for the rolls-royce engine services-oakland inc. test cell … · 2016-03-10 · rolls-royce engine...

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the

Rolls-Royce Engine Services-Oakland Inc. Test Cell Upgrade Project

OAKLAND, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Prepared for: Port of Oakland 530 Water Street Oakland, California 94607 Contact: Colleen Liang Port Environmental Scientist [email protected]

Date: June 2013

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ......................................................................................... 1

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ..................................................................................................... 1 2.1 PROJECT TITLE ..................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS ....................................................................................... 1 2.3 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER ............................................................................... 1 2.4 PROJECT LOCATION .............................................................................................................. 2 2.5 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT ............................................................. 2 2.6 SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING ............................................................................... 2

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 5 3.1 PROJECT CONTEXT ............................................................................................................... 5 3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................... 5 3.3 PROJECT–RELATED APPROVALS, AGREEMENTS, AND PERMITS .............................................. 6 3.4 PROJECT SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................. 6

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED .............................................. 15 4.1 AESTHETICS ........................................................................................................................ 17 4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ......................................................................... 18 4.3 AIR QUALITY ....................................................................................................................... 19 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................... 25 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 40 4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .......................................................................................................... 44 4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................ 47 4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................................................... 49 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...................................................................................... 54 4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING .................................................................................................. 57 4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 64 4.12 NOISE ............................................................................................................................... 64 4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................................................................................... 76 4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................................. 77 4.15 RECREATION ..................................................................................................................... 78 4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ............................................................................................... 79 4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ...................................................................................... 82 4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................................... 85

5.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ...................................................................................................... 88

5.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 88 COMMENT LETTER A: SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION .. 89 COMMENT LETTER B: BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ..................................... 92 COMMENT LETTER C: SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER .............................................................. 94 RESPONSE TO COMMENT C-1 .................................................................................................. 102

6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 112 CHECKLIST INFORMATION SOURCES ........................................................................................ 112 SETTING REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 112

7.0 LIST OF ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................ 115

ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Project Area Location Map ........................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Aerial of the Project Area .............................................................................................. 4 Figure 3a. Test Cell Wall Elevations ............................................................................................ 7 Figure 3b. Test Cell Ground Floor Plan ....................................................................................... 8 Figure 4a. Test Cell Ground Floor Sections (Indoor/Outdoor) ..................................................... 9 Figure 4b. Outdoor Area Plan ..................................................................................................... 10 Figure 4c. Outdoor Test Cell Sections and Details .................................................................... 11 Figure 4d. Outdoor Oil/Water Separator .................................................................................... 12 Figure 4e. Outdoor Holding Tank ............................................................................................... 13 Figure 5. Biological Communities in the Study Area .................................................................. 30 Figure 6. CNDDB Plant Occurrences within 2 Miles of Project Area ......................................... 32 Figure 7. CNDDB Wildlife Occurrences within 2 Miles of Project Area ...................................... 33 Figure 7a. Approximate BCDC 100’ Shoreline Band ................................................................. 63 Figure 8. Ambient Noise Measurement ..................................................................................... 71 Figure 9. Long-term Noise Measurement, Location 1 ................................................................ 72 Figure 10. Long-term Noise Measurement, Location 2 .............................................................. 72

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Test Cell Project Construction Emissions Estimate ..................................................... 22 Table 2. Test Cell Project – Changes in Operating Emissions .................................................. 23 Table 3. Wildlife and Plant Species Observed in the Study Area .............................................. 27 Table 4. Summary of Biological Communities within the Study Area. ....................................... 29 Table 5. Maximum Allowable Receiving Noise Level Standards (dBA) ..................................... 67 Table 6. Maximum Allowable Receiving Noise Level Standards from Temporary Construction or Demolition (dBA) ......................................................................................................................... 67 Table 7. Alameda County ALUC Noise Compatibility Criteria ................................................... 69 Table 8. Oakland General Plan Noise Land Use Compatibility Matrix ....................................... 70 Table 9. Short-Term Ambient Noise Measurements, 8 January 2013 ....................................... 73 Table 10. Construction Equipment Noise Generation ................................................................ 75

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES APPENDIX B. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM APPENDIX C. HISTORICAL WEATHER DATA FROM OAKLAND AIRPORT DURING NOISE MONITORING

RRESO Test Cell Upgrade Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Port of Oakland 1 June 2013

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

This Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts is being prepared to conform to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines (California Code of Regulations 15000 et. seq.). This Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluates the potential environmental impacts which might reasonably be anticipated to result from implementation of the Rolls-Royce Engine Services – Oakland Inc. (RRESO) Test Cell Upgrade Project (Proposed Project). The Port of Oakland (Port) is the Lead Agency as defined under CEQA Guidelines Section 15050. Per CEQA Guidelines 15300.2(e), a categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The provisions in Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the "Cortese List" (after the Legislator who authored the legislation that enacted it) and relate to hazardous material sites. The list, or a site's presence on the list, has bearing on the local permitting process as well as on compliance with the CEQA. The Proposed Project cannot qualify for a categorical exemption because the site is listed on the Cortese list. The purpose of an Initial Study is to provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare and Environmental Impact Report or a Negative Declaration for the Proposed Project. A Negative Declaration briefly describes the reason that a Proposed Project would result in a significant effect on the environment, and the basis of the decision not to prepare an EIR. This Initial Study describes the Port’s efforts to ensure that all resource impacts are reduced to less-than-significant level with mitigation incorporated, qualifying for a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. This Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration provides the Port, its Board of Port Commissioners, and the public with an understanding of the potential environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project. The purpose of the Proposed Project includes the physical modifications of the RRESO Test Cell Facility that are required in order to accommodate the testing of a new engine line.

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

2.1 Project Title

Rolls-Royce Engine Services – Oakland Inc. Test Cell Upgrade Project

2.2 Lead Agency Name and Address

Port of Oakland 530 Water Street Oakland, California 94607

2.3 Contact Person and Phone Number

Colleen Liang, Port Environmental Scientist [email protected] (510) 627-1198


2.4 Project Location

The Project Area is located at 6701 Old Earhart Road, in the City of Oakland (APN 42-4404-11-2). The Project Area is within Oakland International Airport (OAK or Airport)-North Field1 property but within the existing Rolls-Royce Engine Services – Oakland, Inc. (RRESO) leasehold. Currently, the Project Area includes several testing facilities and above- and under-ground storage tanks (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

2.5 General Plan Designation and Zoning District

The Project Area is located within the Seaport and Airport/Gateway Showcase District and designated for airport uses by the City of Oakland General Plan.

2.6 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting

The Project Area is located in the vicinity of the San Francisco Bay. To the west of the Project Area are the North Port of Oakland Refuse Disposal Site (former landfill), Harbor Bay Parkway, and the Alameda Chuck Corica Golf Complex. To the east of the Project Area is the muted2 tidal Fan Marsh, San Leandro Bay and Martin Luther King, Jr. Shoreline Park. To the north is Harbor Bay Parkway. To the south is the North Field, which is a designated Area of Primary Importance (Local Historic District) by the City of Oakland. Immediately to the north of the Project Area, but separated by Harbor Bay Parkway, is Doolittle Pond, a designated wildlife sanctuary.3 The Project Area is an area (0.12 acre) within the existing RRESO facilities adjacent to the existing indoor propeller test stand. The Project Area is located on an expanse of paved, developed ground. Improvements to be included in the Project Area is a new exterior water cooling system for the proposed remodeled test stand, consisting of a cooling tower, water piping, pumps and sumps and an oil/water separation system.

1 There are two areas at OAK: The North Field and the South Field. The North Field is defined as the

area north of Ron Cowan Parkway, including Runways 9R-27L, 9L-27R, and 15-33, that contains a variety of aviation land uses, primarily general aviation aircraft hangars, ramps, and fixed-base operators, as well as some air cargo facilities. The South Field is generally defined as the airport area south of Ron Cowan Parkway that includes Runway 11-29 and is dominated by passenger facilities, including Terminals 1 and 2, and air cargo facilities.

2 Muted means that the tidal flows are conveyed through culverts which has the effect of reducing or “muting” the tidal range within the Fan Marsh.

