed lists of species found on PRFTA are included in the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan.

Wildlife PRFTA provides habitat for over 200 wildlife species, including 100 breeding and migrant birds, 7 fishes, 10 amphibians, 19 reptiles, 5 invertebrates, and more than 40 mammals. Examples of non-native or invasive species found on PRFTA include bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), several fish species, red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkia), and red foxes (Vulpes vulpes).

The nesting time for birds protected by the MBTA at PRFTA is generally from January 15 through September 15.

Threatened and Endangered Species There are no federally or state-listed plant species on PRFTA. There are two special-status plant species: Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi congdonii) and northern California black walnut (Juglans californica var. hindsii). The tarplant occurs in the southern portion of the Cantonment District and in the Range District. The walnut occurs in the Range District.

There are two federally listed threatened amphibian species on PRFTA: the California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) and the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), both of which occur in the Range District. The California red-legged frog is also a state Species of Concern and the California tiger salamander is listed as state threatened. PRFTA is within the historical range of the federally endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), although the species has not been observed on PRFTA.

On PRFTA, there are 12 other special-status species: the western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugea), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), and American badger (Taxidea taxus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), white-

3-24 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), and monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) Table 3-10).

Table 3-10 Special-status Species and Species of Special Concern Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status State Status Occurrence

Amphibians and Reptiles Western pond turtle Actinemys marmorata Under Review SSC Known to occur on site

California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense FT ST Known to occur on site

California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii FT SSC Known to occur on site

Birds Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor None ST Observed on site

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos None (BCC) Fully protected Observed on site

Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia None (BCC) SSC Known to occur on site hypugea

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis None (BCC) SSC Observed on site

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus None SSC Observed on site

White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus None Fully protected Observed on site

Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus None (BCC) None Observed on site

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus None (BCC) SSC Known to occur on site

Mammals Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus None SSC Known to occur on site

American badger Taxidiinae taxus None SSC Known to occur on site

San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica FE ST Within historical range but not found during surveys

Invertebrates Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus Under review None Known

Plants Congdon’s tarplant Centromadia parryi None State: None Known to occur on site congdonii CNPS: 1B

Northern California black Juglans californica var. None State: None Known to occur on site walnut hindsii CNPS: 1B

FE = Federally Endangered FT = Federally Threatened BCC = Birds of Conservation Concern SE = State Endangered ST = State Threatened SSC = State Species of Special Concern SCE = State Candidate Endangered CNPS 1B = Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere

3-25 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

3.2.4.3 Consequences

The threshold level of significance for biological resources under the Proposed Action is defined by: (1) the importance (in terms of commercial, ecological, legal, recreational, or scientific significance) of the resource; (2) the proportion of the resource that would be affected relative to its occurrence in the region; (3) an injury or loss of individuals that negatively affects the regional population of a species; (4) the sensitivity of the resource to proposed activities; (5) taking of birds in violation of the MBTA, which could result in an enforcement action against the USAR; (6) the duration of ecological impacts; and (7) introduction or spread of invasive or otherwise undesirable non-native species. Adverse effects on biological resources are considered significant if species or habitats of high concern are adversely affected over relatively large areas, or if disturbances cause reductions in population size or distribution of species of high concern.

Proposed Action

Vegetation

Implementation of the RPMP projects would have negligible, long-term, adverse, direct effects on vegetation from construction. Proposed projects within the Cantonment District occur in areas that have been disturbed by previous construction or in areas of maintained grass. Proposed projects (RV parking lot, future mission construction projects and construction of an ammunition holding area) would convert approximately 3.2 acres of the 1,884 acres (0.16 percent) of grasslands. This would not be a significant loss of grassland habitat. After construction of each project is complete, remaining disturbed areas within the project area would be revegetated.

Wildlife

Implementation of the RPMP projects would have negligible, long-term, adverse, direct effects on wildlife because of the small amount of disturbance in wildlife habitats. Minor, adverse, short-term, direct impacts to wildlife would occur during vegetation clearing and construction. These short-term impacts would result from potential disturbance from activities and noise. Construction activities could also result in a direct, short-term, adverse impacts to wildlife from the mortality of wildlife species that are unable to vacate the area. To eliminate or reduce the potential take of birds protected by the MBTA, nest surveys would be conducted in areas to be cleared if construction were to occur from January 15 through September 15 (USFWS, 2019).

Threatened and Endangered Species

Implementation of the RPMP projects would have a moderate, long-term, adverse, indirect impact on the burrowing owl through removal of grassland habitat in the Range District as well as ruderal, non-native, grassy areas in the Cantonment District. To lessen impacts to burrowing owls, and in accordance with the MBTA, nest surveys would be conducted in areas to be cleared if construction were to occur from January 15 through September 15 (USFWS, 2019). A PRFTA biologist would survey the proposed construction area within 6 months of the proposed activity, and passively relocate burrowing owls out of the proposed construction area when the owls are not nesting. If nesting burrowing owls are present in the area, the construction would not start until the nesting season is over and the owls have been safely relocated.

As discussed in Section 3.2.1, prior to conducting ground-disturbing activities within an area designated as “open space” in the 2009 EIS, the PRFTA Natural Resources Manager would review the project and coordinate with USFWS to determine if the project requires formal consultation under ESA regarding loss of threatened and endangered species’ habitat.

Implementation of the RPMP would have a negligible, long-term, adverse, indirect impact on other threatened, endangered, or special-status species known to occur at PRFTA because these species are not known to occur within the proposed project areas. In addition, during project design, the PRFTA

3-26 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation biologist would be consulted to verify that limits of disturbance are outside of known habitat for these species.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the current RPMP would continue to be implemented. Fewer impacts on biological resources would be expected because less demolition and development would occur than under the Proposed Action; therefore, less ground disturbance would occur. There would be no adverse impacts on threatened and endangered species.

Cultural Resources

3.2.5.1 Definition of Resource

Cultural resources are defined as prehistoric or historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects considered important to a culture, subculture, or community for scientific, traditional, religious, or other purposes. They include archaeological resources, historic architectural or engineering resources, and other traditional resources.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires that federal agencies consult with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) if historic properties that are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) could be affected by a proposed action. The NRHP is a list of America’s historic properties. It identifies districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, engineering, and culture. The Area of Potential Effects (APE) is defined under 36 CFR 800.16(d) as “the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist.” The APE is identified as the entirety of PRFTA, which encompasses 2,281 acres.

3.2.5.2 Affected Environment Two cultural resources have been identified on PRFTA that have been determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP: the original Camp Park Entrance Sign (P-01-010495), constructed circa 1944, and a historic archaeological site within the eastern part of the Range District. The entrance sign is in the southwestern corner of PRFTA. The location of the archaeological site cannot be disclosed in a public document.

According to the 2019 Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) for PRFTA, four archaeological surveys were conducted across PRFTA, between 1981 and 1998, covering the full extent of the PRFTA’s 2,281 acres (PRFTA, 2019a). Additional surveys were completed in 1998 and 2001. Aside from the historic archaeological site within the eastern part of the Range District, no other significant archaeological resources were identified during the archaeological surveys.

Historic building and structure surveys have been completed across PRFTA, in 1998 and 2002, evaluating all resources that were more than 50 years of age at the time of the surveys. Aside from the Camp Park Entrance Sign, no other significant buildings and structures were identified. The 2019 ICRMP for PRFTA identified four resources at PRFTA that required re-evaluation for significance (PRFTA, 2019a). One resource has since been demolished (likely as part of the land exchange described in the 2009 EIS), one has been evaluated and determined not to be eligible for listing in the NHRP, and the remaining two have not been evaluated (Cipolla, 2020). These two resources are in the Range District and would not be within the boundaries of the Proposed Action.

Portions of PRFTA are either covered by a layer of fill from past activities or have experienced widespread natural and artificial landscape modifications that buried large portions of the original ground surface. A geoarchaeological investigation conducted at PRFTA in 2004 identified areas where buried archaeological resources could be under the fill or the original ground surface. This investigation also

3-27 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation mapped areas of PRFTA as having very low, low, moderate, or high archaeological sensitivity (Meyer and Dalldorf, 2004).

Overall, the geoarchaeological investigation determined the Cantonment District is mostly designated as having low to very low sensitivity, with a section of moderate sensitivity along the western boundary of PRFTA, east of and parallel to Dougherty Road. The Range District is mostly designated as very low sensitivity, with several moderately sensitive areas. However, two areas of high archaeological sensitivity are on PRFTA: one in the eastern portion of the Range District and one in the Cantonment District east of Mitchell Drive.

PRFTA sent scoping letters regarding the RPMP update in April 2020 to interested parties, including the SHPO, federally listed and non-federally listed Native American tribes, and local preservation groups. PRFTA requested that these parties provide comments on concerns with the Proposed Action.

3.2.5.3 Consequences

The threshold level of significant impacts to NRHP-eligible or listed cultural resources is defined by any of the following, as included 36 CFR 800.9: • Physical destruction, damage, or alteration of all or part of the resource • Isolation of the resource from its setting or alteration of the character of its setting when that character contributes to the resource’s qualification for NRHP • Introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the resource or alter its setting • Neglect of a resource resulting in its deterioration or destruction • Transfer, lease, or sale of a federally owned resource without adequate conditions or restrictions regarding its preservation, maintenance, or use

Proposed Action

The Proposed Action would have no adverse impacts on cultural resources. The NRHP-eligible Camp Park Entrance Sign (P-01-010495) would be relocated from its original location to near the visitor’s center and Dublin Camp Parks Military History Center. The relocation of significant cultural resources from their original location typically has the potential to diminish a resource’s historic integrity (in terms of aspects of location, setting, evidence, and association); such relocation thereby would affect its eligibility for listing in the NRHP. However, the relocation of the Camp Park Entrance Sign is not expected to affect the resource’s eligibility to the NRHP because the resource would retain its character-defining features, design values, and historical associations with the PRFTA. The sign will remain one of the oldest surviving resources at the PRFTA from the World War II-era and continue to convey its historic integrity aspects of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Therefore, the USAR and PRFTA determined no adverse effect to the resource would result from relocating the sign. The SHPO concurred with this finding in a letter dated August 25, 2014 (Appendix A).

The geoarchaeological study identified several areas that had high and medium archaeological sensitivity (PRFTA, 2019a). Several of the RPMP projects are proposed within these sensitive areas. For example, the Directorate of Public Works (DPW) administrative and shop buildings, maintenance building, and RV storage lot are planned for areas that have high and medium archaeological sensitivity. However, these two areas have already been disturbed by previous construction. To reduce the potential for adverse effects to occur to previously undiscovered cultural resources, the following protective measures will be implemented, in accordance with Section 3.4.2 of the ICRMP: • Minimize ground disturbance in previously undisturbed soils, areas not containing fill, or areas not impacted by natural or artificial landscape modifications. • Complete archaeological monitoring for large-scale earth disturbances in medium- to high-sensitivity areas and complete occasional monitoring during isolated or small-scale earth disturbances in

3-28 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

previously undisturbed areas or in areas that are expected to be fill (to ensure undisturbed soils are not impacted). • Prior to construction, designate environmentally sensitive areas around the location of known cultural resources within 100 feet of construction footprints so that resources are not disturbed.

If ground-disturbing activities result in a discovery of human remains during construction, work in that area would be halted and the PRFTA Cultural Resources and Environmental Manager would be notified of the discovery. If human remains are discovered, the County Coroner will be notified to determine whether the remains are of Native American origin or an investigation into the cause of death is required. If the remains are determined to be Native American, then the Coroner would notify the Native American Heritage Commission immediately, and the USAR would comply with the Native American Graves Protection Repatriation Act. Additionally, the USAR would re-open the Section 106 consultation process with the SHPO. Work would resume after reaching agreement on an acceptable resolution. To the extent practicable, project construction outside the discovery location would continue while the USAR, the SHPO, and interested tribes seek agreement on an acceptable resolution.

Through implementation of identified protective measures, the Proposed Action will not have an adverse effect on cultural resources.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the RPMP would not be updated; however, projects listed in the 2013 RPMP could be implemented as funding becomes available. The two cultural resources known to be eligible for listing in the NRHP would not be impacted by these projects. Prior to construction of projects within the Range District near the two cultural resources that have not been reviewed for eligibility, the Cultural Resources Program Manager would review the project and determine if consultation with SHPO is required. Consultation with the SHPO, including any mitigation, would occur prior to any the start of construction. Therefore, there would be no impacts or effects to cultural resources from the No Action Alternative.

Water Resources and Water Quality

3.2.6.1 Definition of Resource

Water resources include surface water and groundwater. Surface water resources include lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands and can be important to economic, ecological, recreational, and human health resources. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and EPA define wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands are identified and evaluated by three parameters: vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Wetlands generally include marshes, bogs, and similar areas” (33 CFR 328.3[b]).

USACE regulates wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). In addition, the Department of the Army is directed under EO 11990 to minimize the destruction, loss, and degradation of wetland environments. The EO also directs the preservation and enhancement of the natural and beneficial values of the wetland environments.

The CWA Section 401 establishes a program to protect the quality of waters of the U.S. through a water quality certification program administered by the individual states. The CWA Section 401 certification program ensures that actions do not exacerbate or contribute to water quality impairment. USACE CWA Section 404 permits require state CWA Section 401 certification prior to authorization of the permit. Any activities authorized under a USACE permit may be subject to modification through imposed conditions to address water quality issues.

3-29 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

Groundwater includes the subsurface hydrologic resources of the physical environment and is an essential resource. Groundwater properties are often described in terms of depth to aquifer or water table, water quality, and surrounding geologic composition.

The ROI for impacts to water resources considered in this EA includes PRFTA.

3.2.6.2 Affected Environment

Surface Water PRFTA is located within the Arroyo de la Laguna drainage basin of the Alameda Creek Watershed, which encompasses approximately 660 square miles. It extends south to Mount Hamilton, north to Mount Diablo, east to the Altamont Hills in Livermore, and west to the San Francisco Bay. PRFTA is located within the geographic jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program.

A number of ephemeral drainages, as well as a few springs and seeps, originate in the Range District. Most of the drainages that originate in the Range District flow southward, toward the Cantonment District. Runoff from the Cantonment District enters the Chabot Canal (an improved flood-control channel) through grass swales and a storm sewer system.

Surface waters in the vicinity of PRFTA include Alamo Creek and Tassajara Creek. Alamo Creek flows just west of Dougherty Road and receives drainage from PRFTA and other sources. The drainage it receives from PRFTA comes primarily from the western portion of the Range District, to the extent such flows are not captured by the stormwater system along Dougherty Road. Tassajara Creek flows along the eastern boundary of PRFTA and captures drainage from the far eastern portion of the Range District. Tassajara Creek eventually flows into Alameda Creek. In general, surface drainage flows in a southerly direction across the area.

While PRFTA does not hold a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for stormwater runoff from industrial activities, PRFTA continues to conduct visual monitoring during wet season, dry seasons (for unpermitted non-stormwater discharges), and storm events. No sampling is conducted.

Groundwater The southern part of PRFTA is located within the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin: the southwestern section is within the Dublin Subbasin and the southeastern portion is within the Camp Subbasin. In this basin, groundwater is present in multiple aquifers, including the Quaternary deposits and the deeper bedrock aquifer in which the local municipal supply wells are screened. The shallow groundwater in the Quaternary deposits occurs in thin, discontinuous perched lenses that are found between 8 and 35 feet below ground surface, under both unconfined and semiconfined conditions (U.S. Army Garrison Camp Parks, 2009).

Wetlands and Riparian Areas Wetlands on PRFTA generally include streams, ponds, lakes, seeps, swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. In 2004, a wetland delineation of PRFTA was conducted. The survey identified 34 jurisdictional and 15 non-jurisdictional wetlands, covering a total area of 50 acres in the Range District and 4 acres in the Cantonment District. Wetland and riparian areas within the Cantonment and Range Districts are shown on Figures 3-5 and 3-6.

3-30 Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Cantonment District Boundary Building Pavement Monitoring Wells Test Well Wetland Riparian Area 100 Year Floodplain Water Feature Environmental Restoration Site Slope < 15% Slope > 15%

Feet Figure 3-5 ¯ 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Cantonment District - Existing Natural Resource Constraints Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Source: ESRI World Imagery Dublin, California Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

This page is intentionally left blank.

3-32 Figure 3-6 Feet ¯ 0 650 1,300 2,600 Range District - Existing Natural Resource Constraints

Source: ESRI World Imagery Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Dublin, California Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

This page is intentionally left blank.

3-34 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

Wet meadows are seasonal wetlands associated with low spots that fill up with water, or are fed from seeps and springs, during the rainy season and then dry out during the summer. These communities provide habitat for a number of plant and animal species, serve as natural stormwater detention basins, and are groundwater infiltration sites. The installation has wet meadow habitat, scattered within annual grasslands, within the Range District. Some wet meadows experience compaction problems associated with training activities during the dry season (HDR, 2012). The vegetation communities include both native and non-native species, like iris-leaved juncus (Juncus xiphiodes), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), watercress (Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum), curly dock (Rumex pulcher), toad rush (Juncus bufonius), cattails (Typha spp.), umbrella sedge (Cyperus eragrostis), bulrushes (Scirpus spp.), and bristly ox- tongue (Picris echiodes).

As part of a three-way land swap mitigation agreement that occurred in 1995, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) created seasonal wetland ponds covering 1.95 acres on the installation. The wetlands were constructed in 1995 through 2000 (Daly, 2020). Of the 1.95 acres, 0.26 acre was identified as federally jurisdictional. BART agreed to monitor and maintain established ponds for 5 years as part of a USACE nationwide permit agreement (HDR, 2012). Formal monitoring was conducted from 1996 to 2001. In 2003, USACE confirmed that monitoring of the project was complete and fulfilled the terms of the permit (Daly, 2020). The U.S. Army agreed to preserve the wetland area (HDR, 2012).

Three artificial (constructed with earthen dams) ponds are located in the Range District along riparian drainages. Their plant and animal composition include both native and non-native species. The ponds are characterized by open water habitat; shallow, inundated pond margins; and adjacent, seasonally flooded edges. The vegetation community is similar to the wet meadows and includes iris-leaved juncus, Baltic rush, watercress, curly dock, toad rush, cattail, umbrella sedge, bulrush, and bristly ox-tongue.

Flood Zones

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Flood Insurance Rate Map, the northern portion of PRFTA is in “Other Areas, Zone X” (areas determined to be outside the 1 percent annual chance floodplain). The southern portion of the installation, to include the Cantonment District, is in both Zone X and Zone AE (a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance of flood). The 1 percent flood zone (100-year floodplain) is associated with the Chabot Canal, which traverses from the northern portion of the installation, draining south, through the Cantonment District. The 100-year floodplain within the Cantonment and Range districts is shown on Figures 3-5 and 3-6.

3.2.6.3 Consequences

The threshold level of significance for surface waters would be a violation of state water quality criteria, a violation of federal or state discharge permits, and/or an unpermitted placement of structures within regulated limits.

The threshold levels of significance for groundwater are activities that result in: a release of contamination that creates concentrations that exceed the aquifer water quality standards established by the State of California; a change in water quality or hydrology that would result in the change of designation to the beneficial uses, as determined by the California RWQCB of Alameda County; or an increase in water demand that exceeds aquifer capacity.

The threshold level of significance for wetlands would be a violation of state water quality criteria, a violation of federal or state discharge permits, and/or an unpermitted dredge or fill within the boundary of a wetland.

The threshold level of significance for floodplains is a change to flood conveyance that would cause the upstream or downstream flood frequency, duration, or elevation to change.

3-35 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

Proposed Action

Surface Water The RPMP projects would have no direct impacts on surface waters, including wetlands or riparian areas, because none of the proposed demolition or construction projects would occur within a surface water or wetland resource; however, the Proposed Action would have short-term, minor, adverse, indirect impacts to surface waters from construction and demolition activities. Surface water runoff from construction and future use, and the potential for future spills of urban pollutants, could impact surface water drainages within the Cantonment District. Construction and demolition activities would result in soil disturbance and loss of vegetative cover, which could result in modified surface water runoff patterns from the site or impacts on water quality through transport of sediment- and soil-bound pollutants. Increased runoff from an unvegetated site could result in hydrologic impacts, such as channelization and erosion.