3 East Bay Regional Parks District. Available at: http://www.ebparks.org/parks/martinlking#trailmap. Accessed January 8, 2013.

Map Date: April 2013Map By: Michael RochelleBase Source: ESRI Topo and National Geographic

Figure 1. Project Area Location Map

RRESO Test Cell Upgrade ProjectOakland, California

0 0.5 10.25

Miles

.Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\22000\22245\GIS\ArcMap\Fig1_LocMap_20130127.mxd

Detail Area

Project Area

Fan MarshSpunkmeyer Field

(NPORDS)

Doolittle Trail

San Francisco Bay Trail

Date: April 2013Map By: Michael RochelleBase Source: Microsoft 2010

Figure 2. Aerial of the Project Area


0 100 20050

Feet

.

Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\22000\22245\GIS\ArcMap\Fig2_Aerial_20130517.mxd

Test Cell Facility (2.04 acres)

Project Area (Test Cell #1) (0.12 acre)

Indoor Project Area

Outdoor Project Area

Old Earhart Road

Pump House #2

Test Cell #1

Fan MarshSpunkmeyerField

(NPORDS)


3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3.1 Project Context

The existing Test Cell Facility main features include six engine test cells with auxiliary structures, one 30,000-gallon above-ground liquefied petroleum fuel tank, three jet-A-fuel underground storage tanks (USTs; one 10,000-gallon & twin 8,000-gallon tanks), two oil/water separators, and one cooling tower. Operations at the Test Cell facility consist of testing turbine engines that have undergone repair at RRESO's Main Building or elsewhere. The operations include testing the mechanical and electrical functions of the repaired turbine engines as well as operating the turbine engines under simulated flight conditions. The tested turbine engines are prepared for testing in the Engine Preparation Area and subsequently tested in one of the active test cells at the site. In 2011, RRESO was granted a license from Rolls‐Royce Corporation to overhaul, repair and test an engine model that is still being manufactured. Currently a large component of RRESO’s overhaul, repair and testing work are older and considered “legacy” engines that being phased out of production. The license granted to RRESO to service the newer engines provides RRESO with an important strategic opportunity to ensure the long term stability and growth of its business, thereby keeping valuable and skilled jobs in Oakland. All activities associated with this project are within the existing facility (located at 7200 Earhart Road, Oakland) and are internal to the facility. Most of the work will be within existing buildings; however, a portion involves construction adjacent to the existing building housing Test Cell #1 at the Test Cell Facility.

3.2 Project Description

The proposed internal modifications to the Test Cell Facility include the conversion of the indoor propeller test stand, Test Cell #1, into a dynamometer test stand configuration. Externally, the only visible changes to the site are expected to be the addition of a water cooling system for the dynamometer, water supply and return piping with associated water pumps from the dynamometer to the cooling tower system, and an oil/water separation system, similar to ones that are used for Test Cells #6 and #7. The water cooling system would be comprised of a cooling tower (14’ by 24’), water piping (8” diameter supply and 14” diameter return), and associated pumps and sumps. The foundation for the cooling tower will be approximately four feet below grade, resting on eight pilings spaced around the perimeter that will be driven approximately 60 feet through the ground. The final height of the water tower resting on the mentioned foundation would be approximately 17 feet, compared to the existing building height of 22 feet (or approximately 5 feet higher). Similarly, the oil/water separation system would include an above grade separator unit, approximately 4’ by 7’ by 3’ in size along with a 1,500-gallon gray water collection tank and a 55-gallon container for collecting the separated waste. The slab foundation for the separator and pumps will be adjacent to the Test Cell #1 building, along its north side, and will be supported by an additional two pilings to those mentioned above. The dynamometer test bed and control systems would be located entirely within the existing building (Test Cell #1). Internally, there would also be some unique propeller test structures, such as the propeller ring, propeller test bed and exhaust turning vane that would be removed to allow for the test bed to be installed. A new engine exhaust system would be installed and


would be contained within the existing building structure (Figure 3a). Additional views of the Proposed Project site plans are illustrated in Figures 4a-4e. No changes are expected to the entrances or exits of the building. Regarding the engine operation, advanced design technology relative to the older engines has been incorporated in the new model, so that fuel consumption4 is expected to be lower than it has been for the engines that have previously been tested in Test Cell #1. Conducting tests with a dynamometer rig rather than a propeller system would also move much less airflow through the building, resulting in a reduction in noise levels during operation of Test Cell #1.

3.3 Project–Related Approvals, Agreements, and Permits

The information contained in this Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be used by the Port (the CEQA Lead Agency) as it considers whether or not to approve the Proposed Project. If the project is approved, the Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration would be used by the Port and responsible and trustee agencies in conjunction with various approvals and permits, including an administrative permit from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), or a non-material amendment of the Port of Oakland's existing BCDC permit No. M1989.075.

3.4 Project Schedule

Based on the construction schedule, construction activities would occur over an estimated three to four month period. Outdoor working hours will be during normal business hours (7 AM to 5 PM). Outdoor construction after business hours is not anticipated.

4 The RRESO Test Cell Facility uses Jet Aviation Fuel (Jet-A) as the fuel medium for existing and

future testing purposes.

L:\A

cad

2000

File

s\22

000\

2224

5\G

raph

ics\

11x1

7-L

RRESO Test Cell Upgrade ProjectOakland, CA

Figure 3a. Test Cell Wall Elevations

0’ 8’

Scale: 1/8” = 1’

Date: March 2013Source: Aero Systems Engineering, Inc.

L:\A

cad

2000

File

s\22

000\

2224

5\G

raph

ics\

11x1

7-L


Figure 3b. Test Cell Ground Floor Plan

0’ 8’

Scale: 1/8” = 1’


L:\A

cad

2000

File

s\22

000\

2224

5\G

raph

ics\

11x1

7-L


Figure 4a. Test Cell Ground Floor Sections (Indoor/Outdoor)

INDOOR

INDOOR

OUTDOOR

INDOOR

INDOOR

OUTDOOR


tyler

Text Box

Proposed Cooling Tower

tyler

Text Box


tyler

Text Box


L:\A

cad

2000

File

s\22

000\

2224

5\G

raph

ics\

11x1

7-L


Figure 4b. Outdoor Project Area Plan

See Figure 4c

See Figure 4eSee Figure 4d


L:\A

cad

2000

File

s\22

000\

2224

5\G

raph

ics\

11x1

7-L


Figure 4c. Outdoor Test Cell Sections and Details

AREA SHOWN


COOLING TOWER FOUNDATION PLAN

L:\A

cad

2000

File

s\22

000\

2224

5\G

raph

ics\

11x1

7-L


Figure 4d. Outdoor Oil/Water Separator

AREA SHOWN

Date: March 2013Source: Highland Tank

L:\A

cad

2000

File

s\22

000\

2224

5\G

raph

ics\

11x1

7-L


Figure 4e. Outdoor Holding Tank

AREA SHOWN

Date: March 2013Source: Highland Tank

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics

Agriculture and Forestry Resources

Air Quality

X Biological Resources

Cultural Resources

x

x

Determination

Geology and Soils

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Hydrology and Water Quality ,

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

Land Use/Planning

Mineral Resources

Noise

Population and Housing

Public Services

Recreation

Transportation/Traffic

___ Utilities ,//

x Mandatory Findings of Significance

D I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

~ I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

D I find that the project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

D I find that the project MAY have a "Potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

D I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Proposed Project, nothing further is required.

~"'f 34,,ie_ I~, J.bt'3 Signature Date Name and Title: Diane Heinze, Port Environmental Assessment Supervisor

RRESO Test Cell Upgrade Project Port of Oakland 15

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2013


Initial Study Checklist

This section describes the existing environmental conditions in and near the Project Area and evaluates environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project. The environmental checklist, as recommended in the CEQA Guidelines (Appendix G), was used to identify environmental impacts that could occur if the Proposed Project is implemented. The right-hand column in the checklist cites the source(s) for the answer to each question. The cited sources are identified at the end of this section. Each of the environmental categories was fully evaluated, and one of the following four determinations was made for each checklist question:

“No Impact” means that no impact to the resource would occur as a result of implementing the project.

“Less than Significant Impact” means that implementation of the project would not result in a substantial and/or adverse change to the resource, and no mitigation measures are required.

“Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” means that the incorporation of one or more mitigation measures is necessary to reduce the impact from potentially significant to less than significant.

“Potentially Significant Impact” means that there is either substantial evidence that a project-related effect may be significant, or, due to a lack of existing information, could have the potential to be significant.


4.1 Aesthetics

AESTHETICS — Would the project:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less than Significant

with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

Source

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

1,2

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

1

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

1

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

1

Environmental Setting

The Project Area is located adjacent to San Leandro Bay, in the North Field of the Airport. A muted tidal wetland (Fan Marsh), including a segment of the developed Doolittle Trail, are located to the east. A segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail is northwest of the Project Area on the north side of Doolittle Drive. The Project Area encompasses the developed areas within RRESO’s private Test Cell Facility (refer to Figure 1). Views of the Project Area are generally limited to the recreational fields and trails associated with the soccer field called Spunkmeyer Field (within the North Port of Oakland Refuse Disposal Site (NPORDS)) west of the Project Area, from portions of Harbor Bay Parkway west to the Project Area, and from motorists traveling on the Doolittle Drive (State Route 61). Temporary park uses, golfers associated with the Chuck Corica Municipal Golf Complex, and some airline passengers flying into or out of OAK would have views of the Project Area. The Project Area is not located along any designated or eligible scenic highways and is not visible from Interstate 580, which is the nearest designated scenic highway located more than four miles east of the Project Area (California Department of Transportation 2012).

Discussion of Impacts

a, b) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to introduce incompatible scenic elements within a field of view containing a scenic vista or substantially block views of a scenic vista. Additionally, a significant impact may occur where scenic resources would be damaged or removed by a project. No public scenic vistas exist in or near the Project Area. For the purposes of this analysis, a scenic vista is defined as a vantage point with a broad and expansive view of a significant landscape feature (e.g., a mountain range, the Bay, lake, or coastline) or of a significant historical or architectural feature (e.g., views of a historic tower). Public views of San Leandro Bay are afforded at the terminus of Old Earhart at Doolittle Drive. The Proposed Project would not significantly alter or obstruct views from this location. No rock outcroppings or similar recognized visual resources exist on the site, and none would be damaged through construction of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would not significantly alter pre-construction conditions. Views from superior positions (i.e., views


looking down at the Project Area from higher elevations) would not be significantly altered as a result of the Proposed Project because the Proposed Project would be consistent with the existing industrial facility and would not stand out in comparison to existing conditions. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on these resources.

c) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to introduce incompatible visual elements on the project site or visual elements that would be incompatible with the character of the area surrounding the project site. External equipment associated with the Proposed Project includes the installation a cooling tower and below-grade equipment for engine testing. The dimensions of the equipment would be similar, not larger, to current conditions and would be installed adjacent to existing buildings. Views of the material stored in the Project Area, construction equipment, and stockpiled soil would be available for brief periods. The activities are typical of equipment installation in developed areas and would not substantially degrade views of the existing setting. Therefore, views would be similar to existing conditions and impacts would be less than significant.

d) No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to introduce new sources of light or glare on or from the project site which would be incompatible with the area surrounding the project site, or which pose a safety hazard to motorists utilizing adjacent streets or freeways. The Proposed Project would not create a new permanent source of light or glare. The Proposed Project would involve the construction of equipment and structures similar to existing conditions in a built-up area, and no nighttime construction would take place. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES — Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

Source

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

4

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

1, 2, 3

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

1, 3, 4

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

1


AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES — Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

Source

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use??

1


The Project Area does not contain any farmland or forestry land and is not designated for agricultural or forestry uses or Prime, Statewide, or Locally Important Farmland (California Department of Conservation 2010). The Proposed Project is located in a semi-developed area and follows existing roads. Surrounding land is developed with industrial and recreational uses.


a-e) No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to result in the conversion of State-designated agricultural land from agricultural use to another non-agricultural use, result in the conversion of land zoned for agricultural use or under a Williamson Act Contract from agricultural use to another non-agricultural use, conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production, result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, or results in the conversion of farmland to another non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The City of Oakland General Plan designates the Project Area for airport uses. The Project Area is also not zoned for agricultural use or under a Williamson Act contract. The Proposed Project would not result in the conversion of forest land or farmland to a non-agricultural use, and would thus have no impact on agricultural resources.

4.3 Air Quality

AIR QUALITY— Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

Source

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

1

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?

1

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

1

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

1


AIR QUALITY— Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

Source

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

1


The Proposed Project is located in an industrial area, immediately west of Highway 61/Doolittle Drive. Other nearby air pollutant sources (to the south of the facility) include rental car agency gasoline dispensing facilities, and overall aviation operations in the North and South Field of OAK. Both U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California have developed several ambient air quality standards (AAQS) which have become increasingly stringent over the last several decades. Although emissions and ambient air pollution concentrations have decreased considerably over that timeframe, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is still classified as “nonattainment” with respect to standards for ozone—most of which is formed in the atmosphere by chemical reactions between reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) rather than being emitted directly—and particulate matter (PM). Separately, the portion of Alameda County in which the Project is proposed is classified as a “maintenance area”, a subset of attainment, with respect to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for carbon monoxide (CO), which means that while it currently meets the CO NAAQS, it was previously classified as nonattainment for that pollutant. The ambient air quality monitors closest to the project site are located at sites that are more inland and therefore influenced by more upwind sources, and even at those monitors, the latest quality-assured data available from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) (for calendar year 2011) showed only three violations of the 24-hour NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and zero violations of AAQS for ozone and CO.5 For the Bay Area as a whole, BAAQMD has estimated average daily emissions in 2012 as 331 tons/day (662,000 lb/day) of ROG, 432 tons/day (864,000 lb/day) of NOx, 220 tons/day (441,000 lb/day) of respirable particulate matter (PM10), and 89 tons/day (178,000 lb/day) of fine particulate matter (PM2.5).

6 There are multiple definitions of what project-level emissions increase would be considered “significant”. For temporary activities such as construction, if the project required Federal support or approvals, General Conformity regulations would require a quantitative, formal determination of General Conformity with State Implementation Plans (SIPs) if emissions of NOx, ROG, or CO were in excess of 100 tons per year (referred to as Federal de minimis levels).7 If a large (“major”) stationary source of air pollution were proposed for location at the project site, Federal New Source Review (NSR) regulations would define a “significant”

5 “ Bay Area Air Pollution Summary – 2011,” available from http://www.baaqmd.gov/DivisioAns/

Communications-and-Outreach/Air-Quality-in-the-Bay-Area/Air-Quality-Summaries.aspx. 6 BAAQMD, “Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan,” Final Clean Air Plan – Volume I, adopted Sept. 15, 2010

and available from http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/Plans/Clean-Air-Plans.aspx.

7 Separately, Federal regulations for General Conformity identify “routine maintenance and repair activities, including repair and maintenance of administrative sites, roads, trails, and facilities” as “actions which would result in...an increase in emissions that is clearly de minimis” [40 CFR 93.153(c)(2)(iv)]


emissions increase as 100 tons per year (TPY) of CO, 40 TPY of ROG or NOx., 25 TPY of PM10 (respirable particulate matter), or 15 TPY of PM2.5 (fine particulate matter).8 For sources operating year-round (365 days/year), these four thresholds correspond to approximately 548 lb/day, 219 lb/day, 137 lb/day, and 82 lb/day, respectively. In 2010, BAAQMD adopted quantitative thresholds of significance for CEQA purposes of 82 lb/day for exhaust PM10 and 54 lb/day for exhaust PM2.5, NOx, and ROG, and also identified that best management practices (BMPs) needed to be used for controlling fugitive dust from construction to avoid being considered “significant”. The BAAQMD’s June 2010 adopted thresholds of significance were challenged in a lawsuit. On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds. The court found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQA and ordered the BAAQMD to examine whether the thresholds would have a significant impact on the environment under CEQA before recommending their use. The court did not determine whether the thresholds are or are not based on substantial evidence and thus valid on the merits. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the District to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the BAAQMD had complied with CEQA. The court’s order permits the BAAQMD to develop and disseminate guidelines for CEQA compliance within the District, as long as they do not implement the 2010 thresholds of significance. In light of the court’s order, all references of the Air District’s June 2010 adopted thresholds, including related screening criteria, have been removed from the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines.9 Hence, this analysis relies on thresholds described in the previous version of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, published in 1999, but also includes a comparison with the more conservative June 2010 BAAQMD CEQA thresholds as a point of reference.10 Under the previous version, the thresholds of significance for emissions increases at stationary sources were 80 lb/day for PM10, NOx, and ROG. The BMPs for controlling fugitive dust from construction in the 1999 thresholds are very similar to those identified in the 2010 version. Although the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guideline thresholds are no longer recommended for generally applicable measures of impacts, they are conservative, given that they are more stringent than the earlier thresholds mentioned above. Therefore, emissions increases that are less than the 2010 thresholds will be considered less than significant for purposes of CEQA in this Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.