In compliance with the RWQCB related to NPDES Permit No. CAS0029831, stormwater discharges from applicable projects at PRFTA will be designed to incorporate appropriate measures to not cause an increase in the erosion potential of the receiving creek over existing conditions. Potential impacts can be reduced by following BMPs for controlling stormwater quality (U.S. Army Garrison Camp Parks, 2009).

The CWA requires implementation of BMPs to control stormwater quality under the NPDES permit system. These BMPs would also be used on smaller projects not covered under the NPDES permit. In compliance with the RWQCB related to NPDES Permit No. CAS0029831, projects at PRFTA will be designed to incorporate appropriate measures to not cause an increase in the erosion potential of the receiving creek over existing conditions. Such measures may incorporate site design/landscape characteristics that maximize infiltration (where appropriate), provide retention or detention, slow runoff, and minimize impervious land coverage (that is, use hydrologic source controls) to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, short-term, indirect, minor impacts to downstream water courses with regard to flood capacity or the potential flooding of adjoining properties would result with implementation of the Proposed Action (U.S. Army Garrison Camp Parks, 2009).

Potential impacts to surface water could occur from spills of chemicals or fuels during construction or operation of the RPMP projects. Impacts to surface water would be minimized by practicing good housekeeping, such as properly storing materials, and fueling and maintaining construction equipment offsite or in designated areas with appropriate control and containment. Coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (General Construction Permit) would be obtained for construction sites that disturb more than 1 acre. All spills would be addressed in accordance with the PRFTA Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (PRFTA, 2019b), as required under the NPDES permit. This plan includes federal and state environmental regulatory requirements related to spill emergency response procedures.

Compliance with the Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ, SWPPP, and implementation of appropriate BMPs during demolition, construction, and operation of RPMP projects, would minimize impacts on water quality. Potential adverse impacts to water quality would be short term and negligible.

Groundwater The Proposed Action would have a negligible, short-term, adverse, indirect impact on groundwater if encountered during construction and excavation activities. Temporary dewatering may be required if groundwater is encountered, or demolition or construction occurs during wet weather and dewatering of excavations is required. Groundwater removed as a result of dewatering could potentially come in contact with construction-related contaminants, such as fuels, solvents, oils, or grease. Spills from construction materials could also inadvertently contaminate groundwater. Dewatering of the construction sites would be subject to the requirements of a construction dewatering permit and other applicable permits. Therefore, dewatering would not cause construction-related impacts to groundwater quality. Furthermore, implementation of good housekeeping and spill prevention BMPs would avoid and minimize construction- related impacts on groundwater. Therefore, potential impacts would be minimized and no adverse effects during construction would occur. During operation, none of the proposed new facilities would require the use of groundwater.

3-36 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

Construction-site stormwater runoff that recharges shallow groundwater or aquifers can be major sources of pollution to groundwater, which could result in indirect, adverse effects. The severity of the impact would depend on the types of pollutants that are picked up by the stormwater. Common urban stormwater pollutants are fertilizers, used oil, solvents, organic matter, and pet waste. Construction-site stormwater BMPs would reduce or eliminate construction-site contaminants from stormwater runoff that could recharge shallow groundwater or aquifers. Proper use, storage, and disposal of common stormwater pollutants would reduce or eliminate these sources of stormwater and groundwater contamination (U.S. Army Garrison Camp Parks, 2009).

Wetland and Riparian Areas No delineated wetlands are within the proposed construction areas in the Cantonment or Range districts (Figures 3-7 and 3-8). A wetland delineation, and all permitting and mitigation (including avoidance), would be conducted before any ground-disturbing activities were conducted. Measures to protect wetlands include implementation of stormwater BMPs, including installation of silt fencing and straw wattles to minimize runoff into wetland features. Therefore, the Proposed Action would result in no net loss of wetlands, with no long-term, adverse impacts on wetlands.

Flood Zones Implementing the Proposed Action would result in a minor, long-term, adverse, indirect impact to flood zones. The potential for surface water (flooding) to impact the structures and roads built under the Proposed Action is greatest in the area of the 100-year floodplain of the Chabot Canal, in the southern Cantonment District. RPMP projects include buildings and associated roads and parking areas that would be adjacent to surface water drainages in the Cantonment District; however, no buildings or parking lots would be constructed within the 100-year floodplain of the Chabot Canal.

The only RPMP project within the 100-year floodplain of Chabot Canal would be construction of a bridge connecting the eastern terminus of Camp Parks Boulevard to Hutchins Drive. This project would allow vehicle and pedestrian access, as part of improvements to the PRFTA transportation network. Design of the bridge would include measures to avoid or minimize floodplain impacts. If impacts to the 100-year floodplain are unavoidable, then the project would prepare a FNPA in accordance with EO 11988, follow the appropriate review and approval process, and include measures to mitigate the impacts.

A net increase in impervious surfaces would result from implementation of the Proposed Action, which could increase stormwater runoff and potentially cause flooding. The PRFTA Green Infrastructure Plan, shown on Figure 3-9, identifies all major parks and open space elements on the installation. Green infrastructure components should be preserved to the maximum extent possible. Green infrastructure reduces flooding by slowing stormwater runoff velocities and encouraging stormwater infiltration.

The impacts of flooding on the Proposed Action would be minimized by avoiding construction in the 100- year floodplain of the Chabot Canal, except for the proposed bridge, and providing adequate stormwater drainage. Impacts that occur as a result of construction activities within floodplains would be mitigated through compliance with EO 11988, Floodplain Management, and EO 13690, Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the current RPMP would continue to be implemented. Fewer impacts on surface waters, groundwater, wetlands and riparian areas, or flood zones would be expected to occur because there would be less demolition and development than under the Proposed Action; therefore, less ground disturbance would occur.

3-37 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

This page is intentionally left blank.

3-38 3-7 Feet Figure ¯ 0 375 750 1,500 Natural Resources Constraints and Proposed Development Plan – Cantonment District

Source: ESRI World Imagery Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Dublin, California Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

This page is intentionally left blank.

3-40 3-8 Feet Figure ¯ 0 650 1,300 2,600 Natural Resources Constraints and Proposed Development Plan – Range District

Source: ESRI World Imagery Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Dublin, California Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

This page is intentionally left blank.

3-42 3-9 Feet Figure ¯ 0 300 600 1,200 Green Infrastructure Plan – Cantonment District

Source: ESRI World Imagery Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Dublin, California Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

This page is intentionally left blank.

3-44 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

Geology, Soils, and Seismicity

3.2.7.1 Definition of Resource

Geologic resources consist of the earth’s surface and subsurface materials. Soils are the unconsolidated surface materials that form from underlying bedrock or other parent material. Topography refers to an area’s surface features, including its shape, height, and depth. The ROI for impacts to geologic resources considered in this EA includes PRFTA.

3.2.7.2 Affected Environment

Geologic and Topographic Conditions PRFTA lies within the California Coast Ranges section of the Pacific Border geomorphic province. The region is characterized by parallel north-northwest-trending mountain ranges and valleys developed on folded, faulted, and metamorphosed rock strata of Mesozoic and Cenozoic ages (U.S. Army Garrison Camp Parks, 2009).

Two distinct topographic landforms are located on PRFTA. The Cantonment District is a relatively flat to gently sloping landscape, where elevations range from about 325 to 360 feet. In the Range District, the landscape is characterized by rolling hills and relatively steep slopes, where hilltop elevations vary between 650 and 765 feet, with valley floors around 500 feet (U.S. Army Garrison Camp Parks, 2009). Sloping landscape (either less than or greater than 15 percent) within PRFTA, is shown on Figures 3-7 and 3-8.

Soils The predominant soil type at PRFTA is clay. In the Range District of PRFTA, Diablo clays of varying slope cover most of the area. In the Cantonment District portion of PRFTA, Diablo clay is the most dominant form, followed by Clear Lake clay. In general, the Diablo Series consists of well-drained soils underlain by calcareous, soft, fine-grained sandstone and shale.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service web soil survey, the following four soil mapping units are located within the Cantonment District on PRFTA (USDA, 2020). These soil mapping units and their general characteristics are:

• Clear Lake clay, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes (CdA): Surface runoff is slow and there is a low erosion hazard. • Diablo clay, 7 to 15 percent slopes (DbC): This soil has slow to moderate runoff and a slight to moderate erosion hazard. • Diablo clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes (DbD) This soil is well drained and slowly permeable; runoff is moderate. • Diablo clay, very deep, 3 to 15 percent slopes (DvC): Surface runoff is slow to medium and the erosion hazard is slight to moderate. The majority of PRFTA has very low or low liquefaction susceptibility; however, there are small areas of very high, high, or medium liquefaction susceptibility in the Range District and northern Cantonment District. The soils in the southern Cantonment District are primarily classified as having medium liquefaction susceptibility (U.S. Army Garrison Camp Parks, 2009).

Faults and Seismicity PRFTA is located within a seismically active region of the California Coast Ranges. PRFTA is within the Calaveras earthquake fault zone (USGS, 2020). The Calaveras Fault in the vicinity of PRFTA consists of many fault strands across a broad zone that is several miles wide (USGS, 1996). Fault strands in this area can be up to 6.2 miles wide. Offset is distributed along the various fault strands that compose the Calaveras Fault zone, and movement typically changes from one strand to another over time. In the

3-45 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

Cantonment District at PRFTA, at least nine separate faults strands associated with the Calaveras Fault have been identified as either active or potentially active. These faults have been identified as strands of the Pleasanton Fault. Folds are also present in the vicinity of PRFTA. To the west of the installation, the Tassajara Syncline underlies the San Ramon Valley in Alameda and Contra Costa counties (U.S. Army Garrison Camp Parks, 2009).

Landslides Landslides have occurred in the northern and eastern portions of the Range District, where steeper slopes are present. Most of these upland areas are underlain by the Tassajara Formation, which is composed primarily of mudstone with high clay content. These areas are prone to sliding where slopes are steeper than 4:1 (25 percent slope) (U.S. Army Garrison Camp Parks, 2009).

The Cantonment District is classified as “least susceptible,” to landslides. No mass movement activities have been identified in these areas (U.S. Army Garrison Camp Parks, 2009).

Minerals The industrial minerals’ stone and rock, sand and gravel, clay, specialty sand, shale, salt, and fill are mined at various locations in Contra Costa and Alameda counties. Mineral resources are scarce at PRFTA, but include sand and gravel, clay, and potential for oil and gas. Any unconsolidated, clastic deposit, including the Quaternary deposits, could potentially be used for sand and gravel resources, at PRFTA (U.S. Army Garrison Camp Parks, 2009).

3.2.7.3 Consequences

The threshold for a significant impact is one that would do any of the following: • Substantially alter or damage a unique or recognized geologic feature • Adversely affect geologic conditions or processes • Expose people or property to geologic hazards that could result in injury or loss of use • Result in a substantial change in topography • Result in a substantial loss of soil

Proposed Action

Geology and Topography Most of the proposed RPMP projects are located on level or gently sloping, disturbed/developed lands. Implementation of the Proposed Action would have negligible, long-term, adverse, direct effects on geologic and topographic conditions from disturbance during demolition and construction activities.

Soils Impacts to soils could include minor, long-term, adverse, direct impacts from compaction from heavy equipment, construction of impervious surfaces, and erosion from disturbance of soils during earth- moving activities. Disturbed areas would be kept to the minimum required to complete the work, and would be confined within site boundaries. Effective sedimentation and erosion control procedures and BMPs would be used during construction to minimize erosion of surrounding soils as a result of soil/ground disturbance. Stormwater runoff resulting from increased impervious surface area also could contribute to limited soil erosion. Site-specific measures would minimize transport of soils. Appropriate BMPs would be selected based on site-specific conditions and could include, but would not be limited to, sediment barriers (silt fence or straw wattles), temporary detention basins, grade stabilization with seed and mulch, and geotextile slope stabilization.

Additionally, the Proposed Action could have minor, adverse, short-term, direct impacts on soils if a spill or leak of petroleum products or hazardous materials were to occur. In the event of a spill, compliance with the General Construction Permit, SWPPP, and implementation of appropriate BMPs would be followed to quickly contain and clean up the spill. While a spill or leak could occur, implementation of the

3-46 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation above environmental protection measures would minimize the potential for and extent of associated contamination to soils.

Grading plans for facilities and roadways would be prepared at individual sites to identify how sites would be graded, how drainage patterns would be directed, and how runoff velocities would affect receiving waters. The grading plans also would provide information regarding when earthwork would start and stop, establish the degree and length of finished slopes, and specify where and how excess material would be disposed of or where borrow materials would be obtained if needed. Berms, diversions, and other stormwater practices that require excavation and filling also would be incorporated into grading plans. Erosion and sediment control and stormwater management goals would be considered in the grading plans.

With implementation of the above measures, adverse effects to soils would be short term and minor.

Seismicity The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act of 1972 was established to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting on structures for human occupancy. An active fault, as defined by the Act, is one on which movement has occurred in the past 11,000 years (that is, during or since the Holocene). The Act defines any fault on which movement has occurred over the past 1.6 million years (that is, during or since the Quaternary) as potentially active.

Any development or redevelopment of property for human occupancy within the Calaveras earthquake fault zone would require a geologic study before construction begins. These geologic studies, required by the Alquist-Priolo Act, must demonstrate that the building site is not threatened by surface displacement from future faulting. The RPMP projects would be designed using current building codes, standards, and regulations that account for seismic engineering provisions. Geologic studies and compliance with current building codes, standards, and regulations would reduce potentially adverse, long-term effects from seismic activity to a minor effect. Therefore, the Proposed Action would result in a minor, long-term, adverse, indirect effect on safety that could occur from effects of an earthquake.

Mineral Resources Construction of the RPMP projects could result in an adverse effect to future mineral development or exploration of the paleontological resources at PRFTA; however, no mineral (sand and gravel) or paleontological resources have been identified on site. Therefore, any adverse, long-term, direct impacts to mineral resources on PRFTA would be minor.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the current RPMP would continue to be implemented. Fewer impacts on soils would be expected to occur because there would be less demolition and development than under the Proposed Action. The No Action Alternative would have negligible effects on geologic, topographic conditions, seismicity, and mineral resources.

Noise

3.2.8.1 Definition of Resource

Noise, often defined as unwanted sound, is one of the most common environmental issues associated with human activities. Public annoyance is the most common impact associated with exposure to elevated noise levels. The unit used to measure the intensity of sound is the decibel. The effects of noise on people can be listed in three general categories: • Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, or dissatisfaction • Interference with activities, such as speech, sleep, or learning • Physiological effects, such as startling and hearing loss

3-47 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

Noise-sensitive receptors can be defined as lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need, and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. Noise-sensitive receptors may include residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.

Based on numerous sociological surveys and the recommendations of federal interagency councils, the most common noise benchmark referred to is a day-night average sound level of 65 A-weighted decibels (dBA). A-weighting emphasizes sounds in the range of human hearing (EPA, 1974). This threshold is often used to assess residential land-use compatibility around airports, highways, or other transportation corridors.

The ROI for impacts to noise resources considered in this EA includes noise-sensitive receptors within 0.5 mile of PRFTA.

3.2.8.2 Affected Environment

Regional Noise Environment Off-installation noise sources result from land uses surrounding the PRFTA to include commercial, industrial, transportation (BART station), recreational, and residential sources. On installation, noise sources are similarly related to land uses which, on PRFTA, include the Range District in the northern portion, the Cantonment District in the southern portion with administration facilities, and residences in the southwestern corner of the installation. Ambient sources of noise around the proposed ranges on the PRFTA include traffic noise generated at the intersection of I-580 and I-680, about 2.4 miles southwest of PRFTA, and the BART station and rail line located adjacent to I-580. Ambient noise is also contributed to by local parks and recreational areas, residential construction activities, and gunfire from the Alameda County Sheriff’s firing range, which is located directly adjacent to PRFTA (southeast of the Range District) and has day and night live firing. Commercial helicopters also frequently monitor traffic along Dougherty and Tassajara roads to and from I-580.

Local Noise Environment The noise environment at PRFTA varies daily and seasonally because operations are not consistent 365 days a year. However, there are identified “Noise Zones” in and adjacent to the Range District that provide operational constraints to development. Noise Zone I is compatible to development. Noise Zone II is normally incompatible to development, and Noise Zone III is incompatible to all development. Noise zones II and III on PRFTA in relation to the Cantonment and Range districts are shown on Figures 3-10 and 3-11. Areas outside of these two zones are compatible to all development. The range is currently not being used; therefore, noise from the range is lower than shown in these noise maps.

The Army has quantified the existence and extent of noise from training activities conducted at PRFTA, as is documented in an environmental noise management plan (U.S. Army Garrison Camp Parks, 2009). Most perceived noise near PRFTA is the result of military and non-military small arms training and helicopter noise.

Sensitive Receptors

The noise-sensitive land uses in the Proposed Action area include on-post family housing, barracks, and a chapel located in the Cantonment District. In addition, buildings within the Cantonment District are occupied by personnel working on PRFTA. Other noise-sensitive land uses within 0.5 mile of the Proposed Action area include Cross Winds Church (approximately 0.4 mile west), James Dougherty Elementary School (approximately 0.5 mile east), Santa Rita Jail (located east of the Cantonment District), and single- and multi-family housing on the western, southern, and eastern sides of the installation within the City of Dublin.

3-48 Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Cantonment District Range District Noise Zones Zone II

Feet Figure 3-10 ¯ 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Cantonment District - Noise Zones Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Source: ESRI World Imagery Dublin, California Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

This page is intentionally left blank.

3-50 Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Cantonment District Range District Noise Zones Zone II Zone III

Feet Figure 3-11 ¯ 0 2,000 4,000 8,000 Range District - Noise Zones Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Source: ESRI World Imagery Dublin, California Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

This page is intentionally left blank.

3-52 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

Proposed Action Area

3.2.8.3 Consequences

The threshold level of significance for noise is defined as noise that would: • Exceed the day-night average sound level of 65 dBA at a noise-sensitive receptor for a prolonged period • Violate local noise regulations • Cause hearing damage to construction workers

Proposed Action The majority of RPMP projects in the Cantonment District would be located outside of Noise Zones II and III. However, six projects located in the northern portion of the Cantonment District would be within Noise Zone II. These include the wash rack renovation (Project 3), convoy staging area (Project 23), range control facility (Project 24), DPW administration building and shops (Project 17), Logistics Readiness Center (LRC) maintenance building (Project 30), and the RV campground (Project 33).

The Proposed Action would result in minor, short-term, direct noise impacts from construction, demolition, and parking and roadway improvements. During construction and demolition, noise would typically be above background levels. Heavy equipment, such as bulldozers, graders, backhoes, excavators, dump trucks, pavers, jackhammers, and cement trucks, would generate noise that could affect onsite workers.

Construction equipment typically emits noise in the 79- to 89-dBA range, at a distance of 50 feet. If multiple pieces of construction equipment are operating simultaneously, then the noise is increased because of the additional equipment. Therefore, noise from the construction site could be up to 94 dBA at 50 feet, with several large pieces of equipment operating at the same time. There is a reduction of 6 dBA for every doubling of distance from the noise source. Construction workers would use hearing protection and would follow Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards and procedures to protect themselves from construction noise and/or noise being generated by surrounding training activities.

Potential noise effects from construction activities are assessed using a standard reference for construction noise (EPA, 1971). These data are presented in Table 3-11. Heavy equipment can generate noise levels ranging from about 76 to 89 dBA, when measured at 50 feet, and 70 to 83 dBA, when measured at 100 feet without implementation of noise-reduction measures. These noise levels would diminish with distance from the construction site, with a decrease of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance.

Table 3-11. Noise Levels of Construction Equipment at 50 and 100 Feet Noise Level at Noise Level at 50 Feet 100 Feet Equipment (dBA) (dBA)

Earth Moving

Front Loaders 79 73

Backhoes 85 79

Dozers 80 74

Tractors 80 74

Graders 85 79

Pavers 89 83

Trucks 82 76

3-53 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

Table 3-11. Noise Levels of Construction Equipment at 50 and 100 Feet Noise Level at Noise Level at 50 Feet 100 Feet Equipment (dBA) (dBA)

Materials Handling

Concrete Mixers 85 79

Concrete Pump 82 76

Crane 83 77

Concrete Crushers 85 79

Stationary

Pumps 76 70

Generator 78 72

Compressors 81 75

Impact

Jack Hammers 88 82

Pneumatic Tools 86 80

Other

Saws- 78 72

Vibrators 76 70

Source: EPA, 1971.