For the Proposed Project, there are emissions associated with construction and operations of maintaining and repairing the new engines. Construction Activities Air emissions associated with the construction of this project were calculated using the latest version of the California Emissions Estimator Model™ (CalEEMod™) (Environ 2011), as recommended by BAAQMD, and information regarding construction equipment that is expected to be used. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions associated 8 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A); 51.166(b)(23)(i); 52.21(b)(23). 9 BAAQMD, “Updated CEQA Guidelines”, available from http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-

and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx. 10 BAAQMD, “BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines”, December 1999, pp. 13-15.


with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. On February 29, 2012, the BAAQMD hosted a training class for CalEEMod, which was released in February 2011 and is recommended for use for air quality analysis by air districts throughout the state. New construction equipment has been subject to increasingly stringent emissions requirements in federal regulations (e.g., 40 CFR 89 and 1039), which provide for designation of construction equipment engines as “Tier 1”, “Tier 2”, “Tier 3”, etc. Older construction equipment is subject to potential retrofit requirements required by the State of California (13 CCR 2449, 13 CCR 2450-2466, and 17 CCR 93116), and California also imposes standards for emissions from portable engines often used in construction projects in the Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP), which is administered by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Average daily emissions for the Proposed Project were determined by dividing the construction emissions by 101 calendar days. Emissions of the pollutants identified above are described in Table 1. Emissions calculations assume that construction equipment, such as loaders, excavators, aerial lifts, paver and rollers, would meet federal Tier 2 emissions standards. Table 1. Test Cell Project Construction Emissions Estimate

Pollutant Total Tons lb/day

1999 BAAQMD

Threshold*

ton/yr (lb/day)

2010 BAAQMD

Threshold**

ton/yr(lb/day)

ROG 0.07 1 - 10 (54)

NOX 0.19 4 - 10 (54)

PM10 (Exhaust) 0.01 0 - 15 (82)

PM2.5 (Exhaust) 0 0 - 10 (54)

* No numeric construction thresholds were established in 1999. ** For reference only.

Operations Emissions from the newer engines are lower than those from the older engines, but the newer engines need to be tested for longer periods of time. Air emissions associated with the operation of the test cell were calculated based on load-specific emissions information and information regarding the amount of time spent at various load points. The emissions rate was calculated for each engine and each load for which Rolls-Royce provided information (100% load, 85% load, 30% load, and 7% load). For gaseous pollutants (NOx, CO, and HC) this simply involved multiplying the fuel consumption rate (expressed in lb/hr) by the emission factor (expressed in grams of emissions per kilogram of fuel, which is the same as pounds per thousand pounds of fuel) and dividing by (60 min/hr) and 1000 (to reflect the fact that the factor is pounds per thousand pounds). For particulate, the smoke number is not always directly translatable into an emissions factor (g/kg), for the older engine model load-specific information


from Corporan, Quick, and DeWitt (2008)11 (which also reported similar smoke numbers to the ones identified by RRESO) was used and for the newer engine model a ratio was used to reduce these numbers down based on the smoke numbers; i.e., emission factors for the newer engine model were calculated for each load point. There are currently between 35-50 tests conducted per year of the older engine model, and it is expected that approximately 35-50 tests will be conducted per year of the newer engine model; therefore, the emissions changes associated with switching the test cell from one the older engine type to the newer model were calculated based on both 35 and 50 tests per year (Table 2). Table 2. Test Cell Project – Changes in Operating Emissions

Tests/Year lb/average day MT/Year

CO HC NOX PM10 CO2 Old Engine Model

35 0.18 0.025 3.7 0.5 134

50 0.26 0.036 5.3 0.7 192

New Engine Model

35 0.94 0.009 5.9 0.3 227

50 1.34 0.013 8.4 0.4 325

Changes in Operating Emissions

35 0.76 -0.016 2.2 -0.2 93

50 1.08 -0.023 3.1 -0.3 133

BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds

1999 Thresholds* - - 80 80 -

2010 Thresholds** - - 54 82 1,100

Note: This table describes the increases or decreases in operating emissions from the change in engine type. * No thresholds available for CO and HC or CO2 in 1999. ** For reference only. These construction and operation emissions changes are well below the significance thresholds that were adopted in 2010 by BAAQMD. a, b) Less than Significant. A significant air quality impact may occur if a project is not

consistent with the applicable Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) or would in some way represent a substantial hindrance to employing the policies or obtaining the goals of that plan or impact if project-related emissions would exceed federal, state, or regional standards or thresholds, or if project-related emissions would substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation.

11 Rolls-Royce’s information regarding “smoke number” was translated into mass emissions of

particulate matter using data from Corporan, Quick, and DeWitt 2008.


As identified above, emissions from project construction and operation are far below the significance thresholds for emissions that were adopted by BAAQMD in 2010. With the exception of air emissions associated with tank truck trips required to periodically dispose of contents pumped from the oil/water separation system, the project would not result in an increase in operational air emissions related to traffic as no new employees would be required. The current magnitude of emissions is so low that they will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. No mitigation is necessary. However, to ensure that construction emissions deemed to be insignificant are consistent with the emissions estimates, above, the contractor would comply with the 2012 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. All self-propelled off-road diesel vehicles over 25 horsepower would comply with CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle regulation (revised May 2012) to reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter (PM). The regulation requires the contractor to provide the following:

1. Idling limited to five minutes 2. Written Idling Policy (for “Medium” and “Large” fleets defined by summation

of fleet horsepower) 3. Disclosure of selling vehicles 4. Reporting to CARB using DOORS (Diesel Off-Road Online Reporting

System) 5. Labeling with CARB identification number from DOORS 6. Annual Reporting

The construction contractor shall implement the following BMPs as required by the 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines:

1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas) will be watered two times per day, as appropriate; pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking area and staging areas.

2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site will be covered.

3. All paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site will be swept daily with water sweepers. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads will be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

4. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved will be completed as soon as possible.

5. All construction equipment will be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer‘s specifications, and all equipment will be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator.

6. A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints will be posted in or near the Project Area. The contact person will respond to complaints and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District‘s phone number will also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.


c) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would add

a considerable cumulative contribution to federal or state non-attainment pollutant. As mentioned in the Environmental Setting, the area is non-attainment with respect to AAQS for ozone and particulate matter. The BAAQMD 2010 Clean Air Plan addresses these AAQS and evaluates cumulative impacts by considering emissions from all sources and projecting future activity. As mentioned above for a) and b), the emissions from the Proposed Project would be negligible, the construction emissions will cease when construction is complete, and operating emissions are episodic and of short duration, not continuous. Emissions totals are well below all quantitative significance thresholds in the BAAQMD 1999 and 2010 CEQA Guidelines. The Proposed Project would therefore result in a less-than-significant contribution to cumulative pollutant levels in the region.

d) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to generate pollutant concentrations to a degree that would significantly affect sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors are located more than one and a half miles downwind. Fugitive dust will be minimal, construction equipment is mobile (dispersing and diluting pollutants over a wider area than if they were fixed in place) and the contractor is also required to comply with CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Vehicle regulation. The nearest sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts would be less than significant.

e) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. BAAQMD’s 2012 CEQA Guidelines identify the following as potential sources of objectionable odors: wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants. This Proposed Project does not involve construction of any of those types of facilities. Project activities would involve the use of combustion equipment that emits exhaust gases and particulate matter, which can have objectionable odors. However, the magnitude of emissions increases is very low, and emissions will result in less than significant odor impacts.