Construction of the Proposed Action would have short-term, temporary impacts on the noise environment in the vicinity of proposed construction activities. Noise from construction activities could be reduced by using equipment sound mufflers, and restricting construction activity to normal working hours (such as, between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.). Construction under the Proposed Action could affect personnel working in the vicinity of the RPMP projects. Direct exposure of non-construction personnel to construction-related noise would be temporary and limited to times when personnel are traveling between vehicles and buildings or among buildings. Impacts to sensitive receptors and increases in noise levels would be temporary. Construction activities would be intermittent throughout the 30-year implementation of RPMP projects. Although the Proposed Action would increase noise in the immediate vicinity of each project, construction would be limited in duration and, therefore, have a direct, short-term, minor impact on the surrounding environment.

Several RPMP projects are located in Noise Zone II, which is normally incompatible to development. RPMP projects in this area do not include sensitive receptors and are typical of existing facility uses on PRFTA. Noise from operation of the RPMP projects would be similar to the existing noise environment. Therefore, operation of the Proposed Action is anticipated to have a direct, long-term, negligible impact on the surrounding environment.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the current RPMP would continue to be implemented. Noise impacts during construction would be less than under the Proposed Action because less development would occur. Noise from operation of the No Action Alternative would be similar to noise under the Proposed Action.

3-54 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

Transportation

3.2.9.1 Definition of Resource

Transportation and traffic resources generally include the internal and external street systems surrounding the affected environment. This section also considers tactical vehicle routes and the pedestrian and bicycle network. The ROI for impacts to transportation-related resources considered in this EA includes PRFTA and the major roads within 1 mile of PRFTA.

3.2.9.2 Affected Environment The following sections describe the on- and off-Base transportation networks that serve PRFTA. Particular attention is paid to the efforts that improve access to the Base, enhance safety, and eliminate congestion on PRFTA. The existing transportation network on PRFTA is shown on Figures 3-12 and 3-13.

External Transportation Network PRFTA is bordered by Dougherty Road to the west, and Arnold and Tassajara roads to the east. The junction of two main interstate highways (I-580, less than 0.5 mile south of Dublin Boulevard; and I-680, less than 1 mile west of Dougherty Road) provides access to and through the area. Dougherty Road is a north-south arterial road that borders the western edge of PRFTA. Arnold Road is a two-lane local roadway. The main gate at PRFTA is accessible from the eastern side of Dougherty Road.

Internal Transportation Network The transportation network at PRFTA is characterized by poor vehicle circulation resulting from a lack of a well-connected grid system. The only primary road on PRFTA is Davis Road, which is the north-south road on the installation. Camp Parks Boulevard provides access from the main gate the installation. Table 3-12 summarizes the roadway types in the Cantonment District. Most of the roads in the Cantonment District are classified as tertiary, meaning that these roads have the lowest speed limits and carry low volumes of traffic. Secondary roads, which account for 31 percent of the roadway length in the Cantonment District, collect traffic from tertiary roads and distribute it to primary roads.

Table 3-12. Cantonment District Road Types Length Road Type (LF) Percentage

Primary 2,994 5%

Secondary 16,827 31%

Tertiary 34,877 64%

Total 54,698 --

LF = linear foot

Tactical Vehicle Route The tactical vehicle route provides a well-defined way to the Range District for vehicles carrying explosive materials and ammunition. The tactical vehicle route follows Mitchell Road, a residential street not suited for heavy traffic. No redundant tactical vehicle route exists for the Range District.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Network The pedestrian infrastructure at PRFTA is inconsistent and varies by location. Although the housing area has a complete network of sidewalks, other areas of the Cantonment District have limited pedestrian access. The PRFTA does not have separate bicycle infrastructure.

3-55 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

This page is intentionally left blank.

3-56 3-12 Feet Figure ¯ 0 300 600 1,200 Transportation Network – Cantonment District

Source: ESRI World Imagery Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Dublin, California Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

This page is intentionally left blank.

3-58 3-13 Feet Figure ¯ 0 600 1,200 2,400 Transportation Network – Range District Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Dublin, Source: ESRI World Imagery California Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

This intentionally left blank

3-60 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

3.2.9.3 Consequences

The threshold level for significant impacts to transportation and traffic includes a long-term or permanent disruption in traffic flow on adjacent roadways or other surrounding roads, or created hazards to traffic safety. Factors considered in determining whether a significant traffic-related impact could occur include the extent to which the considered alternatives would result in: • An increase in vehicle trips that would disrupt or alter local circulation patterns • Long-term or permanent lane closures or other impediments to traffic • Activities that would create potential traffic safety hazards • Conflicts with pedestrian and bicycle routes or fixed-route transit that would cause safety hazards • Parking demand that exceeds the supply

Proposed Action The Proposed Action would result in adverse, short-term, minor impacts on the transportation network from an increase in traffic and parking lot use associated with demolition and construction equipment and contractor vehicles. The construction and demolition phases of the Proposed Action would require delivery of materials to, and removal of debris from, demolition and construction sites. It may be necessary to temporarily close sections of road during construction. Traffic control procedures, including flaggers and posted detours, would minimize impacts on traffic flow. Construction traffic would account for a small percentage of the total traffic on the installation. Many of the heavy construction vehicles would be driven to the site and kept onsite for the duration of construction and demolition activities, resulting in relatively few additional trips. The proposed RPMP projects would occur at different times and locations on PRFTA over a 30-year period, which would further reduce construction traffic. Any increases in traffic volume associated with the proposed demolition and construction activities would be short-term and minor.

The Proposed Action would not result in large-scale changes for the Cantonment District at PRFTA. Camp Parks Boulevard would remain the primary vehicular entry thoroughfare. A new roundabout, capable of handling WB-67 vehicles, is recommended at the intersection of Camp Parks Boulevard and Davis Avenue. As the main heavy equipment access road, Davis Avenue would be extended to Mitchell Road as the main pathway to the range complex. Mitchell Road would be extended south of Camp Parks Boulevard, terminating at 6th Street. Camp Parks Boulevard would be extended east from Mitchell Road to Hutchins Avenue. This connection would facilitate vehicular flow between the western and eastern sections of the installation. 9th Street would be removed between Cromwell and Adams avenues. This alteration would facilitate a pedestrian-friendly campus environment near the new physical fitness center, transient training enlisted barracks, and Non-Commissioned Officer Academy. The RPMP street and transit plan is on Figures 3-12 and 3-13. Transportation infrastructure improvements would result in minor, long-term, beneficial impacts to the PRFTA transportation network.

Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements are proposed for the installation’s transportation network to improve the safety and mobility of non-motorized traffic, and connectivity and walkability within the Cantonment District, as seen in the sidewalk and bikeway plan on Figure 3-14. These planned routes would provide enhanced safety, promote a healthy environment, and decrease dependence on automobiles for travel needs. Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements would result in a minor, long-term, beneficial impact to the PRFTA transportation network.

Operation of the Proposed Action would not increase or decrease demand for service provided by public transportation. A negligible impact on public transportation would result from the Proposed Action.

3-61 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

This page is intentionally left blank.

3-62 3-14 Feet Figure ¯ 0 300 600 1,200 Sidewalk and Bikeway Plan – Cantonment District Parks Reserve Forces Training Source: ESRI World Imagery Area Dublin, California Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

This page is intentionally left blank.

3-64 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the current RPMP would continue to be implemented. During construction, impacts to the transportation networks on PRFTA and local roads would be fewer than under the Proposed Action because less development would occur. Implementation of the No Action Alternative would maintain current traffic flow patterns and volumes, and would not address deficiencies in the transportation network. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would result in a long-term, adverse impact compared to the Proposed Action.

Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste

3.2.10.1 Definition of Resource

This section describes the affected environment associated with hazardous substances used or stored at the considered locations. A “hazardous substance” refers to any item or agent (biological, chemical, or physical) that has the potential to cause harm to humans, animals, or the environment, either by itself or through interaction with other factors.

Issues associated with hazardous substances typically center around: waste streams; underground storage tanks; aboveground storage tanks; and the storage, transport, use, and disposal of pesticides, fuels, lubricants, and other industrial substances. When such substances are improperly used, they can threaten the health and well-being of wildlife species, habitats, soil and water systems, and humans.

Radon is considered to be part of the affected environment associated with hazardous substances. The Indoor Radon Abatement Act of 1988 established a long-term goal that indoor air be as free from radon as the ambient air outside buildings. In general, elevated indoor radon gas concentrations may present public health concerns.

The ROI for impacts to hazardous substances or wastes considered in this EA includes PRFTA.

3.2.10.2 Affected Environment The PRFTA DPW Environmental Division manages and oversees the environmental program for the tenant organizations on PRFTA. The Integrated Hazardous Material and Waste Management Plan (HMWMP) is a document developed for PRFTA that provides guidance to all personnel who work with hazardous materials and hazardous waste (PRFTA, 2019b). The requirements for accumulation, storage, handling, and disposal of hazardous waste on Fort Rucker are identified in PRFTA’s HMWMP. The HMWMP was developed in accordance with Army Regulation 200-1, Environmental Protection and Enhancement; and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended. The HWMP implements the requirements of Army Regulation 200-1, Chapter 10-1, and provides installation personnel with specific procedures and responsibilities to manage hazardous wastes consistent with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The Hazardous Waste Program Manager at PRFTA manages the hazardous material and hazardous waste program for the installation (PRFTA, 2019b).

Petroleum, oils, and lubricants are the most common types of hazardous waste generated at PRFTA. These substances are used at the equipment concentration sites, during area maintenance support activities, at hobby shops, and at DPW Operations and Maintenance Division shops. Hazardous substances are stored and used, and hazardous wastes are disposed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, as described in the PRFTA HMWMP (PRFTA, 2019b). Fuels are not stored on PRFTA. Vehicles are refueled offsite. Within the Proposed Action area, one Environmental Restoration Site has been identified in the Cantonment District, as shown on Figure 3-5. There are no proposed RPMP projects in the immediate vicinity of the Environmental Restoration Site (Figure 3-3).

3-65 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

3.2.10.3 Consequences

The threshold level of significance for impacts resulting from hazardous materials includes a release of reportable quantities of hazardous materials or a violation of local, state, or federal hazardous materials regulations.

Proposed Action There are sites containing potentially contaminated soil and groundwater, and other hazardous materials on PRFTA. Therefore, the Proposed Action could encounter existing hazardous materials and hazardous waste during construction and demolition activities. An updated site categorization, per AR 200-1 and AR 420-1, would be available or established prior to demolition and construction, to minimize risks to construction personnel and future occupants of proposed facilities and to avoid unforeseen cleanup costs and delays. In addition, demolition and construction associates with the RPMP projects would require the use of hazardous materials, such as gasoline, oils, coolant, and lubricants commonly used by construction equipment, paints, welding gases, solvents, preservatives, and sealants. The hazardous materials used during construction and demolition activities are anticipated to be minimal in quantity and short in duration. Contractors would be responsible for the management of hazardous materials, which would be handled in accordance with federal and state regulations, and the PRFTA HMWMP. Contractors would be trained in proper spill prevention, and spill handling and containment. Contractors would use environmental protection measures to prevent releases so that any releases do not result in contamination.

The Proposed Action could result in short-term, adverse (during removal) and long-term, beneficial (after the materials are removed) effects associated with asbestos-containing material (ACM), lead paint, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). All demolition projects would have a complete survey conducted for ACM, lead paint, and PCBs in construction materials prior to initiating the demolition. Appropriate worker safety measures would be implemented for those workers who could encounter ACM; worker precautions would be taken to minimize potential exposure to lead-based paints when buildings are demolished and when the debris is disposed of. If lead paint is present, a hazardous waste determination would be made on the demolition debris for proper disposal methods as provided in the HMWMP. Long-term, minor, beneficial impacts could occur from eliminating older buildings, which would result in less exposure to, and maintenance of, ACM, lead paint, and PCB-contaminated materials.

To reduce the adverse effects associated with hazardous materials and hazardous waste, proposed mitigation would require that all remediation at sites containing known or discovered hazardous materials or hazardous wastes be performed in compliance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, other applicable federal and state laws and regulations, and DoD policies. This will facilitate the accurate characterization and disposal of contaminated wastes and protect workers and the public from exposure to hazardous substances. Information on environmental remediation at PRFTA may be found in the FY2015 Parks Reserve Force Training Area Army Defense Environmental Restoration Program Installation Action Plan (PRFTA, 2015).

No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the current RPMP would continue to be implemented. There would be no long-term, beneficial impacts from replacing dated facilities with modernized facilities that meet current regulations for storage of hazardous materials and wastes. Hazardous materials would continue to be stored in existing, inadequate facilities that do not meet current environmental or safety standards.

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

3.2.11.1 Definition of Resource

Socioeconomic resources are defined as the basic attributes associated with the human environment, particularly population and economic activity. Population is described as the magnitude, characteristics, and distribution of people. Economic activity is described in terms of employment distribution, personal income, and business growth. Environmental justice is described as the fair treatment and meaningful

3-66 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The human environment includes the natural and physical environment, and the relationship of people with that environment, including recreational and public uses of the land (CEQ, 1978). The ROI for impacts to socioeconomics considered in this EA includes Alameda and Contra Costa counties.

3.2.11.2 Affected Environment

Economic Development PRFTA lies within Alameda and Contra Costa counties, which are within the Oakland Metropolitan Statistical Area. As of July 2019, population estimations were 1,671,329 for Alameda County and 1,153,526 for Contra Costa County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020). There are over 20,000 Active Duty, Reserve and National Guard, military families, DoD personnel, and retirees assigned to PRFTA (PRFTA, 2020).

Employment was estimated to be 690,339 in Alameda County and 336,654 in Contra Costa County in 2017. The employment rate in both Alameda and Contra Costa counties has increased since 2016 and 2017, by 4.2 and 3.3 percent, respectively (U.S. Census, 2020). The largest employment sectors are services, government, retail trade, and manufacturing (U.S. Army Garrison Camp Parks, 2009).

Fire, Police, Emergency, and Medical Services The Alameda County Fire Department provides all-risk service to the unincorporated areas of Alameda County and to the City of Dublin. These services include fire suppression, arson investigation, hazardous substance mitigation, paramedic services, urban search and rescue, fire prevention and public education. The City of Dublin Police Department provides police service within the City of Dublin.

The Directorate of Emergency Services is the garrison entity that provides for the protection, welfare, and safety of the community on PRFTA. This includes all first responders to emergency situations and planned response functions, educate the community, and disseminate public safety-related information. The Directorate of Emergency Services includes the PRFTA Police Department and the PRFTA Fire Department (HDR, 2012).

Environmental Justice

EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (1994), requires federal agencies to achieve environmental justice "to the greatest extent practicable" by identifying and addressing "disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effects of … activities on minority populations and low-income populations."

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, approximately 50 percent of the population of Alameda County, and approximately 35 percent of the population of Contra Costa County consists of minority groups (U.S. Census, 2020). Alameda County shows approximately 9 percent of its population in poverty; Contra Costa County consists approximately 8 percent of its population in poverty (U.S. Census, 2020).

Protection of Children PRFTA follows the guidelines for the protection of children as specified in EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risk (Federal Register, April 23, 1997, Volume 62, Number 78). Approximately 22 and 25 percent of the populations of Alameda and Contra Costa counties are under the age of 18, which is consistent with the state of California (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020).

Housing Approximately 615,077 and 415,919 housing units were in Alameda and Contra Costa counties, respectively, in 2018 (U.S. Census, 2020). Military family housing consists of one neighborhood located in

3-67 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation the southwestern portion of the Cantonment District. Housing on PRFTA also includes barracks located within the Cantonment District.

Recreation The City of Dublin Parks and Community Services Department provides parks and recreational facilities within the City boundaries (City of Dublin, 2020a). Recreational resources in the vicinity of PRFTA include Alamo Creek Park, Emerald Glen Park, biking trails, public access walking and hiking trails along Tassajara Creek and South San Ramon Creek (such as, the Iron Horse Regional Trail), and private facilities for residents of area subdivisions (U.S. Army Garrison Camp Parks, 2009). Recreational opportunities on PRFTA include a fitness center and physical training track. In addition, undeveloped areas within the Cantonment District can be used for passive recreational activities and picnics.

3.2.11.3 Consequences

The threshold level of significance for impacts to socioeconomics would be a substantial increase in population, displacement of people or housing, or unacceptable reductions in levels of service for fire and police protection, schools, parks and recreation, and other public services.

The threshold level of significance for impacts to public services would be an exceedance of the existing capacity of emergency response for local fire, hospital, and/or police services.

The threshold level for significant impacts to environmental justice populations is defined as the level at which disproportionately high and adverse impacts to these populations would occur.

The threshold level for significant impacts to children is defined as the level at which disproportionate impacts to children’s health and safety would occur.

Proposed Action

Economic Development The Proposed Action would have temporary, minor to moderate, beneficial impacts on economic development. There would be temporary construction employment and associated wages. In addition, local suppliers could experience a short-term increase in the demand for construction-related materials. Construction associated with the Proposed Action would continue for the next 30 years, with associated economic benefits occurring intermittently throughout that period. The Proposed Action would have no long-term impacts on employment or income on PRFTA or the surrounding area.

Fire, Police, Emergency, and Medical Services The Proposed Action would have no adverse and some minor, beneficial, impacts to fire, police, emergency, and medical services. The Proposed Action would not affect off-post police, fire, and emergency services. PRFTA would provide police, fire, and emergency services to the new facilities. However, these services would be provided in the normal service area and would not unduly burden existing police, fire, or emergency services. The increase in construction-related traffic generated by the proposed RPMP projects is not expected to impact emergency vehicle response times.

Minor, long-term, beneficial impacts to fire, police, emergency, and medical services would also result from replacing outdated facilities on PRFTA that do not meet current standards. The proposed modernized facilities would be compliant with all current applicable fire and safety standards and regulations.

Environmental Justice

Alameda and Contra Costa counties do not have a disproportionately high population of economically disadvantaged people. The counties generally have a higher percentage of minorities and a lower percentage of disadvantaged people than California as a whole (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020).

3-68 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

The Proposed Action would not affect minorities or disadvantaged people on PRFTA because there would not be an increase in personnel at the installation with implementation of the Proposed Action. Beneficial impacts would occur to all people on PRFTA, as a result of replacing outdated facilities with modernized facilities. The Proposed Action would have a negligible effect on economically disadvantaged people or minority communities in the vicinity of PRFTA.

Protection of Children The Proposed Action would have a negligible effect on children during construction. Construction and demolition areas would be secured and fenced, reducing potential safety concerns regarding children residing on post. The hazardous materials storage locations would be secured against unauthorized entry.

The Proposed Action would have overall minor, long-term, beneficial impacts to children from operation of a child development center (Project 23).

Housing The Proposed Action would have a negligible effect on housing communities at PRFTA. Redevelopment would include new barracks facilities, enlisted unaccompanied personnel housing, and overnight quarters; however, these facilities would only be for students attending a specific training course or school.

Recreation The Proposed Action would have overall minor, long-term, beneficial impacts on recreational activities on PRFTA. The Proposed Action would develop multipurpose facilities to include a new fitness center, physical training track, and an RV campground, which can provide social and recreational opportunities for Soldiers and families.

No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the current RPMP would continue to be implemented. Construction- related jobs, wages, or local sales of materials would occur, although not to the extent as under the Proposed Action. The No Action Alternative would not result in the long-term, beneficial impacts to fire, police, emergency, and medical services or recreational facilities on PRFTA that occur under the Proposed Action.

Utilities and Infrastructure

3.2.12.1 Definition of Resource

Utility infrastructure refers to the system of public works that provides the underlying framework for a community. Utilities include electric, gas, telephone, Internet service, sanitary sewer, and domestic water systems. The ROI for impacts to utilities and infrastructure considered in this EA includes PRFTA.

3.2.12.2 Affected Environment

Water The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the water distribution system within PRFTA. Water is currently delivered by DSRSD to a central meter located near PRFTA. The water distribution system for PRFTA is in immediate need of repair, upgrade, and replacement.

Sanitary Sewer DSRSD is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the wastewater collection system within PRFTA. The mains and distribution system are owned, operated, and repaired by DSRSD. Wastewater

3-69 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation generated at PRFTA is conveyed to the DSRSD’s wastewater treatment plant, located in the nearby City of Pleasanton, and is discharged into San Francisco Bay.

Electrical Electrical service to PRFTA is provided by PG&E. PG&E owns the distribution system, and electricity use is metered at each building. PRFTA has focused on the development of a microgrid to increase energy independence and ensure continuous operations amid losses to critical infrastructure. An example of this strategy is the 2-megawatt photovoltaic (PV) system that will provide close to 50 percent of the installation’s energy when operational.

Telecommunications Telecommunication service to PRFTA is provided by AT&T. On Base, utility access hole and conduit systems provide communications support for the installation through buried communication infrastructure. Service and infrastructure are available to support a wide range of communication requirements, including voice, data, video, wireless, and security systems.

Natural Gas PG&E supplies PRFTA with natural gas. Natural gas is available for backup emergency generators. A 300-kilowatt, natural gas-powered, fuel cell was installed, helping reduce electrical costs and provide onsite electrical generation.

Stormwater Drainage System The PRFTA stormwater drainage system is composed of curb and gutter systems, and several independent drainage pipes and channels. These are gravity-fed into a major surface channel, which leaves the installation in the southwestern comer of the property, draining into the Chabot Canal, then into Alamo Creek, Alameda Creek, and eventually into San Francisco Bay. Most surface runoff drains into open culverts. The remaining runoff, at the western portion of the installation, is diverted into existing, 30- inch-diameter, vitrified clay pipe.

Alternative Energy Infrastructure In 2015, PRFTA completed the construction of a 2-megawatt PV system, encompassing 10 acres. As of January 2020, the project is not yet operational. When operational, it will provide close to 50 percent of the installation’s electrical energy. In addition to the large PV system, several small renewable energy projects have been installed at PRFTA.

On PRFTA, the new 43,000-square foot (SF) USAR Training Center is registered with the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green building program, with a goal of achieving LEED Gold certification upon completion.

In 2010, PRFTA was a designated as an “energy net zero facility” as a part of the Army Net Zero Initiative. The Net Zero Pilot program consisted of 17 pilot installations that focused on reducing energy, water, and waste at Army installations.

Solid Waste Management Solid waste collection and disposal services at PRFTA are provided under contract, and are managed and monitored by installation staff. Most service areas are managed and monitored specifically by the DPW and Directorate of Logistics.

PRFTA has implemented an integrated solid waste management plan and qualified recycling program (QRP) to direct solid waste management practices. These practices include source reduction through the reuse and recycling of materials, and purchasing of materials with recycled content. Reporting of quantities of materials reused, recycled, and disposed, along with the quantities of recycled materials purchased by PRFTA, is a requirement. Solid waste management at PRFTA is conducted in accordance

3-70 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation with the integrated solid waste management plan and QRP and coordinated with the DPW, Directorate of Logistics, Solid Waste Manager, and QRP Manager.

3.2.12.3 Consequences

The threshold level for significant impacts to utilities is a change in the demand that causes utility providers to be incapable of providing sufficient capacity for the project, reduces their abilities to provide adequate utilities to customers, or requires substantial additional non-renewable, renewable, and/or financial resources or infrastructure to support the demand.

Proposed Action Short-term, negligible impacts on utilities would be expected from the Proposed Action. Short-term interruptions could occur when buildings are disconnected from or connected to utilities. Interruptions in services would be coordinated with area users prior to disconnection, to the extent practicable. Existing utilities in and near the construction footprint would be identified in advance of construction to limit impacts.

Long-term, minor, direct impacts on utility systems would be expected from the Proposed Action because of the increase in demand from the increased building space for select RPMP projects. Buildings erected in areas not currently occupied would require expansion of existing utility delivery to provide service, but there would be no change in infrastructure capacity. Energy supply, water supply, and wastewater treatment capacity are sufficient to accommodate the increased demand resulting from the new structures

Minor, long-term, indirect, beneficial impacts would also be expected from the Proposed Action as a result of demolishing old buildings with outdated utilities and constructing new buildings with updated systems. The Proposed Action would also have long-term, direct, beneficial impacts on utilities at PRFTA because newer fixtures, sinks, toilets, and showers would increase utility efficiency and reduce usage. In addition, utility efficiency would be increased by using LEED Silver construction design.

The Proposed Action would result in short-term, minor, adverse impacts from an increase in demolition and construction debris. Solid waste generated from the proposed construction and demolition activities would consist of building materials, such as solid pieces of concrete, metals, and lumber. Contractors would be required to recycle construction and demolition debris to the maximum extent practicable, thereby diverting it from landfills. Materials with possible recycling potential include glass, plastics, asphalt, concrete, metal, carpeting, and gypsum wallboard and lumber.

The Proposed Action would result in a long-term, adverse effect by permanently using landfill capacity through the disposal of nonrecyclable construction and demolition debris. However, the quantity of waste generated would not exceed the capacity of regional facilities. There would be negligible, long-term change in the future quantity of solid waste generated compared to existing levels because personnel and types of activities would remain about the same.

No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the current RPMP would continue to be implemented. The No Action Alternative would retain current deficiencies in utility infrastructure, which would be remedied with implementation of the Proposed Action. Additionally, there would be no long-term, beneficial impacts from replacing buildings that have outdated utilities with new buildings containing updated, efficient systems.

Cumulative Effects

3.2.13.1 Introduction

This section presents the recent, present, and foreseeable future projects that were considered during the assessment of cumulative effects of each alternative. Cumulative impacts can result from individually insignificant, but potentially collectively significant, actions taking place over time. Among the principles of

3-71 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

cumulative impacts analysis discussed in the CEQ guide Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ, 1997), is the statement: “…for cumulative effects analysis to help the decision maker and inform interested parties, it must be limited through scoping to effects that can be evaluated meaningfully.”

3.2.13.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions The potential for cumulative impacts to the environment from the Proposed Action was evaluated by reviewing ongoing and planned projects that could affect the same environmental resources as the Proposed Action on PRFTA and within the vicinity of the installation, in the cities of Dublin and San Ramon. Such projects include recently completed (within the past 5 years, since 2015) construction projects and construction projects that are underway or are programmed to occur in the near future (within 5 years, up to 2025). Table 3-13 includes projects considered in the cumulative analysis.

Table 3-13. Planned Projects in the Vicinity of PRFTA Project Name Type of Project Project Size Project status as of 8/2020

City of Dublin

Wallis Ranch Neighborhood Medium-density Residential Project includes 74 homes on 7.4 Under construction 3 (Ivy Oak) acres.

Wallis Ranch Neighborhood Medium-density Residential Project includes 147 homes on Under construction 4 (Citron) 12.3 acres.

Wallis Ranch Neighborhood Medium-high-density Project includes townhouse Under construction 6 (Riverton) Residential neighborhood of 125 homes on 9.8 acres.

Wallis Ranch Neighborhood Medium-density Residential Project includes 139 homes on Under construction 8 (Fielding) 12.3 acres.

Moller Ranch/Tassajara Hills Single-Family Residential Project includes 370, 2-story Under construction and Semi-Public houses of 3,098 to 5,161 square feet on 80 acres.

Safari Kids Childcare & Semi-Public Project includes 14,936-square- Under construction Community Center foot building on 2.1 acres.

Jordan Ranch – Onyx Medium-density Residential Project includes 105 residential Under construction (Neighborhood 7) units on 10.1 acres.

East Ranch (Croak Property) Low-density Residential, Project includes 573-unit Planning application Medium-density Residential, residential project (including 96 submitted Rural medium-density residential units Residential/Agriculture, and 477 low-density, single-family Parks/Public Recreation, residential units), as well as 11.5 Open Space, Public/Semi- acres of public parks, a 2.6-acre Public age-qualified amenity site, and a 2-acre public/semi-public site on 165.5 acres.

Grand View Project General Commercial, This is a mixed-use project Pre-application submitted General composed of up to 2,391,668 Commercial/Campus Office, square feet of retail/commercial Open Space and and office uses, and up to 338 Medium/High-density housing units on 122 acres. Residential

At Dublin Neighborhood Commercial, Project includes 240,000 square Project denied General Commercial, feet of commercial uses and up to Medium-high-density 566 residential units on 77.3 Residential, High-density acres. Residential, and Public/Semi-Public

3-72 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

Table 3-13. Planned Projects in the Vicinity of PRFTA Project Name Type of Project Project Size Project status as of 8/2020

Grafton Plaza Daycare and Mixed Use/Campus Office Project includes 2 new retail City Council approved Retail buildings and 1 daycare building Site Development Review on 3.68 acres. and Minor Use Permit

Grafton Plaza - Apex Mixed Use/Campus Office 115 townhomes, 127-room hotel, Under construction Townhomes 55,000 square feet of retail

Volvo Cars Dublin General 23,863-square-foot car dealership Planning application Commercial/Campus Office on 2.08 acres under review

Tru Hotel and Element Hotel Medical 84,476 square foot hotel with 129 Planning application Campus/Commercial rooms; a 53,873 square foot hotel under review with 120 rooms; and a pad for future development on 5.75 acres

Kaiser commercial - Nissan Medical 35,000-square-foot, 2-story City Council approved site Campus/Commercial medical offices development review permit 2019

Boulevard (Dublin Crossing) Dublin Crossing Specific Phase 1 of the Boulevard project Completed construction of – Phase 1 Plan includes 453 units and landscape three neighborhoods, improvements on 28.34 acres. construction of three neighborhoods is underway

Boulevard (Dublin Crossing) Dublin Crossing Specific Project includes up to 1,995 Under construction – Phase 2 & 3 Plan residential units, up to 200,000 square feet of commercial uses, 35 acres of public parkland, a 12- acre elementary school site, and related infrastructure on 54.5 acres.

Boulevard (Dublin Crossing) Dublin Crossing Specific Phases 4 and 5 of the project Under construction – Phase 4 & 5 Plan include 510 units and landscape improvements on 40 acres.

Quarry Lane Preschool Business Park/Industrial and Project includes 26,000-square- Project approved in Outdoor Storage foot building to house the Quarry August 2019 Lane Preschool on 2.68 acres.

Ashton at Dublin Station High-density Residential Project includes 220-unit Project in plan check apartment community and related amenities, which include a fitness center, pool, rooftop lounge, and 331 structured parking spaces on 2.36 acres.

Zeiss Innovation Center Campus Office Phase 1 will consist of a 3-story Under construction research and development building of 208,650 square feet with an entry plaza, a surface parking lot with 663 parking spaces and landscaping throughout the site. Phase 2 will consist of an additional 5-story research and development building of 224,440 square feet and a 5-story, 1,229-space parking garage on 11.36 acres.

IKEA Retail Center General Commercial Project includes 410,000 square Pending submittal of a feet of commercial uses includes a building application 317,000-square-foot IKEA store with integrated podium parking, and a 93,000-square-foot

3-73 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

Table 3-13. Planned Projects in the Vicinity of PRFTA Project Name Type of Project Project Size Project status as of 8/2020 commercial center with a mix of retail and restaurant spaces on 27.5 acres.

Westin Hotel Campus Office Project includes 163,133-square- Approved by Council foot, 6-story hotel on 5.88 acres. October 2019

Dougherty Road Transportation Project includes two new vehicular Construction completed in Improvement Project travel lanes with median island, August 2018 new and improved bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, new bus stops and bus pullouts, roadway widening; completed 2018.

City of San Ramon Project includes developing 2.1 Approved July 2020 City Center Commercial million square feet for a mixed-use center on 39 acres; approximately 489 residential housing units would be aboveground floor retail.

Source: City of Dublin 2020b; City of San Ramon 2020.

3.2.13.3 Cumulative Effects by Resource Category Cumulative impacts are discussed only for resources that may experience impacts. The following resources are expected to have negligible cumulative impacts and are not discussed: geology, soils, topography, and mineralogy. Resources that have potential for cumulative impacts are discussed below by resource category.

3.2.13.4 Land Use

The effects of the RPMP, when combined with impacts of other past present or reasonably foreseeable projects, would not be expected to have significant cumulative impacts on land use in the area. The Proposed Action and other projects in the area would add to a change from open space to developed area. Impacts on land use would not be significant because proposed development would occur within the appropriate areas based on land-use plans and zoning within the local communities.

There would be no cumulative effects to land use from the No Action Alternative because the existing RPMP projects would not change land use on PRFTA.

3.2.13.5 Aesthetics

The effects of the RPMP, when combined with impacts of other past present or reasonably foreseeable projects, would not be expected to have significant cumulative impacts on aesthetics in the area. Construction projects in the surrounding communities would follow appropriate local regulations related to consistency with existing development. Beneficial impacts from the implementation of the RPMP projects would add positively to impacts to aesthetics from projects within the local communities.

There would be cumulative effects to aesthetics from the No Action Alternative because the existing RPMP projects would result in minor changes on PRFTA that would add to changes occurring in the surrounding communities.

3-74 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

3.2.13.6 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

The effects of the RPMP, when combined with impacts of other past present or reasonably foreseeable projects, would not be expected to have significant cumulative impacts to air quality. The Proposed Action would result in long-term, cumulative effects to air quality from the addition of criteria pollutants being produced in the local area. The combined emissions are not expected to have significant impact on air quality because the projects are residential and commercial and would not result in large amounts of emissions. The limited amount of GHG emissions from the Proposed Action would not contribute significantly to climate change, but any emission of GHGs represents an incremental increase in global GHG concentrations.

3.2.13.7 Biological Resources

The effects of the RPMP, when combined with impacts of other past present or reasonably foreseeable projects, would not be expected to have significant cumulative impacts to biological resources. There would be a cumulative loss of vegetation and related wildlife habitat from construction projects. The impact from vegetation removal on common wildlife would be negligible because vegetation within the Cantonment District does not provide critical habitat for wildlife, and only a very small percentage of grassland in the Range District would be removed.

There would be no cumulative effects to threatened, endangered, or special-status species because the RPMP projects would not impact these species. There would be negligible, cumulative effects to biological species from the No Action Alternative.

3.2.13.8 Cultural Resources

The effects of the RPMP, when combined with impacts of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects, would not be expected to have significant cumulative impacts to cultural resources on PRFTA. There would not be a cumulative loss or effect to significant archaeological or built environment resources from the RPMP projects. The RPMP Proposed Action would have no adverse effect to known significant cultural resources, such as the original Camp Park Entrance Sign (P-01-010495), and specific measures have been developed in accordance with the PRFTA ICRMP to avoid or mitigate effects to undiscovered cultural resources during construction. Therefore, no cumulative impacts to cultural resources would occur from the Proposed Action or the No Action Alternative.

3.2.13.9 Water Resources and Water Quality The Proposed Action could result in minor, cumulative impacts to water resources during construction. Earth-moving activities associated with multiple construction projects occurring simultaneously could affect water resources by decreasing the quality of surface water runoff during storm events. PRFTA has a stormwater permit for industrial activity and a post-wide SWPPP. Impacts from multiple actions would be reduced to less-than-significant levels by adhering to the permits and programs that are currently in place or would be implemented under the Proposed Action. A construction SWPPP would be prepared for each project. No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated.

3.2.13.10 Noise Noise associated with construction and demolition during implementation of the proposed projects could contribute to short-term, cumulative noise impacts with other projects in proximity to the installation. Multiple concurrent sources of periodic loud noises associated with construction or demolition could result in increased annoyance and disruption of outdoor activities compared to single sources. Predicted noise levels from the proposed projects would not be expected to interact with noise outside of the PRFTA boundary. The Proposed Action is not anticipated to result in cumulative noise impacts because no long- term increase in noise would occur with implementation of the RPMP projects. The No Action Alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts from noise at facilities or the adjoining community.

3-75 Section 3. Affected Environment, Environmental Assessment Environmental Consequences, November 2020 and Mitigation

3.2.13.11 Transportation

The Proposed Action would temporarily affect the local roadway network during project construction because of minor, short-term increases in truck traffic and traffic from construction workers in personal vehicles. Other reasonably foreseeable future projects constructed concurrently with the Proposed Action would also temporarily affect the local roadway network. However, it is anticipated that traffic volumes during construction would be within the capacity of roadways off-post, and no long-term increase in traffic volume is anticipated. Given the short-term increases in traffic, the contribution of the Proposed Action to cumulative traffic impacts would not be significant.

The Proposed Action would not increase operational (long-term) traffic. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not contribute to cumulative impacts to long-term regional traffic.

3.2.13.12 Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste

Impacts from hazardous material and hazardous substance management and disposal of regulated wastes from the Proposed Action could have minor, cumulative impacts when added to other projects planned in the area. Hazardous materials and substances would be used, stored, and managed in strict accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. Disposal of regulated wastes would be handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal and local regulations, thereby reducing the likelihood of impacts. A spill-response program would be established where significant quantities of hazardous materials and petroleum products are stored or used in accordance with applicable federal and local regulations as well. The No Action Alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts from hazardous materials and wastes.

3.2.13.13 Socioeconomics

Minor, short-term benefits to socioeconomics would occur with construction of the Proposed Action or other reasonably foreseeable future actions, because implementation of the projects would require a temporary increase in civilian contract employees (construction workers) at the installation during construction. Construction workers would purchase meals, gasoline, and other commodities near PRFTA from local businesses. The Proposed Action would not result in a long-term change in socioeconomic conditions. Reasonably foreseeable future projects are primarily associated with construction of residential and commercial infrastructure in the City of Dublin, and long-term changes in socioeconomic conditions on PRFTA would not occur. No cumulative impacts are anticipated, because the Proposed Action, combined with other planned reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not affect the existing socioeconomic environment of the region.

3.2.13.14 Utilities and Infrastructure Removal of inefficient buildings and construction of modern energy-efficient buildings would result in cumulative improvements to utility usage, including water and energy use, which would be a minor benefit to energy consumption in the region. The Proposed Action would also have long-term, direct, beneficial impacts on utilities at PRFTA because LEED Silver construction design would increase utility efficiency and reduce usage. Reasonably foreseeable future projects would be anticipated to increase use of water and energy resources regionally. Long-term, minor, cumulative beneficial effects would be expected on energy use and infrastructure from the construction of new facilities and demolition of older facilities under the Proposed Action. The No Action Alternative would not contribute to cumulative impacts from utility usage.

3-76 Section 4. Findings and Environmental Assessment Conclusions November 2020

4. Findings and Conclusions 4.1 Findings No significant environmental or socioeconomic effects have been identified from the Proposed Action. Table 4-1 (at the end of this section) summarizes the consequences of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative.

Consequences of the Preferred Alternative

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative could result in adverse impacts on air quality and greenhouse gases, biological resources, cultural resources, surface and groundwaters waters, floodplains, noise, traffic, and hazardous materials and hazardous waste. All of these impacts, however, would be reduced to minor or moderate levels with implementation of project design features and mitigation measures. There may be incidental wildlife mortality associated with construction, but animal losses would not threaten regional population levels. There would also be limited displacement of wildlife from the project areas, but the animals would either return to the adjacent areas or adjust to the new areas.

Minor, beneficial impacts would occur for: the local economy from construction-related jobs and purchases of supplies and materials; recreation from improved facilities; fire, police, emergency, and medical services from replacing outdated facilities that do not meet current safety standards; transportation from increased available parking areas and improved transportation circulation to include bicycle and pedestrian use; and utilities from using LEED Silver construction design.

The potential for indirect and cumulative negative impacts resulting from interaction of the Proposed Action with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects is negligible. Demolition, construction, and improvement projects could result in localized, short-term, cumulative impacts if multiple proposed projects occur at the same time. Long-term, minor, cumulative beneficial effects would be expected on energy use and infrastructure from the construction of new facilities and demolition of older facilities.

Consequences of the No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, conditions and facilities would remain as they are on PRFTA. Failure to accomplish the Proposed Action would result in use of the current RPMP. Mission requirements for land use and facilities that have changed since 2013 would not be recognized or addressed through the Army RPMP process. 4.2 Conclusions

Based on the findings of this EA, we recommend that the Preferred Alternative, as it is written and proposed, be implemented and that a FNSI be issued for the Proposed Action.