4.4 Biological Resources

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

Source

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

1


BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

Source

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

1

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

1

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

1

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

1

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

1


The analysis of potential biological impacts is based on a site visit conducted by WRA on January 9, 2013 as well as a review of existing biological information for the Airport and the surrounding region. For the purpose of describing biological resources, the Study Area encompasses the Project Area and a 100-foot buffer surrounding the Project Area. Because of the nearby presence of wetlands, the Study Area also includes the non-tidal waters associated with Pump House #2 located south of the Test Cell Facility and the entire 8.58-acre muted tidal wetlands within the Fan Marsh east of the Test Cell Facility. Two sets of culverts under Doolittle Drive connect the Fan Marsh to San Leandro Bay and the restriction to flow caused by these culverts results in a reduced tidal range in Fan Marsh. Stormwater runoff from the Airport collected in the detention pond south of the Test Cell Facility is pumped into the Fan Marsh through the basin at Pump House #2 (Figure 2). The Project Area is separated from the Fan Marsh by a paved levee (also used as a controlled vehicular access road). The Project Area is developed with pavement, asphalt, and buildings or structures used to test equipment. Habitats in the larger Study Area; however, include native vegetation, non-native annual grassland and jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. The biological communities in the Study Area are illustrated in Figure 5.


Table 3 lists wildlife and plant species observed during the January 9, 2013 site visit. Table 4 summarizes the area of each biological community type observed in the Study Area. Non-sensitive biological communities in the Study Area included 2.59 acres of non-native annual grassland and 2.49 acres of developed land. There are 8.58 acres of muted tidal wetlands (Fan Marsh) adjacent to the Project Area that is considered a sensitive biological community. Table 3. Wildlife and Plant Species Observed in the Study Area

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ORIGIN/STATUS

Wildlife

Agelaius phoeniceus red-winged blackbird common resident

Anas platyrhynchos mallard common resident and migrant

Ardea alba great egret common resident

Branta canadensis Canada goose common migrant

Bucephala albeola bufflehead common migrant

Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk common resident

Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird common resident

Carpodacus mexicanus house finch common resident

Columba livia rock pigeon common resident; non-native

Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow common resident

Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite common resident

Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer’s blackbird common resident

Larus occidentalis western gull common resident

Numenius phaeopus whimbrel common resident and migrant

Sayornis nigricans black phoebe common resident

Sturnus vulgaris European starling common resident; non-native

Plants

Avena fatua wild oat non-native; invasive

Baccharis glutinosa marsh baccharis native

Baccharis pilularis coyote brush native

Beta vulgaris common beet non-native

Bolboschoenus [Scirpus] maritimus

alkali-bulrush native

Brassica sp. mustard non-native

Bromus diandrus ripgut brome non-native; invasive


SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ORIGIN/STATUS

Bromus hordeaceus soft brome non-native; invasive

Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle non-native; invasive

Conium maculatum poison hemlock non-native; invasive

Cupressus sempervirens Italian cypress not native

Cyperus eragrostis tall flatsedge native

Distichlis spicata saltgrass native

Dittrichia graveolens stinkwort non-native; invasive

Festuca perennis [Lolium multiflorum]

perennial ryegrass non-native; invasive

Foeniculum vulgare fennel non-native, invasive

Frankenia salina alkali sea-heath native

Grindelia stricta coastal gumweed native

Helminthotheca [Picris] echioides bristly ox-tongue non-native; invasive

Hirschfeldia incana summer mustard non-native; invasive

Hordeum marinum Mediterranean barley non-native; invasive

Lepidium latifolium perennial pepperweed non-native; invasive

Malva neglecta common mallow non-native

Pennisetum sp. fountain grass N/A

Plantago coronopus rattail plantain non-native

Pyracantha sp. firethorn non-native

Raphanus sativus wild radish non-native; invasive

Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry non-native; invasive

Rumex crispus curly dock non-native; invasive

Salicornia pacifica [S. virginica] pickleweed native

Salsola soda oppositeleaf Russian thistle non-native; invasive

Spartina alterniflora x foliosa cordgrass non-native, invasive

Silybum marianum milk thistle non-native; invasive

Trifolium sp. clover N/A

Typha sp. cattail native

Vinca major big periwinkle non-native; invasive


Table 4. Summary of Biological Communities within the Study Area.

Community Type Area (acres)

Non-native annual grassland 2.59

Northern Coastal Salt Marsh (muted Tidal Wetland/Fan Marsh)

8.58

Wetland drainage channel 2.26

Developed 2.49

Total Study Area Size 15.92

Non-Sensitive Biological Communities

Non-Native Annual Grassland

Non-native annual grassland comprises approximately 2.59 acres in the Study Area. Dominant plant species observed in the non-native grassland in the Study Area included summer and other mustards, Italian thistle, wild radish, bristly ox-tongue, common mallow, and non-native annual grasses. Himalayan blackberry and Italian cypress occur along the fence between the Project Area and the non-native annual grassland west of the Project Area. Wildlife species observed in non-native grassland in the Study Area included black phoebe, Brewer’s blackbird and red-tailed hawk.

Developed

Approximately 2.49 acres of developed area are located within the Study Area and include the Proposed Project location, existing Test Cell Facility buildings, storage tanks, and access roads.

Sensitive Biological Communities

Northern Coastal Salt Marsh (muted Tidal Wetland/Fan Marsh)

Holland (1986) describes northern coastal salt marsh as highly productive, herbaceous and suffructescent, salt-tolerant hydrophytes forming moderate to dense cover and up to 1 m tall. Most species are active in summer, dormant in winter. Usually segregated horizontally with Spartina nearer the open water and, Salicornia at higher elevations. Characteristic vegetation includes saltgrass, pickleweed, sedges (Carex spp.), and rushes (Schoenoplectus spp., Scirpus spp., etc.). Vegetation may occur in elevational zones related to depth, length, and frequency of tidal inundation. Northern coastal salt marsh comprises approximately 8.58 acres in the Study Area.


Figure 5. Biological Communities in the Study Area


0 100 20050

Feet

.

Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\22000\22245\GIS\ArcMap\Fig5_BioComms_20130127.mxd

Study Area (15.92 acres)

Project Area (0.12 acre)


Developed (2.49 acres)

Non-native AnnualGrassland (2.59 acres)

Muted Tidal Wetland (8.58 acres)

Other Waters of the U.S.(2.26 acres)

Fan Marsh(CCR Habitat)

Pump House #2

Old Earhart Road


Wetland Drainage Channel

The muted tidal wetland (Fan Marsh) receives freshwater from a storm water detention basin (Pump House #2) outfall south of RRESO’s Test Cell Facility. Habitat surrounding the other waters associated with Pump House #2 is comprised of non-native grassland. The muted tidal wetland drains into the San Leandro Bay through a culvert under Doolittle Drive. Wildlife species observed in this habitat included Anna’s hummingbird, mallard, bufflehead, red-winged blackbird, great egret, whimbrel, western gull and white-tailed kite.

Section 404 Jurisdictional Wetlands

The jurisdictional wetland delineation was approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in March 2011. The Corps determined that 8.58 acres of the muted Fan Marsh is a tidally influenced wetland complex subject to the Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Similarly, the Corps has determined Section 404 jurisdiction over the non-tidal other waters associated with the Pump House #2 south of the Test Cell Facility (Huffman-Broadway 2007).

Special-Status Species

Prior to the site visit, background literature was reviewed to determine potential presence of sensitive vegetation types, aquatic communities, and special-status plant and wildlife species. Resources reviewed include aerial photography, mapped soil types, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the San Leandro United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ quadrangle map, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI; USFWS 2012), the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Database (2012), USFWS species list for the San Leandro USGS quadrangle map, and species habitat requirements as noted in available literature. The California Clapper Rail Survey Reports from 2009 – 2013, 2012 California Clapper Rail Habitat Enhancement Program Progress Report prepared Olofson Environmental Inc. for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project (ISP), and a Habitat Evaluation for Federally Listed Wetland Species at Oakland International Airport prepared by URS were reviewed. CNDDB special-status plant and wildlife historical and current occurrences within 2-miles of the Project Area are illustrated in Figures 6 and 7, respectively. A list of potential special-status species within the USGS quadrangle is provided in Appendix A.