Table 4-1. Summary Level of Impact to Each Resource Area Alternative Impact of Action Cumulative Impact Impact Reduction Measure

Land Use

Proposed Action Minor Negligible None Minor Negligible No Action Alternative None

Aesthetics

Proposed Action Minor Beneficial Negligible None

No Action Alternative Minor Beneficial Negligible None

4-1 Section 4. Findings and Environmental Assessment Conclusions November 2020

Table 4-1. Summary Level of Impact to Each Resource Area Alternative Impact of Action Cumulative Impact Impact Reduction Measure

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

Proposed Action Minor Negligible Minimize unnecessary vehicle trips and idling time. Use clean, efficient equipment. Minor Negligible No Action Alternative None

Biological Resources

Proposed Action Vegetation – Negligible Negligible Perform preconstruction Wildlife – Negligible surveys, avoidance measures, Threatened and Endangered passive relocation of species. Species – Moderate (habitat)

No Action Alternative Negligible Negligible None

Cultural Resources

Proposed Action No Impact No Impact Minimize ground disturbance, complete archaeological monitoring for large-scale earth disturbances in medium- to high-sensitive areas; complete occasional monitoring during isolated or small-scale earth disturbances; develop environmentally sensitive areas around the location of known cultural resources within 100 feet of construction footprints.

No Action Alternative Negligible Negligible None

Water Resources and Water Quality

Proposed Action Surface water, Wetlands – Negligible Practice proper use, storage, No Impact and disposal of common Groundwater – Negligible stormwater pollutants. Eliminate these sources of Floodplains – Minor stormwater and groundwater contamination. Follow stormwater BMPs. Conduct compliance with EO 11988, and EO 13690 to mitigate impacts in floodplains.

No Action Alternative Negligible Negligible None

Geology, Soils and Seismicity

Proposed Action Geology and Topography – Negligible Perform ecologic studies and Minor provide compliance with current building codes, Soils, Seismicity, Mineral Resources – Minor standards, and regulations.

No Action Alternative Negligible Negligible None

Noise

Proposed Action Minor Negligible Use equipment sound mufflers, and restrict construction activity to normal working

4-2 Section 3. Findings and Environmental Assessment Conclusions November 2020

Table 4-1. Summary Level of Impact to Each Resource Area Alternative Impact of Action Cumulative Impact Impact Reduction Measure hours (i.e., between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.).

No Action Alternative Negligible Negligible None

Transportation

Proposed Action Short-term Adverse Negligible None Long-term Beneficial Negligible Negligible No Action Alternative None

Hazardous Materials/Hazardous Waste

Proposed Action Moderate Negligible Have remediation at all sites comply with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, other applicable federal and state laws and regulations, and DoD policies.

No Action Alternative Negligible Negligible None

Socioeconomics

Proposed Action Beneficial Negligible None

No Action Alternative Negligible Negligible None

Utilities and Infrastructure

Proposed Action Short-term Adverse Beneficial None Long-term Beneficial

No Action Alternative Negligible Negligible None

4-3 Section 4. Findings and Environmental Assessment Conclusions November 2020

This page is intentionally left blank.

4-4 Section 5. References Environmental Assessment November 2020

5. References

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2001. 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2015. Bay Area Emissions Inventory Summary Report: Greenhouse Gases. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Emission%20Inventory/BY2011_ GHGSummary.ashx?la=en&la=en.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017a. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017b. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. https://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and- attainment-status.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017c. 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. April. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_- proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en.

California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2016. Diesel Risk Reduction Plan. California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target.

California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2019. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2017.

California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2020a. Maps and Tables of Area Designations for State And National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available at https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2019/sad19/isorappc.pdf. Accessed April 6, 2020. California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2020b. “iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics.” http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/. Accessed April 8, 2020. City of Dublin. 2020a. Parks & Community Services. https://dublin.ca.gov/90/Parks-Community-Services. Accessed April 2020. City of Dublin. 2020b. Development Activity. http://www.dublin.ca.gov/174/Development-Activity. Accessed March 2020. City of San Ramon. 2020. City of San Ramon Current Project List, Project Status as of February 29, 2020. http://www.sanramon.ca.gov/our_city/departments_and_divisions/community_development/planning_serv ices/current_project_list. Accessed March 2020. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1978. Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act. Daly, Jacob/Fort Hunter Liggett Natural Resources Manager. 2020. Personal communication with Laura Haught/Jacobs. August 31. Department of the Army. 2005. Army Regulation 210-20 Real Property Master Planning for Army Installations. May 16. Department of Defense (DoD). 2019. Unified Facilities Criteria 2-100-01 Installation Master Planning. October 25, 2019.

5-1 Section 5. References Environmental Assessment November 2020

Department of Defense (DoD). 2020. Military Installation. Camp Parks In-depth Overview. https://installations.militaryonesource.mil/in-depth-overview/camp-parks. Accessed January 17. 2020. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2016. Updated Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents.

HDR. 2012. Final Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan/Environmental Assessment Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, California. March. Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (PRFTA). 2015. FY2015 Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Army Defense Environmental Restoration Program Installation Action Plan, Military Munitions Response Program. July 21. Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (PRFTA). 2019a. Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan. Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (PRFTA). 2019b. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. September 2019. Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (PRFTA). 2020. Camp Parks Army Base. https://report-to- base.com/branch/army/parks/. Accessed April 2020. The Urban Collaborative, LLC., 2013. Installation Design Guide for Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (PRFTA). August 12. The Urban Collaborative, LLC., 2014. Installation Development Plan for Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (PRFTA). September. U.S. Army Garrison Camp Parks. 2009. Final Environmental Impact Statement on Master Planned Redevelopment at Camp Parks. Volumes 1 and 2. July.

U.S. Army Reserve Command (USARC). 2009. Environmental Assessment Addressing the Establishment of Three Combat Support Training Centers. June. U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. Quick Facts Contra Costa County, Alameda County California. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/contracostacountycalifornia,alamedacountycalifornia,CA/PS T045219. Accessed April 2020.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2020 Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed April 2020.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. National Air Toxics Assessment. Accessed April 2020. https://www.epa.gov/national-air-toxics-assessment. August 22. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2020a. EPA Greenbook. Available at https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_ca.html. Accessed April 6, 2020.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2020b. AirData. https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality- data/monitor-values-report. April 8, 2020.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2020c. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions. Accessed February 2020.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2020d. Ozone Designation and Classification Information. https://www.epa.gov/green-book/ozone-designation-and-classification-information. August 21, 2020.

U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 2020. U.S. Quaternary Faults. USGS Geologic Hazards Science Center Golden, Colorado. https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0aadf88412fcf. Accessed April 2020. U.S. Supreme Court. 2007. Massachusetts v. EPA. Decision of the court.

5-2 Appendix A Coordination Letters and Responses

Appendix A. Scoping Letters Index

Agency/Organization Date Scoping Letter was Date Response was Mailed Received

Association of Bay Area Governments 04/08/2020

Bay Area Air Quality Management District 04/08/2020

John Kopchik 04/08/2020 Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development

Daniel McIntyre 04/08/2020 05/28/2020 Dublin San Ramon Services District

Laurie Sucgang, City Engineer 04/08/2020 05/22/2020 City of Dublin

Jeff Baker, Community Development Director 04/08/2020 City of Dublin

La Shawn Butler, Parks & Community Services Director 04/08/2020 City of Dublin

Steve Kirkpatrick, City Engineer 04/08/2020 City of Pleasanton

Tony McCaulay, Director of Planning and Marketing 04/08/2020 Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (Wheels)

Robert E. Doyle, General Manager East Bay Regional Parks District 04/08/2020

California EPA - Department of Toxic Substances Control 04/08/2020 Office of Military Facilities - Northern California Operations

Jean Prijatel 04/08/2020 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX NEPA Environmental Review Branch

Alameda County 04/08/2020 Public Works Agency

Chris Bazar, Agency Director 04/08/2020 Alameda County Planning Department

Regulatory Branch Chief 04/08/2020 U.S. Corps of Engineers - San Francisco District Regulatory Branch

Constance Reese, Warden 04/08/2020 Federal Correction Institute, Dublin

Steve Minniear 04/08/2020 Dublin Historical Preservation Association

Maria Fierner, Director Public Works 04/08/2020 City of San Ramon

Lauren Barr 04/08/2020 City of San Ramon, Planning Services

Julianne Polanco, State Historic Preservation Officer 04/08/2020 California Office of Historic Preservation

Jennifer Norris 04/08/2020 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office Agency/Organization Date Scoping Letter was Date Response was Mailed Received

Gregg Erickson, Regional Manager 04/08/2020 California Department of Fish and Game, Bay Delta Region

Sheriff Ahern 04/08/2020 Alameda County Santa Rita Jail

Director, Bay Area Rapid Transit 04/08/2020

Steve Stewart, Planning Manager 04/08/2020 City of Livermore

Director, Dublin Camp Parks Military History Center 04/08/2020

Commander 04/08/2020 91st Division (Training Support)

Commander 04/08/2020 104th Division (IT)

Commander 04/08/2020 Regional Training Site, Medical

Commander 04/08/2020 Western Army Reserve Intelligence Support Center

Officer in Charge 04/08/2020 CBMU 303, DET D, USNR

Director 04/08/2020 Camp Parks Communications Annex, USAF

The Adjutant General 04/08/2020 State of California Military Department Joint Force Headquarters

Commander 04/08/2020 Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Center

Congressman Eric Swalwell 04/08/2020 House of Representatives

Congressman Mark DeSaulnier 04/08/2020 House of Representatives

Chairperson Sara A. Dutschke Setshwaelo 04/08/2020 Ione Band of Miwok Indians

Chairperson 04/08/2020 Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California

Chairperson 04/08/2020 Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California

Chairperson 04/08/2020 Sheep Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians

Irene Zwierlein 04/08/2020 Amah Mutsun Band of Ohlone/Costanoan Indians

Ann Marie Sayers 04/08/2020 Indian Canyon Band of Coastanoan/Mutsun Indians

Rosemary Cambra 04/08/2020 Muwekma Ohlone Tribe

Northern Valley Yokuts, Bay Miwok 04/08/2020 Agency/Organization Date Scoping Letter was Date Response was Mailed Received

Carol Roland-Nawi, PhD (Response to previous 08/25/2014 Office of Historic Preservation coordination) Department of Parks and Recreation

CPT Christopher Wilson, Area Coordinator, Area 2 06/19/2020 CAARNG, J9 Commander, HHC 143 MP BN

A1: Coordination Letters

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) 375 Beale Street Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94105

Sir or Madam:

The U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), is preparing an environmental assessment (EA) to analyze potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts associated with implementing a Real Property Master Plan (RPMP) Update for Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (PRFTA), in Dublin, California. The EA is being prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Army Regulation 200-1, Environmental Protection and Enhancement; and Environmental Analysis of Army Actions, 32 Code of Federal Regulations Part 651. Compliance with other relevant environmental regulations (including Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act) will be accomplished during the EA.

The Proposed Action is to implement the updated RPMP on PRFTA (Figures 1 and 2). The RPMP would guide land-use planning and infrastructure development at PRFTA over a period of approximately 25 years, from 2020 to 2045. The RPMP will be developed to meet the real property requirements of current USAR missions; address structural damage and deficiencies of old or functionally inadequate buildings and infrastructure; and support the military readiness of training units over the long term.

The EA will assess the potential impacts associated with the Proposed Action of implementing the updated RPMP. The EA will also assess the potential impacts to the surrounding community. During the course of the EA, detailed investigations will be undertaken to identify potential social, economic, and environmental impacts related to the Proposed Action. These impacts will be documented in the EA, which will be made available for a 30-day public review period. As part of the NEPA early coordination process, we are identifying key issues to be addressed in the EA. Please provide any comments you may have relative to the following three topics:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

To sufficiently address key project issues while maintaining the project schedule, we request that you provide written comments within 30 days from the date on this letter. Comments received will be used in preparation of the EA.

Written comments should be submitted to: Robert Pike, NEPA Coordinator, Directorate of Public Works Environmental Division, 233 California Avenue, Fort Hunter Liggett, CA 93928-7000, or by email at [email protected]. Should you have any questions or concerns or if you would like additional information, please contact me at (831) 386-2602.

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Bay Area Air Quality Management District 375 Beale Street Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94105

Sir or Madam:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

John Kopchik Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development 30 Muir Road Martinez, CA 94553

Mr. Kopchik:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Daniel McIntyre Dublin San Ramon Services Distirct 7051 Dublin Blvd. Dublin, CA 94568-3080

Mr. McIntyre:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Laurie Sucgang City of Dublin City Engineer 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568

Ms. Sucgang:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Jeff Baker City of Dublin Community Development Director 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568

Mr. Baker:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

La Shawn Butler City of Dublin Parks & Community Services Director 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568

Ms. Butler:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Steve Kirkpatrick City Engineer City of Pleasanton 200 Old Bernal PO Box 520 Pleasanton, CA 94566-0802

Mr. Kirkpatrick:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Tony McCaulay Director of Planning and Marketing Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (Wheels) 1362 Rutan Court, Suite 100 Livermore, CA 94551-7318

Mr. McCaulay:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Robert E. Doyle General Manager East Bay Regional Parks District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605-0381

Mr. Doyle:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

California EPA - Department of Toxic Substances Control Office of Military Facilities - Northern California Operations 8800 Cal Center Drive Sacramento, CA 95826-3200

Sir or Madam:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Jean Prijatel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX NEPA Environmental Review Branch 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

Ms. Prijatel:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Alameda County Public Works Agency 399 Elmhurst Street Hayward, CA 94544-1307

Sir or Madam:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Chris Bazar Alameda County Planning Department, Agency Director 224 W. Winton, Room 111 Hayward, CA 94544

Mr. Bazar:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Regulatory Branch Chief U.S. Corps of Engineers - San Francisco District Regulatory Branch 1455 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103

Chief:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Constance Reese Federal Correctional Institute, Dublin 5701 Eighth Street Dublin, CA 94568-3399

Warden Reese:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Steve Minniear Dublin Historical Preservation Association 7172 Regional Steet Box 316 Dublin, CA 94568

Mr. Minniear:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Maria Fierner, Director Public Works City of San Ramon 2401 Crow Canyon Road San Ramon, CA 94583

Ms. Fierner:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Lauren Barr Planning Services City of San Ramon 2401 Crow Canyon Road San Ramon, CA 94583

Ms. Barr:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Julianne Polanco California Office of Historic Preservation, State Historic Preservation Officer 1725 23rd Street Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95816

Ms. Polanco:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Jennifer Norris U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento Field Office 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605 Sacramento, CA 95825

Ms. Norris:

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Gregg Erickson, Regional Manager California Department of Fish and Game, Bay Delta Region (Region 3) 2825 Cordelia Road Suite 100 Fairfield, CA 94534

Mr. Erickson:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Sheriff Ahern Alameda County Santa Rita Jail (Alameda County Sheriff's Department) 5325 Broder Boulevard

Dublin, CA 94568

Sheriff Ahern:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Director Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) 6501 Golden Gate Drive Dublin, CA 94568

Director:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Steve Stewart City of Livermore Planning Manager 1052 S. Livermore Avvenue Livermore, CA 94550

Mr. Stewart:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Director Dublin Camp Parks Military History Center Building 275 Parks Reserve Forces Training Area Dublin, CA 94568

Director:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Commander 91st Division (Training Support) ATTN: Engineer 790 US Army Dublin, CA 94568-5201

Commander:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Commander 104th Division (IT) ATTN: Engineer 987 McClelland Road Vancouver, WA 98661

Commander:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Commander Regional Training Site, Medical 790 US Army

Dublin, CA 94568-5201

Commander:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Commander Western Army Reserve Intelligence Support Center 790 US Army

Dublin, CA 94568-5201

Commander:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Officer in Charge CBMU 303, DET D, USNR (seabees) Camp Parks Box 6 790 US Army Dublin, CA 94568-5201

Officer in Charge:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Director Camp Parks Communications Annex, USAF Camp Parks Box 19 790 US Army Dublin, CA 94568-5201

Director:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

The Adjutant General State of California Military Department Joint Force Headquarters 9800 Goethe Road Sacramento, CA 95827

Adjutant General:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Commander Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Center 2144 Clement Avenue Alameda, CA 94501-1486

Commander:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Congressman Eric Swalwell House of Representatives 3615 Castro Valley Blvd.

Castro Valley, CA 94546

Congressman Swalwell:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Congressman Mark DeSaulnier House of Representatives 3100 Oak Road

Walnut Creek, CA 94597

Congressman DeSaulnier:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Chairperson Sara A. Dutschke Setshwaelo Ione Band of Miwok Indians P.O. Box 1190 Ione, CA 95640

Chairperson Setshwaelo:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Chairperson Jackson Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California P.O. Box 1090 Jackson, CA 95642

Chairperson:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Chairperson Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California P.O. Box 699 Tuolumne, CA 94379

Chairperson:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Chairperson Sheep Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians 1055 Winter Court Tracy, CA 95376

Chairperson:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Irene Zwierlein Amah Mutsun Band of Ohlone/Costanoan Indians P.O. Box 5272 Galt, CA 95632

Ms. Zwierlein:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Ann Marie Sayers Indian Canyon Band of Coastanoan/Mutsun Indians P.O. Box 28 Hollister, CA 95024

Ms. Sayers:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Rosemary Cambra Muwekma Ohlone Tribe 1358 Ridder Park Dr. San Jose, CA 95131

Ms. Cambra:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY US ARMY GARRISON PARKS RESERVE FORCES TRAINING AREA BUILDING 620 6TH STREET PARKS RFTA, CA 94568-5201

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Northern Valley Yokuts, Bay Miwok P.O. Box 717 Linden, CA 95236

Sir or Madam:

-2-

a. Specific issues or geographic areas of concern, based on your expertise or regulatory jurisdiction

b. Available technical information regarding these issues

c. Mitigation or permitting requirements that may be necessary for the updated RPMP implementation

We look forward to working cooperatively with you to make this important project successful for all parties involved.

Sincerely,

LTC Jennifer L. Nolan Garrison Commander

Enclosure

A2: Responses

Haught, Laura/WDC

From: Jaclyn Yee Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 10:10 AM To: Pike, Robert N (Rob) CIV USARMY ID-READINESS (USA) Subject: [Non-DoD Source] RE: Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Hi Robert,

I’m just checking in to see if I can get a copy of the RPMP. Please let me know if that would be available so we can plan for our water and sewer service lines to your development.

Jackie Yee Associate Engineer Dublin San Ramon Services District P: (925) 875-2258

From: Jaclyn Yee Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 9:06 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Irene Suroso Subject: Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Hi Robert,

I’m with Dublin San Ramon Services District and we provide water and sewer services to the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. We recently received the environmental assessment (EA) letter referencing the Real Property master Plan (RPMP) Update for Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (PRFTA), in Dublin, California. We would like to request a copy of the RPMP so we can reference the document and provide any comments back in relation to the EA.

Please send that over at your earliest convenience. Thanks.

Jackie Yee Associate Engineer Dublin San Ramon Services District P: (925) 875-2258

May 22, 2020

Robert Pike, NEPA Coordinator Directorate of Public Works Environmental Division 233 California Avenue Fort Hunter Liggett, CA 93928-7000 Via e-mail ONLY: [email protected]

SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment – Real Property Master Plan Update at Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, Dublin, California

Dear Robert,

We received the letter regarding the above-listed subject on April 22, 2020 (enclosed for reference). It is not clear what the proposed changes or updates will be, however, we provide the following items for your consideration.

General Comments

1. City of Dublin Public Street Right-of-way – Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (“Camp Parks”) is surrounded by City of Dublin (“City”) public street rights-of-way, namely Dougherty Road, Scarlett Drive, Arnold Road, and a small portion of Tassajara Road. The City would like to understand how or if the City public streets will be impacted by any updates or changes to the real property or future plans for development of Camp Parks (i.e. modifications to existing access points, new access points, fencing, gates, etc.). 2. Transportation/Traffic – Similarly, the City would like to understand how or if the City public street intersections will be impacted by any updates or changes to the real property or future plans for development of Camp Parks (i.e. any traffic signal modifications or changes to signal timing, any need for increased storage pockets for queuing of vehicles into/out of Camp Parks, etc.). 3. Storm Water Runoff, Drainage and Water Quality – Portions of Camp Parks drains into the City’s owned/maintained storm drainage system. The City would like to understand how of if the City storm drainage system will be impacted by any updates or changes to the real property or future plans for development of Camp Parks (i.e. increased impervious surfaces that may increase the volume of runoff, changes in drainage pattern, plans for stormwater detention/retention, storm water treatment, etc.).