Plants

Project Area As previously stated, the Project Area is developed with asphalt paving, gravel, and Test Cell Facility buildings. Therefore, no special-status plant species occur within the Project Area. Study Area As for the Study Area, based upon a review of the resources and databases listed above, 12 special-status plants have been documented within the San Leandro USGS quadrangle. Most of the species included in the special-status lists (Appendix A) occur in habitats not found in the Study Area such as coastal dune, coastal prairie, chaparral, scrub, valley and foothill grassland, woodland, or forest habitats. Two species, Point Reyes bird’s-beak (Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre, syn. Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. palustris) and California seablite (Suaeda californica) have documented occurrences within the San Leandro USGS quadrangle and have the potential to occur in the Study Area. The potential for these species to occur within the Study Area is discussed below.


Figure 6. CNDDB Plant Occurrences within 2 Miles of Project Area


0 0.5 10.25

Miles

.Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\22000\22245\GIS\ArcMap\CNDDB_Plants.mxd

Project Area

2 Mile Buffer

California seablite

Kellogg's horkelia

Point Reyes bird's-beak

adobe sanicle

alkali milk-vetch

robust spineflower

saline clover

woodland woollythreads


Figure 7. CNDDB Wildlife Occurrences within 2 Miles of Project Area


0 0.5 10.25

Miles

.Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\22000\22245\GIS\ArcMap\CNDDB_Wildlife.mxd

Project Area

2 Mile Buffer

Alameda Island mole

Alameda song sparrow

burrowing owl

California black rail

California clapper rail

California least tern

California tiger salamander

monarch butterfly

salt-marsh harvest mouse

salt-marsh wandering shrew

saltmarsh common yellowthroat

western snowy plover


Point Reyes bird’s-beak (Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre, syn. Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. palustris); California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Rank 1B.2. A CDFW CNDDB occurrence of this species has been documented from within one mile of the Study Area (CDFW 2013). According to CNDDB (2013), it is likely that this population is extirpated. However, the coastal salt marsh habitat in the eastern portion of the Study Area contains suitable habitat elements for this species (regular tidal influence, undisturbed native soils, and associate species), and as such, there is moderate potential for this species to occur there. California seablite (Suaeda californica); Federal Endangered, CNPS Rare Plant Rank 1B.1. The Study Area is located within a specific area occurrence of this species, with a voucher specimen dated from 1943. This population is also described as extirpated (CDFW 2013). The species is associated with coastal salt marsh. However, the CNPS states that the species was formerly found in the San Francisco Bay area, where extirpated by development. However, the plant is now extant only in Morro Bay and near Cayucos Pt. (CNPS 2013). The potential for this species to be found within the Study Area is low.

Wildlife

Project Area Sixteen special-status species of wildlife have been recorded in the San Leandro USGS quadrangle. The Project Area does not contain suitable habitat to support any special-status wildlife species. Study Area Eight special-status wildlife species have the potential to occur in the Study Area. One special-status wildlife species, white-tailed kite, was observed foraging over the muted tidal Fan Marsh during the site assessment. Special-status wildlife species that were observed or which have a potential to occur in the Study Area are discussed below. These species include: saltmarsh common yellowthroat, California black rail, Alameda song sparrow, California clapper rail, salt-marsh harvest mouse, and white-tailed kite. Saltmarsh Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa), USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern, CDFW Species of Special Concern. This subspecies of the common yellowthroat is found in freshwater marshes, coastal swales, riparian thickets, brackish marshes, and saltwater marshes. Their breeding range extends from Tomales Bay in the north, Carquinez Strait to the east, and Santa Cruz County to the south. This species requires thick, continuous cover such as tall grasses, tule patches, or riparian vegetation down to the water surface for foraging and prefers willows for nesting. This species was not observed during the field assessment. White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus); CDFW Fully Protected. White-tailed kite is resident in agricultural areas, grasslands, scrub habitats, wet meadows, and emergent wetlands throughout the lower elevations of California. Nests are constructed mostly of twigs and placed in small to large trees, often at habitat edges (Dunk 1995). This species preys upon a variety of small mammals and other vertebrates. This species may forage over the open salt marsh and non-native annual grassland within the Study Area, although nesting habitat is limited. This species was observed foraging over the muted Fan Marsh.


Salt-marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris); Federal Endangered Species, State Endangered, CDFW Fully Protected Species. The salt marsh harvest mouse (SMHM) is found only in saline emergent wetlands of San Francisco Bay where suitable dense vegetative cover is present for escape during high tides. The primary food source for SMHM is seeds and dense pickleweed. They are also accustomed to drinking moderately saline water and are capable of swimming to dispersal habitats. This species typically nests in a loose ball of grasses on the surface of the ground. SMHM is found in pickleweed dominated vegetation (Fisler 1965), though more recent studies have shown that SMHM is supported equally in pickleweed dominated and mixed-vegetation (including native and non-native salt- and brackish-marsh species) (Sustaita et al. 2005, Sustaita et al. 2011). The SMHM does not burrow, and thus it is dependent on year-round vegetative cover. SMHM also requires areas of refuge from high tide events. Potential sources of refuge include tall stands of pickleweed that remain unsubmerged during high tides, as well as gumplant (Grindelia), common bulrush (Schoenoplectus americanus), natural and artificial dikes and levees, floating debris, and grasslands adjacent to the marsh edge. Diked marshes are generally not favored where adjacent upland cover has been eliminated, however harvest mice appear to have adapted to these areas where suitable salt- and brackish-marsh vegetation is present (Shellhammer et al. 1982, Geissel 1988, Sustaita et al. 2011). Salt marsh harvest mice have not been observed in the muted tidal Fan Marsh; however, their potential habitat is present. SMHM is presumed absent in the Study Area based on a report prepared by URS in 2012 (URS 2012). The URS report states that there are no current or historical CNDDB records of the salt marsh harvest mouse within the Airport boundary. Alameda song sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula); CDFW Species of Special Concern. Alameda song sparrow, a subspecies of the common and widespread song sparrow (M. melodia), is an endemic resident of marsh habitat along the fringes of south and east San Francisco Bay. This subspecies prefers tidally influenced marsh, and taller shrubs such as gumplant are required for breeding to avoid nest flooding during high tides (Chan and Spautz 2008). This species was not observed during the site assessment but the Study Area is included in a CNNDB nonspecific occurrence area (CDFW 2013). California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus); Federal Endangered, State Endangered, CDFW Fully Protected. This species has been documented in the Study Area (CDFW 2013). Tidal marsh vegetation in the muted Fan Marsh provides suitable habitat. Annual CCR surveys conducted as part of the Invasive Spartina Project (ISP), have detected CCR in Fan Marsh since 2009. The ISP’s 2012 CCR report found various numbers of CCR detections during the three years of surveys (2009; 10-14, 2010; 12-14, 2011; 8-10, 2012: 2). Based on personal communication with Jen McBroom of Olofson Environmental Inc., these trends are variable given the pairs move between various nesting locations in the Bay. Draft 2013 survey data found 2-4 CCR occurrences. While, this species is not anticipated to occur within the Project Area; it may be sensitive to noise disturbance if they are within audible range of Project-related construction noise (typically within 700 feet). California Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), State Threatened, CDFW Fully Protected, USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. This species occurs most commonly in upper tidal zone of emergent wetlands or brackish marshes dominated by bulrush (Scirpus spp.), cordgrass (Spartina spp.), and pickleweed (Salicornia spp.), most commonly nesting in dense cover such as pickleweed (Eddelman et al., 1994). This species has not been


documented in the Study Area but has been identified on Arrowhead Marsh east of the Study Area across the Airport Channel.


a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if a project were to remove or modify habitat for any species identified or designated as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or the USFWS.

Impact BIO–1 Special-Status Wildlife

The proposed internal and external modifications to the Test Cell Facility include the conversion of the indoor propeller test stand, Test Cell #1, into a dynamometer test stand configuration. Externally, the only visible changes to the site are expected to be the addition of a water cooling system for the dynamometer and an oil/water separation system, similar to ones that are used for Test Cells #6 and #7. The Project Area does not have the potential to support special-status plant or wildlife species. Therefore, no direct impacts to special-status species are anticipated. However, special-status wildlife species within the Study Area may be temporarily and indirectly impacted by construction activities. Potentially indirect significant impacts to these species are described below.

Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse

Habitat suitable for salt marsh harvest mouse (SMHM) is located adjacent to the Project Area in the muted tidal wetland (Fan Marsh). The Proposed Project would not impact suitable habitat during construction or operation because transportation of equipment and staging of construction-related materials and equipment would be located on developed areas of within the Project Area. Impacts to SMHM habitat would therefore be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

California Clapper Rail

As noted in the Project Description and the Noise section of this Initial Study (see Section 4.12), Test Cell #1 operates with the older engine model fitted with a propeller. With the project, Test Cell #1 would be used with the newer engine model fitted with a dynamometer. Since the two engines are comparable in size and power, the major change (with respect to noise) will be the operation of Test Cell #1 with a dynamometer instead of a propeller. Based on observations of the existing Test Cell #1, the dominant noise source is the propeller. The noise is associated with the air turbulence created at the propeller blades as the propeller converts the power of the engine into air flow. With the Proposed Project there would no longer be a propeller and, therefore, no air turbulence noise from the propeller blades. Instead the engine shaft would be attached to a dynamometer which converts the engine power into heat through a system of gears in oil. This is generally a quieter operation since the gears are enclosed in a substantial steel casing. Acoustical measurements at RRESO were taken outdoors approximately 240 to 300 feet from the existing test cells operating with older engines. After correcting for distance, these measurements indicate that Test Cell #7 with a dynamometer is about 17 dBA quieter than Test Cell #1 with a propeller (or approximately 70% quieter than the test conducted with a propeller). This comparison includes the noise


contribution of the cooling tower associated with the dynamometer used in Test Cell 7. Wildlife use of the Fan Marsh, and in particular, use by Clapper Rail has occurred under existing operational conditions of the Test Facility and they appear to have acclimated to those conditions. The proposed upgrade will result in less noise, which will be a beneficial outcome of the Proposed Project. The only potential impacts would be for noise generated during construction for the exterior facilities. For additional species protection, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been included to further reduce noise impacts to CCR. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 California Clapper Rail Indirect Impacts from Noise The Project applicant or contractor shall implement the following measures during construction to minimize indirect impacts:

The construction contractor shall implement feasible noise controls to minimize outdoor equipment noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. Feasible noise controls include improved mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds.

Equipment used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered impact tools (e.g., jack hammers) wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Where use of pneumatically-powered tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used. A muffler could lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 A-weighted decibels (dB(A)). External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible; this could achieve a reduction of five dB(A). Quieter procedures shall be used (such as drilling rather than impact equipment) wherever feasible.

The construction contractor shall implement appropriate additional noise reduction measures that include shutting off idling equipment.

The construction contractor shall minimize use of vehicle backup alarms. A common approach to minimizing the use of backup alarms is to design the construction site with a circular flow pattern that minimizes backing up of trucks and other heavy equipment. Another approach to reducing the intrusion of backup alarms is to require all equipment on the site to be equipped with ambient sensitive alarms. With this type of alarm, the alarm sound is automatically adjusted based on the ambient noise.

Construction workers’ radios shall be controlled so as to be inaudible beyond the limits of the project site boundaries.

Heavy equipment, such as paving and grading equipment, shall be stored on-site whenever possible to minimize the need for extra heavy truck trips on local streets.

California Clapper Rail Visual Impacts

The Proposed Project could potentially affect CCR temporarily through visual impacts associated with the increase in vehicle activities and construction equipment staging during construction. While the existing ten-foot high fence and berm along the eastern Project Area boundary provides some visual screening between the Fan Marsh and Project Area, impacts to CCR and CBR are considered potentially


significant. CCR typically forage and nest in low to mid-marsh areas. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce any impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure BIO–2 California Clapper Rail Visual Impacts

If construction work is proposed during the CCR breeding season (February 1 to August 31), placement of a temporary screen along the existing approximately 10-foot high fence above the grade of Fan Marsh at the eastern Project Area boundary will screen virtually all construction equipment (with the possible exception of a pile driver) and ensure that any potentially significant visual impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level. The temporary screen shall be opaque and installed from the existing berm up to the bottom of the barbed wire portion of the existing fence. Prior to the investigation, a construction employee education program shall be conducted to discuss potential listed species adjacent to the Project Area. At a minimum, the program shall consist of a presentation by persons knowledgeable in listed species and protection to those personnel working within the Project Area. Contractors, their employees, and other on-site personnel shall undergo sensitive species training prior to involvement with construction activities in the Project Area. The program will include the following:

a description of the species and their habitat needs, reports of occurrences in the Project Area, an explanation of the status of each endangered species and their protection

under the ESA, and a list of measures being taken to reduce potential impacts to the species

during Project implementation.

Fact sheets conveying this information shall be prepared for distribution to investigation personnel and anyone else who may enter the Project Area. Records of sensitive species training shall be retained by the approved biologist.

California Black Rail Indirect Noise

Habitat characteristics of the Project Area are not suitable for California black rail (CBR); however, the marsh habitats of the Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline east of the Project Area are known to support this species. The Regional Shoreline is managed by the East Bay Regional Parks District. According to the CNDDB, the nearest CBR occurrences are located in Arrowhead Marsh, approximately 2,600 feet east of the Proposed Project. However, annual CCR surveys conducted as part of the ISP, have detected CCR in Fan Marsh since 2009, and it’s likely the marsh can support CBR. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would lessen potentially significant impacts to CBR to a less-than-significant level.

California Black Rail Visual Impacts

The Proposed Project could potentially affect potential nesting CBR through visual impacts associated with the increase in vehicle activities and construction equipment staging. While the existing berm along the eastern Project Area boundary provides some visual screening between the Fan Marsh and Project Area, impacts to CBR are considered potentially significant. Although CBR have not been found in the muted Fan Marsh east of the Project Area, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2-4 would reduce any impacts to a less-than-significant level.


Other Avian Special-Status Species

This assessment determined that ten special-status avian species (excluding CCR and CBR) may use the Study Area for breeding and/or foraging. These species may forage in the muted tidal wetland (Fan Marsh) and grassland communities adjacent to the Project Area, and several species may find nesting habitat in trees, shrubs, grasses, and emergent wetland vegetation throughout the Study Area. During the WRA site visit, an inactive nest was identified on the eastern side of the northernmost test cell facility building. This nest is typical of common bird species such as a house sparrow or house finch. Although these species are common, they are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Therefore, temporary impacts to birds due to construction activities would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO–3 would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure BIO–3 Pre-Construction Breeding Bird Surveys

For any outside construction-related activities that are proposed to occur during the avian breeding season (February 1 through August 31), breeding bird surveys are required. Specifically, pre-construction breeding bird surveys shall be conducted within 14 days of ground disturbance to avoid disturbance to active nests, eggs, and/or young of nesting birds. A qualified biologist familiar with nesting birds shall conduct a pre-construction survey; if nesting birds are detected within the test cell facility near the construction activity (which is currently paved in its entirety), the biologist shall notify the construction site supervisor so that nest will be avoided until the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. As described in Mitigation Measure BIO-2, the qualified biologist shall conduct environmental awareness training for all construction crews and contractors before work on the Proposed Project is initiated. The training will include a brief review of all the special-status species and other sensitive communities that may exist in the Study Area. Training will be conducted as-needed (i.e., for new workers after start of construction or any updates as the work progresses). No surveys or other avoidance measures for breeding bird species would be necessary for outside project activities conducted during the period of September 1 through January 31, which is outside the avian breeding season. This work window also occurs outside the CCR breeding season, and thus no CCR or other breeding bird surveys are required for project activities conducted between September 1 and January 31. After implementation of the above avoidance and minimization measures, impacts to special-status species, including migratory birds, would be less than significant.

b) No Impact. A significant impact may occur if riparian habitat or any other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS were to be adversely modified without adequate mitigation. The entirety of the Project Area is comprised of developed and urban landscape. These habitat types are not sensitive biological communities. Riparian or other sensitive natural habitat communities are absent from the Project Area. Therefore, no impacts to sensitive habitats are anticipated.