Feel free to contact me at (925) 833-3360 or [email protected] with any questions. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Laurie L. Sucgang, P.E. Assistant Public Works Director / City Engineer

Enclosure: Letter received April 22, 2020

Haught, Laura/WDC

Subject: FW: Camp Parks EA

-----Original Message----- From: Wilson, Christopher A CPT USARMY NG CAARNG (USA) Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 8:51 AM To: Pike, Robert N (Rob) CIV USARMY ID-READINESS (USA) Subject: Camp Parks EA

Mr. Pike,

I'm the new Area Coordinator for the California National Guard covering Area 2 which encompasses the Bay Area and my office is located at Camp Parks. I received an e-mail with a letter attached to it stating that there is an EA being prepared for the Camp Parks Real Property Master Plan. In a completely normal fashion by the time I received the e-mailed letter it was well after the requested input date and so I understand if the time has passed for any input from our end. If there is still a window of opportunity for us to be involved I would be happy to facilitate any communication or input you would need from us. Please give me a call at your convenience and we can discuss where we are in the EA and RPMP process. v/r

CPT Wilson, Christopher A. Area Coordinator, Area 2 CAARNG, J9 Commander, HHC 143 MP BN Office: 916-369-5100 Mob: 530-521-0445

Appendix B Notice of 30-Day Period for Public Comment

NOTICE OF 30-DAY PERIOD FOR FINAL EA COMMENTS

The Department of the Army has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) to analyze the impacts that could result from implementing the Real Property Master Plan Update at the Parks Reserve Forces Training Area in Dublin, California.

The EA and draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) are available on the internet at www.jacobs.com/EA1. Due to Coronavirus restrictions, hard copies of the documents will not be available in public libraries. Printed copies of the EA and FNSI can be sent through mail as hard copies or printable CDs upon request. Point of Contact, Mr. Robert Pike, can receive requests for mailed materials.

Written comments submitted by December 19 will be considered prior to the Army concluding this National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Written comments should be directed to: Robert Pike, NEPA Coordinator, Directorate of Public Works Environmental Division, Building 233 California Avenue, Fort Hunter Liggett, CA, 93928, or by email at: usarmy.hunterliggett.imcom- [email protected].

Appendix C Air Quality Emission Calculations

Emission Summary

Short Range Projects - Construction Emissions

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 total PM2.5 total CO2e (MT) 2021-2025 total construction emissions tons 4.70 26.06 19.79 0.05 2.08 1.32 4605.12 Average annual Emissions - Construction (2021-2025) tons/year 0.940 5.212 3.957 0.010 0.415 0.263 921.023 Annual Operation Emissions tons/year 1.161 0.687 1.114 0.005 0.275 0.092 1357.346

Middle Range Projects - Construction Emissions

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 total PM2.5 total CO2e (MT) 2026-2035 total construction emissions tons 10.95 28.60 26.79 0.08 3.08 1.40 7719.39 Average annual Emissions - Construction (2026-2035) tons/year 1.095 2.860 2.679 0.008 0.308 0.140 771.939 Annual Operation Emissions tons/year 3.663 0.887 0.758 0.005 0.067 0.067 3766.423

Long Range Projects - Construction Emissions

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 total PM2.5 total CO2e (MT) 2036-2050 total construction emissions tons 5.40 10.33 15.46 0.05 1.30 0.45 4315.55 Average annual Emissions - Construction (2035-2050) tons/year 0.360 0.688 1.031 0.003 0.087 0.030 287.703 Annual Operation Emissions tons/year 1.875 0.668 1.291 0.009 0.795 0.238 2198.384

Cumulative Emission Increase of the Program

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 total PM2.5 total CO2e (MT) Short-range projects construction 2021-2025 tons/year 0.940 5.212 3.957 0.010 0.415 0.263 921 Construction 2026-2035 plus operation of short-range projects tons/year 4.823 1.574 1.872 0.010 0.343 0.160 5124 Construction 2036-2050 plus operational short and mid- range projects tons/year 5.183 2.262 2.903 0.013 0.429 0.190 5411 Post 2050 tons/year 6.698 2.242 3.163 0.019 1.138 0.397 7322 General Conformity De Minimis Thresholds tons/year 100 100 NA 100 NA 100 NA Exceed General Conformity De minimis Thresholds? No No NA No NA No NA Emission Summary - Short Range Projects (2021-2025) Project Information Ratio of facility Size Used for CalEEMod Building Construction/ size used in Emissions Estimated Estimated Types used for Demolition/ CalEEMod to Project Number Description Proposed Size Estimate Exported (cy) Imported (cy) Emission Estimate Renovation proposed size

1 Construct RV Storage Lot 8,500 SY 100,000 SF 11110 11110 Parking Construction 1.7 2 Construct Network Enterprise Center 2,500 SF 5,000 SF 2220 2220 Light Industrial Construction 2.0 3 Renovate Wash Rack 1 EA 5,000 SF 2220 2220 Light Industrial Construction 1.0 4 Construct Solar Array Security Fence 2,600 LF 5,000 SF 2220 2220 Light Industrial Construction 1.9 5 Construct Drinking Water Resiliency Well 800 KG 5,000 SF 2220 2220 Light Industrial Construction 1.0 6 Construct AMSA MEP Expansion 5,200 SY 50,000 SF 22220 22220 Light Industrial Construction 1.4 7 Construct DPTMS Classroom 7,100 SF 7,000 SF 3110 3110 Office Construction 1.0 8 Pave Existing MEP at B. 490 16,000 SY 200,000 SF 22220 22220 Parking Construction 1.8 9 Preserve/Relocate Historic Camp Parks Sign 1 EA 5,000 SF 2220 2220 Light Industrial Construction 1.0 10 Construct IHG Hotel 65,300 SF 65,300 SF 29020 29020 Hotel Construction 1.0 11 Construct Container Storage Yard 7,000 SY 100,000 SF 11110 11110 Parking Construction 2.0 12 Construct Classrooms and Alternate EOC 14,700 SF 15,000 SF 6670 6670 Office Construction 1.0 13 Construct Visitors Control Center Expansion and POV 1,800 SF 5,000 SF 2220 2220 Light Industrial Construction 2.8 14_1 Construct Commercial Vehicle Inspection Facility 5,300 SF 5,000 SF 2220 2220 Light Industrial Construction 0.9 14_2 Construct Commercial Vehicle Inspection Facility_paving 20,000 SF 20,000 SF 2220 2220 Parking Construction 1.0 15 Construct Future Mission Facilities 20,000 SF 20,000 SF 8890 8890 Light Industrial Construction 1.0 A1 Construct POV Parking (1/3 of the total proposed area o 200,000 SF 200,000 SF 22220 22220 Parking Construction 1.0 A2 Improve Transportation Network 82,500 SF 100,000 SF 11110 11110 Parking Construction 1.2 Note: 1. Export amount is estimated based on a 12-ft excavation for buildings, and 3-ft excavation for parking areas. 2. Import amount is assumed to be equal to export amount.

Construction Emissions

Project Number Description ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 total PM2.5 fugitive PM2.5 Exha PM2.5 total CO2e Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Proje Tons/Proje MT/Project 1 Construct RV Storage Lot 0.3284 2.6775 2.0960 0.0051 0.0971 0.1092 0.2064 0.0307 0.1042 0.1348 452.2731 2 Construct Network Enterprise Center 0.1071 0.5480 0.4548 0.0009 0.0079 0.0263 0.0343 0.0023 0.0244 0.0267 83.8999 3 Renovate Wash Rack 0.1071 0.5480 0.4548 0.0009 0.0079 0.0263 0.0343 0.0023 0.0244 0.0267 83.8999 4 Construct Solar Array Security Fence 0.1071 0.5480 0.4548 0.0009 0.0079 0.0263 0.0343 0.0023 0.0244 0.0267 83.8999 5 Construct Drinking Water Resiliency Well 0.1071 0.5480 0.4548 0.0009 0.0079 0.0263 0.0343 0.0023 0.0244 0.0267 83.8999 6 Construct AMSA MEP Expansion 0.4106 1.2456 0.8708 0.0026 0.0620 0.0430 0.1050 0.0182 0.0413 0.0595 230.8173 7 Construct DPTMS Classroom 0.1312 0.5779 0.4612 0.0010 0.0099 0.0264 0.0363 0.0028 0.0244 0.0273 92.3082 8 Pave Existing MEP at B. 490 0.4204 3.7834 2.8517 0.0078 0.2267 0.1442 0.3709 0.0803 0.1352 0.2155 715.6794 9 Preserve/Relocate Historic Camp Parks Sign 0.1071 0.5480 0.4548 0.0009 0.0079 0.0263 0.0343 0.0023 0.0244 0.0267 83.8999 10 Construct IHG Hotel 1.0085 2.7538 1.8119 0.0059 0.1107 0.0869 0.1976 0.0336 0.0833 0.1170 538.0077 11 Construct Container Storage Yard 0.3284 2.6775 2.0960 0.0051 0.0971 0.1092 0.2064 0.0307 0.1042 0.1348 452.2731 12 Construct Classrooms and Alternate EOC 0.2280 0.7036 0.4915 0.0014 0.0194 0.0268 0.0462 0.0054 0.0248 0.0302 128.3349 13 Construct Visitors Control Center Expansion and POV 0.1071 0.5480 0.4548 0.0009 0.0079 0.0263 0.0343 0.0023 0.0244 0.0267 83.8999 14_1 Construct Commercial Vehicle Inspection Facility 0.1071 0.5480 0.4548 0.0009 0.0079 0.0263 0.0343 0.0023 0.0244 0.0267 83.8999 14_2 Construct Commercial Vehicle Inspection Facility_paving 0.0580 0.5591 0.4643 0.0010 0.0110 0.0264 0.0374 0.0031 0.0244 0.0275 88.5350 15 Construct Future Mission Facilities 0.2888 0.7839 0.5122 0.0016 0.0258 0.0271 0.0529 0.0071 0.0251 0.0322 151.6355 A1 Construct POV Parking (1/3 of the total proposed area o 0.4204 3.7834 2.8517 0.0078 0.2267 0.1442 0.3709 0.0803 0.1352 0.2155 715.6794 A2 Improve Transportation Network 0.3284 2.6775 2.0960 0.0051 0.0971 0.1092 0.2064 0.0307 0.1042 0.1348 452.2731 Total Construction 4.7008 26.0592 19.7869 0.0510 1.0389 1.0367 2.0764 0.3391 0.9772 1.3160 4605.1160 Emission Summary - Short Range Projects (2021-2025) Operation Emissions

Project Number Description ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 total PM2.5 fugitive M2.5 ExhausPM2.5 total CO2e ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year MT/year 1 Construct RV Storage Lot 0.0100 0.0000 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 10.2237 2 Construct Network Enterprise Center 0.0260 0.0065 0.0055 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 25.6614 3 Renovate Wash Rack 0.0260 0.0065 0.0055 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 25.6614 4 Construct Solar Array Security Fence 0.0260 0.0065 0.0055 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 25.6614 5 Construct Drinking Water Resiliency Well 0.0260 0.0065 0.0055 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 25.6614 6 Construct AMSA MEP Expansion 0.2604 0.0647 0.0548 0.0004 0.0000 0.0049 0.0049 0.0000 0.0049 0.0049 256.6137 7 Construct DPTMS Classroom 0.0361 0.0056 0.0048 0.0000 0.0000 0.0004 0.0004 0.0000 0.0004 0.0004 50.3153 8 Pave Existing MEP at B. 490 0.0201 0.0000 0.0018 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 20.4474 9 Preserve/Relocate Historic Camp Parks Sign 0.0260 0.0065 0.0055 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 25.6614 10 Construct IHG Hotel 0.4287 0.5332 0.9771 0.0038 0.2500 0.0135 0.2635 0.0671 0.0133 0.0804 586.7130 11 Construct Container Storage Yard 0.0100 0.0000 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 10.2237 12 Construct Classrooms and Alternate EOC 0.0773 0.0120 0.0103 0.0001 0.0000 0.0009 0.0009 0.0000 0.0009 0.0009 107.8184 13 Construct Visitors Control Center Expansion and POV 0.0260 0.0065 0.0055 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 25.6614 14_1 Construct Commercial Vehicle Inspection Facility 0.0260 0.0065 0.0055 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 25.6614 14_2 Construct Commercial Vehicle Inspection Facility_paving 0.0020 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0447 15 Construct Future Mission Facilities 0.1041 0.0259 0.0219 0.0002 0.0000 0.0020 0.0020 0.0000 0.0020 0.0020 102.6455 A1 Construct POV Parking (1/3 of the total proposed area o 0.0201 0.0000 0.0018 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 20.4474 A2 Improve Transportation Network 0.0100 0.0000 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 10.2237 Total 1.1608 0.6868 1.1139 0.0047 0.2500 0.0252 0.2752 0.0671 0.0250 0.0921 1357.3463 Emission Summary -Middle Range Projects (2026-2035) roject Information Ratio of CalEEMod facility size Size Used for Building Types Construction/De used in Emissions Estimated Estimated used for Emission molition/Renova CalEEMod to Project Number Description Proposed Size Estimate Exported (cy) Imported (cy) Estimate tion/paving proposed size 16_1 Construct DPW Admin Facility 6,000 SF 10,000 SF 4440 4440 Office construction 1.7 16_2 Construct DPW Admin Facility_demo B.1150 10,600 SF 10,000 SF NA NA Light Industrial demo 0.9 17 Construct Post HQ 75,300 SF 100,000 SF 44440 44440 Light Industrial construction 1.3 18_1 Construct Enlisted Barracks, (Three-Story Transient Training) 45,800 SF 100,000 SF 44440 44440 Light Industrial construction 2.2 Construct Enlisted Barracks, (Three-Story Transient Training) 18_2 _demo B. 360, 361, 362, 363, 364 56,420 SF 100,000 SF NA NA Light Industrial demo 1.8 19 Construct Organizational Maintenance Shop Addition 10,800 SF 10,000 SF 4440 4440 Light Industrial construction 0.9 20 Expand Paved Military Equipment Parking at B. 490 14,100 SY 200,000 SF 22220 22220 Parking construction 2.0 21_1 Construct Enlisted Barracks, (Three-Story Transient Training) 45,800 SF 100,000 SF 44440 44440 Light Industrial construction 2.2 Construct Enlisted Barracks, (Three-Story Transient Training)_demo 21_2 B. 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 398 58,800 SF 100,000 SF NA NA Light Industrial demo 1.7 22 Construct Convoy Staging Area 8,100 SY 100,000 SF 11110 11110 Parking Construction 1.8 23 Construct Range Control Facility 3,800 SF 5,000 SF 2220 2220 Light Industrial Construction 1.3 24_1 Construct RTS MEDS Training Area 10,600 SY 100,000 SF 44440 44440 Light Industrial Construction 1.3 24_2 Construct RTS MEDS Training Area_demo B. 396A, 396B, softball fiel 750 SF 1,000 SF NA NA Light Industrial demo 1.3 25 Construct Paved Equipment Concentration Site 5,100 SY 100,000 SF 11110 11110 Parking Construction 2.8 26_1 Construct Fitness Center 64,800 SF 75,000 SF 33330 33330 Health Construction 1.2 26_2 Construct Fitness Center_demo B. 330, 331 43,058 SF 100,000 SF NA NA Light Industrial demo 2.3 27_1 Construct Physical Training Track 4,328 SY 40,000 SF 17780 17780 Light Industrial Construction 1.3 27_2 Construct Physical Training Track_demo B. 300, 301, 302, 303, 320, 3 79,766 SF 100,000 SF 44440 44440 Light Industrial Construction 1.3 28_1 Renovate/Expand MTCT (B. 370) 9,600 SF 10,000 SF 4440 4440 Light Industrial Construction 1.0 28_2 Renovate/Expand MTCT (B. 370)_renovation 39,375 SF 40,000 SF 17780 17780 Light Industrial Renovation 1.0 28_3 Renovate/Expand MTCT (B. 370)_demo 11th Street 8,640 SF 10,000 SF NA NA Light Industrial demo 1.2 A1 Construct POV Parking (1/3 of the total proposed area of the progra 200,000 SF 200,000 SF 22220 22220 Parking Construction 1.0 A2 Improve Transportation Network 82,500 SF 100,000 SF 11110 11110 Parking Construction 1.2 Note: 1. Roadway demolition was assuming a sizse of 1200ft X 24ft X ft. Convert to building volume using 1 sf= 10 ft3 volume 2. Export amount is estimated based on a 12-ft excavation for buildings, and 3-ft excavation for parking areas. 3. Import amount is assumed to be equal to export amount.

Construction Emissions

Project Number Description ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 total PM2.5 fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 total CO2e Tons/Project Tons/Projec Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project MT/Project 16_1 Construct DPW Admin Facility 0.1525 0.4163 0.4543 0.0011 0.0136 0.0143 0.0279 0.0038 0.0132 0.0170 103.1888 16_2 Construct DPW Admin Facility_demo B.1150 0.0031 0.0291 0.0387 0.0001 0.0057 0.0011 0.0068 0.0010 0.0010 0.0020 7.0929 17 Construct Post HQ 1.3891 2.5834 2.1893 0.0081 0.2244 0.0633 0.2876 0.0591 0.0603 0.1194 745.4132 18_1 Construct Enlisted Barracks, (Three-Story Transient Training) 1.3891 2.5834 2.1893 0.0081 0.2244 0.0633 0.2876 0.0591 0.0603 0.1194 745.4132 Construct Enlisted Barracks, (Three-Story Transient Training) 18_2 _demo B. 360, 361, 362, 363, 364 0.0148 0.1647 0.1470 0.0004 0.0541 0.0055 0.0596 0.0088 0.0052 0.0139 37.9478 19 Construct Organizational Maintenance Shop Addition 0.1527 0.4198 0.4562 0.0011 0.0193 0.0143 0.0336 0.0048 0.0132 0.0180 105.0460 20 Expand Paved Military Equipment Parking at B. 490 0.3194 2.5530 2.6476 0.0075 0.2267 0.0796 0.3063 0.0803 0.0747 0.1551 683.2232 21_1 Construct Enlisted Barracks, (Three-Story Transient Training) 1.3891 2.5834 2.1893 0.0081 0.2244 0.0633 0.2876 0.0591 0.0603 0.1194 745.4132 Construct Enlisted Barracks, (Three-Story Transient Training)_demo 21_2 B. 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 398 0.0148 0.1647 0.1470 0.0004 0.0541 0.0055 0.0596 0.0088 0.0052 0.0139 37.9478 22 Construct Convoy Staging Area 0.2466 1.9002 1.9620 0.0049 0.0971 0.0620 0.1592 0.0307 0.0591 0.0898 436.3937 23 Construct Range Control Facility 0.0929 0.3698 0.4383 0.0009 0.0085 0.0142 0.0226 0.0024 0.0131 0.0155 82.3679 24_1 Construct RTS MEDS Training Area 1.3891 2.5834 2.1893 0.0081 0.2244 0.0633 0.2876 0.0591 0.0603 0.1194 745.4132 24_2 Construct RTS MEDS Training Area_demo B. 396A, 396B, softball fiel 0.0030 0.0260 0.0377 0.0001 0.0009 0.0011 0.0020 0.0002 0.0010 0.0012 5.6862 25 Construct Paved Equipment Concentration Site 0.2466 1.9002 1.9620 0.0049 0.0971 0.0620 0.1592 0.0307 0.0591 0.0898 436.3937 26_1 Construct Fitness Center 1.0520 1.9714 1.7395 0.0061 0.1249 0.0487 0.1737 0.0375 0.0467 0.0842 556.2103 26_2 Construct Fitness Center_demo B. 330, 331 0.0148 0.1647 0.1470 0.0004 0.0541 0.0055 0.0596 0.0088 0.0052 0.0139 37.9478 27_1 Construct Physical Training Track 0.5104 0.6948 0.5562 0.0024 0.0505 0.0148 0.0653 0.0138 0.0137 0.0275 230.4378 27_2 Construct Physical Training Track_demo B. 300, 301, 302, 303, 320, 3 1.3891 2.5834 2.1893 0.0081 0.2244 0.0633 0.2876 0.0591 0.0603 0.1194 745.4132 28_1 Renovate/Expand MTCT (B. 370) 0.1527 0.4198 0.4562 0.0011 0.0193 0.0143 0.0336 0.0048 0.0132 0.0180 105.0460 28_2 Renovate/Expand MTCT (B. 370)_renovation 0.4639 0.0029 0.0046 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.0002 0.6804 28_3 Renovate/Expand MTCT (B. 370)_demo 11th Street 0.0031 0.0291 0.0387 0.0001 0.0057 0.0011 0.0068 0.0010 0.0010 0.0020 7.0929 A1 Construct POV Parking (1/3 of the total proposed area of the progra 0.3194 2.5530 2.6476 0.0075 0.2267 0.0796 0.3063 0.0803 0.0747 0.1551 683.2232 A2 Improve Transportation Network 0.2466 1.9002 1.9620 0.0049 0.0971 0.0620 0.1592 0.0307 0.0591 0.0898 436.3937 Total 10.9548 28.5967 26.7891 0.0846 2.2770 0.8022 3.0792 0.6436 0.7600 1.4034 7719.3861 Emission Summary -Middle Range Projects (2026-2035)

Operation Emissions

Project Number Description ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 total PM2.5 fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 total CO2e ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year ton/year MT/year 16_1 Construct DPW Admin Facility 0.0515 0.00802 0.00683 0.00005 0 0.00061 0.00061 0 0.00061 0.00061 71.8789 16_2 Construct DPW Admin Facility_demo B.1150 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 17 Construct Post HQ 0.5207 0.1293 0.1095 0.00078 0 0.00983 0.00983 0 0.00983 0.00983 513.2274 18_1 Construct Enlisted Barracks, (Three-Story Transient Training) 0.5207 0.1293 0.1095 0.00078 0 0.00983 0.00983 0 0.00983 0.00983 513.2274 Construct Enlisted Barracks, (Three-Story Transient Training) 18_2 _demo B. 360, 361, 362, 363, 364 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 19 Construct Organizational Maintenance Shop Addition 0.0521 0.0129 0.011 0.00008 0 0.00098 0.00098 0 0.00098 0.00098 51.3228 20 Expand Paved Military Equipment Parking at B. 490 0.0201 0.00002 0.00183 0 0 0.00001 0.00001 0 0.00001 0.00001 20.4474 21_1 Construct Enlisted Barracks, (Three-Story Transient Training) 0.5207 0.1293 0.1095 0.00078 0 0.00983 0.00983 0 0.00983 0.00983 513.2274 Construct Enlisted Barracks, (Three-Story Transient Training)_demo 21_2 B. 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 398 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 22 Construct Convoy Staging Area 0.01 0.00001 0.00092 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.2237 23 Construct Range Control Facility 0.026 0.00647 0.00548 0.00004 0 0.00049 0.00049 0 0.00049 0.00049 25.6614 24_1 Construct RTS MEDS Training Area 0.5207 0.1293 0.1095 0.00078 0 0.00983 0.00983 0 0.00983 0.00983 513.2274 24_2 Construct RTS MEDS Training Area_demo B. 396A, 396B, softball fiel NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 25 Construct Paved Equipment Concentration Site 0.01 0.00001 0.00092 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.2237 26_1 Construct Fitness Center 0.3906 0.097 0.0822 0.00058 0 0.00737 0.00737 0 0.00737 0.00737 517.9518 26_2 Construct Fitness Center_demo B. 330, 331 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 27_1 Construct Physical Training Track 0.2083 0.0517 0.0438 0.00031 0 0.00393 0.00393 0 0.00393 0.00393 205.291 27_2 Construct Physical Training Track_demo B. 300, 301, 302, 303, 320, 3 0.5207 0.1293 0.1095 0.00078 0 0.00983 0.00983 0 0.00983 0.00983 513.2274 28_1 Renovate/Expand MTCT (B. 370) 0.0521 0.0129 0.011 0.00008 0 0.00098 0.00098 0 0.00098 0.00098 51.3228 28_2 Renovate/Expand MTCT (B. 370)_renovation 0.2083 0.0517 0.0438 0.00031 0 0.00393 0.00393 0 0.00393 0.00393 205.291 28_3 Renovate/Expand MTCT (B. 370)_demo 11th Street NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA A1 Construct POV Parking (1/3 of the total proposed area of the progra 0.0201 0.00002 0.00183 0 0 0.00001 0.00001 0 0.00001 0.00001 20.4474 A2 Improve Transportation Network 0.01 0.00001 0.00092 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10.2237 Total Operation Emissions 3.6626 0.88726 0.75803 0.00535 0 0.06746 0.06746 0 0.06746 0.06746 3766.4226 Emission Summary -Long Range Projects (2036-2050) Project Information Ratio of facility size Size Used for Estimated CalEEMod Building Construction/Demo used in Emissions Exported Estimated Types used for lition/ Renovation/ CalEEMod to Project NumberDescription Proposed Size Estimate (cy) Imported (cy) Emission Estimate paving proposed size 30_1 Construct Logistics Readiness Center Maintenance Building 14,400 SF 20,000 SF 8890 8890 Light Industrial Construction 1.4 30_2 Construct Logistics Readiness Center Maintenance Building_demo B. 1 48,088 SF 50,000 SF NA NA Light Industrial demo 1.0 31_1 Construct Community Activity Center 27,500 SF 30,000 SF 13330 13330 Light Industrial Construction 1.1 31_2 Construct Community Activity Center_demo B521, 522 17,142 SF 20,000 SF NA NA Light Industrial demo 1.2 32_1 Renovate/Expand Military Treatment Facility (B. 517) 3,400 SF 5,000 SF 2220 2220 Light Industrial Construction 1.5 32_2 Renovate/Expand Military Treatment Facility (B. 517)_renovation 4,446 SF 5,000 SF NA NA Light Industrial Renovation 1.1 33 Construct RV Campground 9 pads 5 acres NA NA RV Construction 1.0 34_1 Construct TRADOC-Compliant Barracks 91,600 SF 100,000 SF 44440 44440 Light Industrial Construction 1.1 34_2 Construct TRADOC-Compliant Barracks_demo_B.312, 313 10,787 SF 10,000 SF NA NA Light Industrial Demo 0.9 35_1 Renovate/Expand Chapel (B. 501) 5,000 SF 10,000 SF 4440 4440 Light Industrial Construction 2.0 35_2 Renovate/Expand Chapel (B. 501)_renovation 8,095 SF 10,000 SF NA NA Light Industrial Renovation 1.2 36_1 Construct Child Development Center 25,900 SF 30,000 SF 13330 13330 Education Construction 1.2 36_2 Construct Child Development Center_demo B611 2,330 SF 5,000 SF NA NA Light Industrial demo 2.1 37_1 Construct NCO Academy 67,800 SF 70,000 SF 31110 31110 Education Construction 1.0 37_2 Construct NCO Academy_demo B304, 306, 38,037 SF 50,000 SF NA NA Light Industrial demo 1.3 38 Construct Ammunition Holding Area 1,000 SF 5,000 SF 2220 2220 Light Industrial Construction 5.0 39 Construct Central Package Receiving Facility 15,200 SF 20,000 SF 8890 8890 Light Industrial Construction 1.3 40_1 Construct Shoppette/Fuel Pumps 11,400 SF 10,000 SF 4440 4440 Light Industrial Construction 0.9 40_2 Construct Shoppette/Fuel Pumps_demo 4,000 SF 5,000 SF NA NA Light Industrial Demo 1.3 41 Construct WARISC Addition 30,000 SF 30,000 SF 13330 13330 Light Industrial Construction 1.0 A1 Construct POV Parking (1/3 of the total proposed area of the program 200,000 SF 200,000 SF 22220 22220 Parking Construction 1.0 A2 Improve Transportation Network 82,500 SF 100,000 SF 11110 11110 Parking Construction 1.2 Note: 1. Export amount is estimated based on a 12-ft excavation for buildings, and 3-ft excavation for parking areas. 2. Import amount is assumed to be equal to export amount. 3. RV campground vehicle trips of 4106 trips per year are included in the operational emission calculations.

Construction Emissions

Project NumberDescription ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 total PM2.5 fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 total CO2e Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project 30_1 Construct Logistics Readiness Center Maintenance Building 0.2719 0.3392 0.4928 0.0017 0.0258 0.0030 0.0288 0.0071 0.0030 0.0101 152.1556 30_2 Construct Logistics Readiness Center Maintenance Building_demo B. 1 0.0132 0.0967 0.1418 0.0005 0.0541 0.0014 0.0555 0.0088 0.0014 0.0102 40.2134 31_1 Construct Community Activity Center 0.3910 0.4286 0.5285 0.0021 0.0490 0.0032 0.0522 0.0122 0.0032 0.0154 196.4674 31_2 Construct Community Activity Center_demo B521, 522 0.0029 0.0226 0.0400 0.0001 0.0110 0.0003 0.0113 0.0018 0.0003 0.0021 9.0171 32_1 Renovate/Expand Military Treatment Facility (B. 517) 0.0934 0.2114 0.4419 0.0010 0.0094 0.0028 0.0121 0.0024 0.0028 0.0052 88.6499 32_2 Renovate/Expand Military Treatment Facility (B. 517)_renovation 0.0582 0.0019 0.0045 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.6389 33 Construct RV Campground 0.2025 1.2828 2.4730 0.0061 0.1856 0.0163 0.2020 0.0694 0.0163 0.0857 536.3837 34_1 Construct TRADOC-Compliant Barracks 1.3414 1.8132 2.1094 0.0082 0.2243 0.0130 0.2374 0.0592 0.0129 0.0721 751.4161 34_2 Construct TRADOC-Compliant Barracks_demo_B.312, 313 0.0027 0.0194 0.0387 0.0001 0.0057 0.0003 0.0060 0.0010 0.0003 0.0012 7.4541 35_1 Renovate/Expand Chapel (B. 501) 0.1532 0.2624 0.4620 0.0013 0.0193 0.0029 0.0222 0.0048 0.0029 0.0077 113.8092 35_2 Renovate/Expand Chapel (B. 501)_renovation 0.1162 0.0019 0.0045 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.6500 36_1 Construct Child Development Center 0.3892 0.3746 0.5078 0.0018 0.0310 0.0031 0.0341 0.0087 0.0031 0.0117 169.7260 36_2 Construct Child Development Center_demo B611 0.0027 0.0179 0.0382 0.0001 0.0031 0.0002 0.0033 0.0005 0.0002 0.0008 6.7065 37_1 Construct NCO Academy 0.9481 1.2476 1.6165 0.0054 0.0997 0.0101 0.1098 0.0310 0.0100 0.0410 481.9827 37_2 Construct NCO Academy_demo B304, 306, 0.0132 0.0967 0.1418 0.0005 0.0541 0.0014 0.0555 0.0088 0.0014 0.0102 40.2134 38 Construct Ammunition Holding Area 0.0934 0.2114 0.4419 0.0010 0.0094 0.0028 0.0121 0.0024 0.0028 0.0052 88.6499 39 Construct Central Package Receiving Facility 0.2719 0.3392 0.4928 0.0017 0.0258 0.0030 0.0288 0.0071 0.0030 0.0101 152.1556 40_1 Construct Shoppette/Fuel Pumps 0.1532 0.2624 0.4620 0.0013 0.0193 0.0029 0.0222 0.0048 0.0029 0.0077 113.8092 40_2 Construct Shoppette/Fuel Pumps_demo 0.0027 0.0179 0.0382 0.0001 0.0031 0.0002 0.0033 0.0005 0.0002 0.0008 6.7065 41 Construct WARISC Addition 0.3910 0.4286 0.5285 0.0021 0.0490 0.0032 0.0522 0.0122 0.0032 0.0154 196.4674 A1 Construct POV Parking (1/3 of the total proposed area of the program 0.2879 1.6390 2.5811 0.0079 0.2267 0.0167 0.2434 0.0803 0.0166 0.0970 709.4355 A2 Improve Transportation Network 0.2000 1.2101 1.8783 0.0052 0.0971 0.0119 0.1091 0.0307 0.0119 0.0426 452.8437 Total Emissions 5.3999 10.3254 15.4642 0.0480 1.2023 0.0988 1.3012 0.3536 0.0983 0.4520 4315.5518 Emission Summary -Long Range Projects (2036-2050) Operation Emissions

Project NumberDescription ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 total PM2.5 fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 total CO2e Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project Tons/Project 30_1 Construct Logistics Readiness Center Maintenance Building 0.1041 0.0259 0.0219 0.0002 0.0000 0.0020 0.0020 0.0000 0.0020 0.0020 102.6455 30_2 Construct Logistics Readiness Center Maintenance Building_demo B. 1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 31_1 Construct Community Activity Center 0.1562 0.0388 0.0329 0.0002 0.0000 0.0030 0.0030 0.0000 0.0030 0.0030 153.9682 31_2 Construct Community Activity Center_demo B521, 522 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 32_1 Renovate/Expand Military Treatment Facility (B. 517) 0.0260 0.0065 0.0055 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 25.6614 32_2 Renovate/Expand Military Treatment Facility (B. 517)_renovation 0.0260 0.0065 0.0055 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 25.6614 33 Construct RV Campground 0.0525 0.2603 0.9431 0.0060 0.7616 0.0024 0.7640 0.2043 0.0023 0.2066 564.6340 34_1 Construct TRADOC-Compliant Barracks 0.5207 0.1293 0.1095 0.0008 0.0000 0.0098 0.0098 0.0000 0.0098 0.0098 513.2274 34_2 Construct TRADOC-Compliant Barracks_demo_B.312, 313 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 35_1 Renovate/Expand Chapel (B. 501) 0.0521 0.0129 0.0110 0.0001 0.0000 0.0010 0.0010 0.0000 0.0010 0.0010 51.3228 35_2 Renovate/Expand Chapel (B. 501)_renovation 0.0521 0.0129 0.0110 0.0001 0.0000 0.0010 0.0010 0.0000 0.0010 0.0010 51.3228 36_1 Construct Child Development Center 0.1549 0.0271 0.0231 0.0002 0.0000 0.0021 0.0021 0.0000 0.0021 0.0021 103.7015 36_2 Construct Child Development Center_demo B611 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 37_1 Construct NCO Academy 0.3615 0.0633 0.0538 0.0004 0.0000 0.0048 0.0048 0.0000 0.0048 0.0048 241.9701 37_2 Construct NCO Academy_demo B304, 306, NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 38 Construct Ammunition Holding Area 0.0260 0.0065 0.0055 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 0.0000 0.0005 0.0005 25.6614 39 Construct Central Package Receiving Facility 0.1041 0.0259 0.0219 0.0002 0.0000 0.0020 0.0020 0.0000 0.0020 0.0020 102.6455 40_1 Construct Shoppette/Fuel Pumps 0.0521 0.0129 0.0110 0.0001 0.0000 0.0010 0.0010 0.0000 0.0010 0.0010 51.3228 40_2 Construct Shoppette/Fuel Pumps_demo NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 41 Construct WARISC Addition 0.1562 0.0388 0.0329 0.0002 0.0000 0.0030 0.0030 0.0000 0.0030 0.0030 153.9682 A1 Construct POV Parking (1/3 of the total proposed area of the program 0.0201 0.0000 0.0018 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 20.4474 A2 Improve Transportation Network 0.0100 0.0000 0.0009 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 10.2237 Total Emissions 1.8746 0.6675 1.2913 0.0085 0.7616 0.0334 0.7950 0.2043 0.0332 0.2376 2198.3841 CalEEMod Output Summary

ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 fugitivePM10 Exhaus PM10 totalPM2.5 fugitivM2.5 ExhausPM2.5 total Year tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons tons 2021 Hotel_65,300 SF Construction Total 1.009 2.754 1.812 0.006 0.111 0.087 0.198 0.034 0.083 0.117 2021 Hotel_65,300 SF Operation Total 0.429 0.533 0.977 0.004 0.250 0.014 0.264 0.067 0.013 0.080 2021 light industrial_5,000 SF construction Total 0.107 0.548 0.455 0.001 0.008 0.026 0.034 0.002 0.024 0.027 2021 light industrial_5,000 SF operation Total 0.026 0.006 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2021 Light industrial_20,000 SF construction Total 0.289 0.784 0.512 0.002 0.026 0.027 0.053 0.007 0.025 0.032 2021 Light industrial_20,000 SF Operation Total 0.104 0.026 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.002 2021 light industrial_50,000 SF construction Total 0.411 1.246 0.871 0.003 0.062 0.043 0.105 0.018 0.041 0.060 2021 light industrial_50,000 SF operation Total 0.260 0.065 0.055 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.005 0.000 0.005 0.005 2021 office_7,000 SF construction Total 0.131 0.578 0.461 0.001 0.010 0.026 0.036 0.003 0.024 0.027 2021 office_7,000 SF Operation Total 0.036 0.006 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2021 office_15,000 SF construction Total 0.228 0.704 0.492 0.001 0.019 0.027 0.046 0.005 0.025 0.030 2021 office_15,000 SF Operation Total 0.077 0.012 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.001 2021 parking_20,000 SF construction Total 0.058 0.559 0.464 0.001 0.011 0.026 0.037 0.003 0.024 0.028 2021 parking_20,000 SF operation Total 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2021 parking_100,000 SF construction Total 0.328 2.677 2.096 0.005 0.097 0.109 0.206 0.031 0.104 0.135 2021 parking_100,000 SF construction 2021 2021 0.300 2.672 2.088 0.005 0.097 0.109 0.206 0.031 0.104 0.134 2021 parking_100,000 SF construction 2022 2022 0.029 0.006 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 2021 parking_100,000 SF operation Total 0.010 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2021 parking_200,000 SF construction Total 0.420 3.783 2.852 0.008 0.227 0.144 0.371 0.080 0.135 0.216 2021 parking_200,000 SF construction 2021 2021 0.331 3.665 2.700 0.008 0.223 0.138 0.361 0.079 0.130 0.209 2021 parking_200,000 SF construction 2022 2022 0.089 0.118 0.152 0.000 0.004 0.006 0.009 0.001 0.006 0.007 2021 parking_200,000 SF operation Total 0.020 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2026 Health_75,000 SF construction Total 1.052 1.971 1.740 0.006 0.125 0.049 0.174 0.038 0.047 0.084 2026 Health_75,000 SF Operation Total 0.391 0.097 0.082 0.001 0.000 0.007 0.007 0.000 0.007 0.007 2026 Light Industrial_10,000 SF w 10000 demo Total 0.153 0.420 0.456 0.001 0.019 0.014 0.034 0.005 0.013 0.018 2026 Light Industrial_10,000 SF construction Total 0.153 0.420 0.456 0.001 0.019 0.014 0.034 0.005 0.013 0.018 2026 Light Industrial_10,000 SF demo (on site) Total 0.003 0.026 0.037 0.000 0.005 0.001 0.006 0.001 0.001 0.002 2026 Light Industrial_10,000 SF demo (off site) Total 0.000 0.004 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 2026 Light Industrial_10,000 SF demo Total 0.003 0.029 0.039 0.000 0.006 0.001 0.007 0.001 0.001 0.002 2026 Light Industrial_10,000 SF operation Total 0.052 0.013 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.001 2026 Light Industrial_40,000 SF construction Total 0.510 0.695 0.556 0.002 0.051 0.015 0.065 0.014 0.014 0.028 2026 Light Industrial_40,000 SF renovation (on site) Total 0.464 0.003 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2026 Light Industrial_40,000 SF renovation (off site) Total 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2026 Light Industrial_40,000 SF renovation Total 0.464 0.003 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2026 Light Industrial_40,000 SF operation Total 0.208 0.052 0.044 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.004 0.004 2026 Light Industrial_100,000 SF w 100,000 demo 2026 0.461 2.579 2.182 0.008 0.224 0.063 0.287 0.059 0.060 0.119 2026 Light Industrial_100,000 SF w 100,000 demo 2027 0.928 0.005 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2026 Light Industrial_100,000 SF w 100,000 demo Total 1.389 2.583 2.189 0.008 0.224 0.063 0.288 0.059 0.060 0.119 2026 Light Industrial_100,000 SF demo (on site) Total 0.013 0.129 0.133 0.000 0.049 0.005 0.055 0.007 0.005 0.013 2026 Light Industrial_100,000 SF demo (off site) Total 0.001 0.036 0.014 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.001 2026 Light Industrial_100,000 SF demo Total 0.015 0.165 0.147 0.000 0.054 0.006 0.060 0.009 0.005 0.014 2026 Light Industrial_100,000 SF construction Total 1.389 2.583 2.189 0.008 0.224 0.063 0.288 0.059 0.060 0.119 2026 Light Industrial_100,000 SF operation Total 0.521 0.129 0.110 0.001 0.000 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.010 0.010 2026 Light Industrial_500,000 SF 2026 2026 0.314 3.7052 3.1482 0.0126 0.5692 0.0876 0.6567 0.198 0.0819 0.2798 2026 Light Industrial_500,000 SF 2027 2027 5.904 1.023 1.196 0.003 0.113 0.032 0.145 0.031 0.030 0.060 2026 Light Industrial_500,000 SF construction Total 6.218 4.728 4.344 0.016 0.683 0.119 0.802 0.229 0.112 0.340 2026 Light Industrial_500,000 SF operation Total 2.604 0.647 0.548 0.004 0.000 0.049 0.049 0.000 0.049 0.049 2026 Light Industrial_5,000 SF construction Total 0.093 0.370 0.438 0.001 0.008 0.014 0.023 0.002 0.013 0.016 2026 Light Industrial_1,000 SF demo onsite Total 0.003 0.026 0.037 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.001 2026 Light Industrial_1,000 SF demo offsite Total 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2026 Light Industrial_1,000 SF demo Total 0.003 0.026 0.038 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.001 2026 Light Industrial_5,000 SF operation Total 0.026 0.006 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2026 Office_10,000 SF construction Total 0.153 0.416 0.454 0.001 0.014 0.014 0.028 0.004 0.013 0.017 2026 Office_10,000 SF operation Total 0.052 0.008 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.001 2026 parking_100,000 SF 2026 2026 0.218 1.896 1.954 0.005 0.097 0.062 0.159 0.031 0.059 0.090 2026 parking_100,000 SF 2027 2027 0.029 0.005 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2026 parking_100,000 SF construction total 0.247 1.900 1.962 0.005 0.097 0.062 0.159 0.031 0.059 0.090 2026 parking_100,000 SF operation Total 0.010 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2026 parking_200,000 SF 2026 2026 0.233 2.460 2.499 0.007 0.223 0.075 0.299 0.079 0.071 0.150 2026 parking_200,000 SF 2027 2027 0.087 0.094 0.149 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.008 0.001 0.004 0.005 2026 parking_200,000 SF construction Total 0.319 2.553 2.648 0.007 0.227 0.080 0.306 0.080 0.075 0.155 2026 parking_200,000 SF operation Total 0.020 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2036 Education_30,000 SF Construction Total 0.389 0.375 0.508 0.002 0.031 0.003 0.034 0.009 0.003 0.012 2036 Education_30,000 SF Operation Total 0.155 0.027 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.002 2036 Education_70,000 SF Construction Total 0.948 1.248 1.617 0.005 0.100 0.010 0.110 0.031 0.010 0.041 2036 Education_70,000 SF Operation Total 0.362 0.063 0.054 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.005 0.000 0.005 0.005 2036 Light Industrial_5,000 SF with 5000SF demo Total 0.093 0.211 0.442 0.001 0.009 0.003 0.012 0.002 0.003 0.005 2036 Light Industrial_5,000 SF demo Total 0.003 0.018 0.038 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.003 0.001 0.000 0.001 2036 Light Industrial_5,000 SF demo offsite Total 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 2036 Light Industrial_5,000 SF demo onsite Total 0.003 0.016 0.037 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.001 2036 Light Industrial_5,000 SF construction Total 0.093 0.211 0.442 0.001 0.009 0.003 0.012 0.002 0.003 0.005 2036 Light Industrial_5,000 SF Renovation Total 0.058 0.002 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2036 Light Industrial_5,000 SF operation Total 0.026 0.006 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2036 Light Industrial_10,000 SF with 5000SF demo Total 0.153 0.262 0.462 0.001 0.019 0.003 0.022 0.005 0.003 0.008 2036 Light Industrial_10,000 SF demo Total 0.003 0.019 0.039 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.006 0.001 0.000 0.001 2036 Light Industrial_10,000 SF demo offsite Total 0.000 0.003 0.002 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 2036 Light Industrial_10,000 SF demo onsite Total 0.003 0.016 0.037 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.001 2036 Light Industrial_10,000 SF construction Total 0.153 0.262 0.462 0.001 0.019 0.003 0.022 0.005 0.003 0.008 2036 Light Industrial_10,000 SF operation Total 0.052 0.013 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.001 2036 Light Industrial_10,000 SF renovation onsite Total 0.116 0.002 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2036 Light Industrial_10,000 SF renovation offsite Total 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2036 Light Industrial_10,000 SF renovation Total 0.116 0.002 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2036 Light industrial_20,000 SF construction Total 0.272 0.339 0.493 0.002 0.026 0.003 0.029 0.007 0.003 0.010 2036 Light Industrial_20,000 SF operation Total 0.104 0.026 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.002 2036 Light Industrial_30,000 SF with 20,000 demo Total 0.391 0.429 0.529 0.002 0.049 0.003 0.052 0.012 0.003 0.015 2036 Light Industrial_30,000 SF Construction Total 0.391 0.429 0.529 0.002 0.049 0.003 0.052 0.012 0.003 0.015 2036 Light Industrial_20,000 SF demo offsite Total 0.000 0.006 0.003 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 2036 Light Industrial_20,000 SF demo onsite Total 0.003 0.016 0.037 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.010 0.001 0.000 0.002 2036 Light Industrial_20,000 SF demo Total 0.003 0.023 0.040 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.011 0.002 0.000 0.002 2036 Light Industrial_30,000 SF operation Total 0.156 0.039 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.003 0.000 0.003 0.003 2036 Light Industrial_100,000 SF with 50,000 SF demo 2036 2036 0.530 1.811 2.103 0.008 0.224 0.013 0.237 0.059 0.013 0.072 2036 Light Industrial_100,000 SF with 50,000 SF demo 2037 2037 0.812 0.003 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2036 Light Industrial_100,000 SF with 50,000 SF demo Total 1.341 1.813 2.109 0.008 0.224 0.013 0.237 0.059 0.013 0.072 2036 Light Industrial_100,000 SF construction Total 1.341 1.813 2.109 0.008 0.224 0.013 0.237 0.059 0.013 0.072 2036 Light Industrial_50,000 SF demo onsite Total 0.012 0.065 0.129 0.000 0.049 0.001 0.051 0.007 0.001 0.009 2036 Light Industrial_50,000 SF demo offsite Total 0.001 0.031 0.013 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.005 0.001 0.000 0.001 2036 Light Industrial_50,000 SF demo Total 0.013 0.097 0.142 0.000 0.054 0.001 0.056 0.009 0.001 0.010 2036 Light Industrial_100,000 SF operation Total 0.521 0.129 0.110 0.001 0.000 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.010 0.010 2036 parking_100,000 SF 2036 2036 0.175 1.207 1.872 0.005 0.097 0.012 0.109 0.031 0.012 0.043 2036 parking_100,000 SF 2037 2037 0.025 0.003 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2036 parking_100,000 SF Construction Total 0.200 1.210 1.878 0.005 0.097 0.012 0.109 0.031 0.012 0.043 2036 parking_100,000 SF Operation Total 0.010 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2036 parking_200,000 SF 2036 2036 0.201 1.585 2.436 0.008 0.224 0.015 0.239 0.080 0.015 0.095 2036 parking_200,000 SF 2037 2037 0.087 0.055 0.146 0.000 0.003 0.002 0.005 0.001 0.002 0.002 2036 parking_200,000 SF construction Total 0.288 1.639 2.581 0.008 0.227 0.017 0.243 0.080 0.017 0.097 2036 parking_200,000 SF Operation Total 0.020 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2036 RV_5 acres Construction Total 0.203 1.283 2.473 0.006 0.186 0.016 0.202 0.069 0.016 0.086 2036 RV_5 acres 2036 2036 0.190 1.227 2.303 0.006 0.183 0.015 0.197 0.069 0.015 0.083 2036 RV_5 acres 2037 2037 0.012 0.056 0.170 0.000 0.003 0.002 0.005 0.001 0.002 0.003 2036 RV_5 acres operation Total 0.053 0.260 0.943 0.006 0.762 0.002 0.764 0.204 0.002 0.207 CalEEMod Output Summary Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT MT MT MT MT MT 2021 Hotel_65,300 SF Construction 0.000 536.585 536.585 0.057 0.000 538.008 2021 Hotel_65,300 SF Operation 5.364 571.014 576.377 0.353 0.005 586.713 2021 light industrial_5,000 SF construction 0.000 83.415 83.415 0.019 0.000 83.900 2021 light industrial_5,000 SF operation 1.625 20.874 22.499 0.113 0.001 25.661 2021 Light industrial_20,000 SF construction 0.000 151.066 151.066 0.023 0.000 151.636 2021 Light industrial_20,000 SF Operation 6.502 83.494 89.996 0.451 0.005 102.646 2021 light industrial_50,000 SF construction 0.000 230.153 230.153 0.027 0.000 230.817 2021 light industrial_50,000 SF operation 16.254 208.735 224.989 1.128 0.012 256.614 2021 office_7,000 SF construction 0.000 91.813 91.813 0.020 0.000 92.308 2021 office_7,000 SF Operation 1.716 45.159 46.875 0.121 0.001 50.315 2021 office_15,000 SF construction 0.000 127.795 127.795 0.022 0.000 128.335 2021 office_15,000 SF Operation 3.678 96.768 100.446 0.258 0.003 107.818 2021 parking_20,000 SF construction 0.000 88.046 88.046 0.020 0.000 88.535 2021 parking_20,000 SF operation 0.000 2.037 2.037 0.000 0.000 2.045 2021 parking_100,000 SF construction 0.000 450.673 450.673 0.064 0.000 452.273 2021 parking_100,000 SF construction 2021 0.000 449.446 449.446 0.064 0.000 451.044 2021 parking_100,000 SF construction 2022 0.000 1.227 1.227 0.000 0.000 1.229 2021 parking_100,000 SF operation 0.000 10.184 10.184 0.000 0.000 10.224 2021 parking_200,000 SF construction 0.000 713.135 713.135 0.102 0.000 715.679 2021 parking_200,000 SF construction 2021 0.000 690.251 690.251 0.096 0.000 692.659 2021 parking_200,000 SF construction 2022 0.000 22.884 22.884 0.005 0.000 23.020 2021 parking_200,000 SF operation 0.000 20.367 20.367 0.001 0.000 20.447 2026 Health_75,000 SF construction 0.000 554.868 554.868 0.054 0.000 556.210 2026 Health_75,000 SF Operation 88.186 295.552 383.738 5.284 0.007 517.952 2026 Light Industrial_10,000 SF w 10000 demo 0.000 104.539 104.539 0.020 0.000 105.046 2026 Light Industrial_10,000 SF construction 0.000 104.539 104.539 0.020 0.000 105.046 2026 Light Industrial_10,000 SF demo (on site) 0.000 5.212 5.212 0.001 0.000 5.236 2026 Light Industrial_10,000 SF demo (off site) 0.000 1.855 1.855 0.000 0.000 1.857 2026 Light Industrial_10,000 SF demo 0.000 7.068 7.068 0.001 0.000 7.093 2026 Light Industrial_10,000 SF operation 3.251 41.747 44.998 0.226 0.002 51.323 2026 Light Industrial_40,000 SF construction 0.000 229.786 229.786 0.026 0.000 230.438 2026 Light Industrial_40,000 SF renovation (on site) 0.000 0.638 0.638 0.000 0.000 0.639 2026 Light Industrial_40,000 SF renovation (off site) 0.000 0.041 0.041 0.000 0.000 0.041 2026 Light Industrial_40,000 SF renovation 0.000 0.680 0.680 0.000 0.000 0.680 2026 Light Industrial_40,000 SF operation 13.003 166.988 179.991 0.903 0.009 205.291 2026 Light Industrial_100,000 SF w 100,000 demo 0.000 742.369 742.369 0.074 0.000 744.221 2026 Light Industrial_100,000 SF w 100,000 demo 0.000 1.191 1.191 0.000 0.000 1.193 2026 Light Industrial_100,000 SF w 100,000 demo 0.000 743.560 743.560 0.074 0.000 745.413 2026 Light Industrial_100,000 SF demo (on site) 0.000 21.099 21.099 0.005 0.000 21.232 2026 Light Industrial_100,000 SF demo (off site) 0.000 16.696 16.696 0.001 0.000 16.716 2026 Light Industrial_100,000 SF demo 0.000 37.795 37.795 0.006 0.000 37.948 2026 Light Industrial_100,000 SF construction 0.000 743.560 743.560 0.074 0.000 745.413 2026 Light Industrial_100,000 SF operation 32.507 417.470 449.977 2.256 0.023 513.227 2026 Light Industrial_500,000 SF 2026 0 1,174.08 1,174.08 0.1295 0 1,177.32 2026 Light Industrial_500,000 SF 2027 0.000 294.357 294.357 0.038 0.000 295.317 2026 Light Industrial_500,000 SF construction 0.000 1468.439 1468.439 0.168 0.000 1472.636 2026 Light Industrial_500,000 SF operation 162.537 2087.350 2249.887 11.282 0.115 2566.137 2026 Light Industrial_5,000 SF construction 0.000 81.888 81.888 0.019 0.000 82.368 2026 Light Industrial_1,000 SF demo onsite 0.000 5.212 5.212 0.001 0.000 5.236 2026 Light Industrial_1,000 SF demo offsite 0.000 0.450 0.450 0.000 0.000 0.451 2026 Light Industrial_1,000 SF demo 0.000 5.663 5.663 0.001 0.000 5.686 2026 Light Industrial_5,000 SF operation 1.625 20.874 22.499 0.113 0.001 25.661 2026 Office_10,000 SF construction 0.000 102.684 102.684 0.020 0.000 103.189 2026 Office_10,000 SF operation 2.452 64.512 66.964 0.172 0.002 71.879 2026 parking_100,000 SF 2026 0.000 433.718 433.718 0.059 0.000 435.201 2026 parking_100,000 SF 2027 0.000 1.191 1.191 0.000 0.000 1.193 2026 parking_100,000 SF construction 0.000 434.909 434.909 0.059 0.000 436.394 2026 parking_100,000 SF operation 0.000 10.184 10.184 0.000 0.000 10.224 2026 parking_200,000 SF 2026 0.000 658.426 658.426 0.092 0.000 660.716 2026 parking_200,000 SF 2027 0.000 22.373 22.373 0.005 0.000 22.507 2026 parking_200,000 SF construction 0.000 680.799 680.799 0.097 0.000 683.223 2026 parking_200,000 SF operation 0.000 20.367 20.367 0.001 0.000 20.447 2036 Education_30,000 SF Construction 0.000 169.543 169.543 0.007 0.000 169.726 2036 Education_30,000 SF Operation 8.325 81.956 90.281 0.513 0.002 103.702 2036 Education_70,000 SF Construction 0.000 481.468 481.468 0.021 0.000 481.983 2036 Education_70,000 SF Operation 19.425 191.231 210.655 1.196 0.005 241.970 2036 Light Industrial_5,000 SF with 5000SF demo 0.000 88.561 88.561 0.004 0.000 88.650 2036 Light Industrial_5,000 SF demo 0.000 6.700 6.700 0.000 0.000 6.707 2036 Light Industrial_5,000 SF demo offsite 0.000 1.003 1.003 0.000 0.000 1.004 2036 Light Industrial_5,000 SF demo onsite 0.000 5.697 5.697 0.000 0.000 5.703 2036 Light Industrial_5,000 SF construction 0.000 88.561 88.561 0.004 0.000 88.650 2036 Light Industrial_5,000 SF Renovation 0.000 0.638 0.638 0.000 0.000 0.639 2036 Light Industrial_5,000 SF operation 1.625 20.874 22.499 0.113 0.001 25.661 2036 Light Industrial_10,000 SF with 5000SF demo 0.000 113.691 113.691 0.005 0.000 113.809 2036 Light Industrial_10,000 SF demo 0.000 7.447 7.447 0.000 0.000 7.454 2036 Light Industrial_10,000 SF demo offsite 0.000 1.750 1.750 0.000 0.000 1.752 2036 Light Industrial_10,000 SF demo onsite 0.000 5.697 5.697 0.000 0.000 5.703 2036 Light Industrial_10,000 SF construction 0.000 113.691 113.691 0.005 0.000 113.809 2036 Light Industrial_10,000 SF operation 3.251 41.747 44.998 0.226 0.002 51.323 2036 Light Industrial_10,000 SF renovation onsite 0.000 0.638 0.638 0.000 0.000 0.639 2036 Light Industrial_10,000 SF renovation offsite 0.000 0.011 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.011 2036 Light Industrial_10,000 SF renovation 0.000 0.649 0.649 0.000 0.000 0.650 2036 Light industrial_20,000 SF construction 0.000 151.992 151.992 0.007 0.000 152.156 2036 Light Industrial_20,000 SF operation 6.502 83.494 89.996 0.451 0.005 102.646 2036 Light Industrial_30,000 SF with 20,000 demo 0.000 196.253 196.253 0.009 0.000 196.467 2036 Light Industrial_30,000 SF Construction 0.000 196.253 196.253 0.009 0.000 196.467 2036 Light Industrial_20,000 SF demo offsite 0.000 3.311 3.311 0.000 0.000 3.315 2036 Light Industrial_20,000 SF demo onsite 0.000 5.697 5.697 0.000 0.000 5.703 2036 Light Industrial_20,000 SF demo 0.000 9.008 9.008 0.000 0.000 9.017 2036 Light Industrial_30,000 SF operation 9.752 125.241 134.993 0.677 0.007 153.968 2036 Light Industrial_100,000 SF with 50,000 SF demo 2036 0.000 749.586 749.586 0.032 0.000 750.397 2036 Light Industrial_100,000 SF with 50,000 SF demo 2037 0.000 1.018 1.018 0.000 0.000 1.019 2036 Light Industrial_100,000 SF with 50,000 SF demo 0.000 750.605 750.605 0.032 0.000 751.416 2036 Light Industrial_100,000 SF construction 0.000 750.605 750.605 0.032 0.000 751.416 2036 Light Industrial_50,000 SF demo onsite 0.000 24.150 24.150 0.001 0.000 24.175 2036 Light Industrial_50,000 SF demo offsite 0.000 16.020 16.020 0.001 0.000 16.039 2036 Light Industrial_50,000 SF demo 0.000 40.171 40.171 0.002 0.000 40.213 2036 Light Industrial_100,000 SF operation 32.507 417.470 449.977 2.256 0.023 513.227 2036 parking_100,000 SF 2036 0.000 451.373 451.373 0.018 0.000 451.825 2036 parking_100,000 SF 2037 0.000 1.018 1.018 0.000 0.000 1.019 2036 parking_100,000 SF Construction 0.000 452.391 452.391 0.018 0.000 452.844 2036 parking_100,000 SF Operation 0.000 10.184 10.184 0.000 0.000 10.224 2036 parking_200,000 SF 2036 0.000 685.490 685.490 0.027 0.000 686.152 2036 parking_200,000 SF 2037 0.000 23.262 23.262 0.001 0.000 23.284 2036 parking_200,000 SF construction 0.000 708.752 708.752 0.027 0.000 709.436 2036 parking_200,000 SF Operation 0.000 20.367 20.367 0.001 0.000 20.447 2036 RV_5 acres Construction 0.000 535.916 535.916 0.019 0.000 536.384 2036 RV_5 acres 2036 0.000 508.663 508.663 0.018 0.000 509.105 2036 RV_5 acres 2037 0.000 27.254 27.254 0.001 0.000 27.279 2036 RV_5 acres operation 0.087 564.053 564.141 0.019 0.000 564.634