c) No Impact. A significant impact may occur if federally protected wetlands, as

defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, would be modified or removed by the Proposed Project without adequate mitigation. Wetlands and other waters of the


U.S. are adjacent to the Project Area but are absent from the Project Area as described above. No impacts would occur to wetlands or waters of the United States.

d) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would

interfere with or remove access to a migratory wildlife corridor or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites. Terrestrial and aquatic wildlife movement corridors are absent from the Project Area, however they may reside in the Fan Marsh adjacent to the Project Area. The Proposed Project would be constructed within an existing industrial complex and any impacts to wildlife movement would be less than significant.

e) No Impact. A project-related significant adverse effect could occur if a project would

cause an impact that is inconsistent with local regulations pertaining to biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The Project Area falls within the area covered by the City of Oakland General Plan. The Conservation and Open Space Elements of the General Plan define and guide for the conservation of rare and/or unique species and sensitive habitats. Given the nature of the project under consideration, no impacts to sensitive habitat or special-status species are expected. Potential impacts are described above in Section 4.4 (a-d). Additionally, the Proposed Project does not include the removal of any trees that would conflict with an existing tree ordinance or policy. Consistency with the City’s General Plan and the Port requirements would ensure that the Proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, thus no impacts.

f) No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project is inconsistent with mapping

or policies in any conservation plans of the types cited. No state, regional, or federal habitat conservation plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans have been adopted for the Project Area.

4.5 Cultural Resources

CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Source

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as identified in Section 15064.5?

1, 7

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

1, 7

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

1, 7

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

1, 7



Archaeological Resources

According to the Rolls-Royce Engine Services Building Addition Project (Port of Oakland 2000) and the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Proposed Airport Development Program (Port of Oakland 1997 in Port of Oakland 2000), there are no known unique ethnic, cultural or archeological or paleontological resources in the Project Area. Additionally, no religious or sacred uses are known to exist in the Project Area. The Project Area is located primarily on imported fill material deposited in the early 1900s during the construction of the original airfield (Port of Oakland 2000). In 1989 Sorensen Consulting Civil Engineers compiled numerous historic aerial photographs and described the chronology of fill and development related to OAK. Considerable fill was required for the construction of the Airport, particularly at the north end. Progressive development of the lighter-than-air (blimp) site and the adjacent random-fill area at the north end of the Airport adjacent to Doolittle Drive occurred from 1949-1953. T-Hangars at the north end of Runway 15-33 were completed around 1958. Prior to construction of the hangars the grade of the entire area was raised with rock fill material. In 1959, the continuous random fill in the area north of Runway 15-33 is apparent. Many of the photographs illustrate the steady progression of fill and development of the Project Area. For example, the area around the Airport was used for many years by the Cities of Oakland, Alameda, and San Leandro for garbage and rubbish dumps. Much of this disposal was on land leased from the Port. Another photograph, taken in 1949, shows the initial fill for the Alameda City Dump, later called "Mount Trashmore" located adjacent to and north of Doolittle Drive, northwest of the Project Area. Several other photographs illustrate the expansion of this dump site (Sorenson 1989). Based on the amount of fill, debris, and development described in the report, cultural resources are not expected within the Project Area.

Historic Resources

The North Field of OAK is a designated City Historic Landmark, exclusive of its structures and facilities. In February 1980, the Oakland City Council passed Resolution 1979-8 and City Ordinance 9872 allowing for alterations to the structures and facilities of the airport while establishing the airport as a whole to be a Historic Landmark District (Port of Oakland 2000). However, the City of Oakland expressed no concerns regarding the effects of the Airport Development Program on cultural resources at the airport (Port of Oakland 2000). The Airport Development Program is an umbrella program for a number of on-going improvement and enhancement projects at OAK.

Paleontological Resources

The Project Area is situated on a thin band of artificial fill (af; USGS 2000). The USGS defines artificial fill as “Man-made deposit(s) of various materials and ages…” Because the underlying geology of the Project Area comprises recently deposited amalgamation of sediments, it is very unlikely to contain any prehistoric or paleontological artifacts.


a) No Impact. Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines a historical resource as: 1) a resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); 2) a resource listed in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting certain state guidelines; or 3) an object, building, structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, provided that the


lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. A project-related significant adverse effect would occur if a project were to adversely affect a historical resource meeting one of the above definitions. The Project Area does not contain any known historical resources. Nearby historical buildings would not be affected by the Proposed Project because all disturbances would take place within the existing facility, and the Proposed Project would not change the visual character near historical buildings. Therefore, no impacts on known historical resources are expected.

b, d) Less than Significant Impact. Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines significant archaeological resources as resources which meet the criteria for historical resources, as discussed above, or resources which constitute unique archaeological resources. A project-related significant adverse effect could occur if a project were to affect archaeological resources which fall under either of these categories or if a project were to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

Accidental Discovery

The Project Area does not contain any known archaeological resources and has a low potential to contain buried cultural deposits or human remains based on past disturbances. The contractor will comply with applicable federal and state laws and the Port’s Emergency Plan of Action for Discoveries of Unknown Historical or Archeological Resources in the event of an inadvertent discovery of potential human remains or cultural resources and halt all work in the vicinity of the find until the resource can be assessed. Therefore impacts to these resources would be less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1 and CULT-2 would further reduce less than significant impacts.

Mitigation Measure CULT–1: Accidental Discovery

In the event of post-review discoveries of cultural resources the following requirements apply:

If any archaeological or paleontological deposits are encountered, all soil-disturbing work should be halted at the location of any discovery until a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist evaluates the significance of the find(s) and prepares a recommendation for further action. If the cultural materials are determined to be significant, a qualified archaeologist shall develop an appropriate treatment plan in consultation with the Port’s Environmental Programs and Planning Division and/or their representative to mitigate the discovery. The plan could include avoidance and preservation measures to preserve the materials in place; scientific collection and analysis; preparation of a professional report in accordance with current professional standards; and, professional museum curation of collected cultural materials and resource documentation.


Mitigation Measure CULT-2: Accidental Discovery of Human Remains or Funerary Objects The treatment of human remains and of associated or unassociated funerary objects discovered during any soils-disturbing activity will comply with applicable state laws. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps should be taken:

The treatment of human remains and of associated or unassociated funerary objects discovered during any soil-disturbing activity within the project shall comply with applicable State laws. Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and PRC Section 5097.94, in the event of the discovery of human remains during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Alameda County Coroner shall be immediately notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American.

In the event of the coroner's determination that the human remains are Native American, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), is required who shall appoint a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) (PRC Section 5097.98). The archaeological consultant, project sponsor, and MLD shall make all reasonable efforts to develop an agreement for the treatment, with appropriate dignity, of human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d)). The agreement should take into consideration the appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, custodianship, curation, and final disposition of the human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects.

California Public Resources Code allows 48 hours to reach agreement on these matters. If the MLD and the other parties do not agree on the reburial method, the project will follow PRC Section 5097.98(b) which states that "the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance."

c) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project directly or indirectly destroys a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. No unique paleontological or geologic resources are anticipated in the Project Area. Any paleontological materials occurring in the imported fill would have been inadvertently transported to the area and would thus no longer be in situ (i.e., no longer remains within its original context).As such, these impacts to unique paleontological resource or unique geologic features with project implementation would be less than significant.


4.6 Geology and Soils

GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Source

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?

2,8

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 2, 8

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

2, 8

iv) Landslides? 2, 8

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

1

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

2, 8, 9

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property?

2, 8, 9

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

1, 9


Soils

The Project Area is located primarily on fill material deposited in the early 1900s during the construction of the original airfield; artificial fill (af; USGS 2000). Additionally, during the past century, following the 1906 earthquake, tens of millions of cubic meters of fills have been placed along bay margins including the expansion of San Francisco and Oakland airports (WLA 2008).

Seismicity

The San Francisco Bay area is one of the most seismically active areas in the country. While seismologists cannot predict earthquake events, the U.S. Geological Survey’s Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (2003) estimates there is a 62 percent chance of at least one magnitude 6.7 earthquake occurring in the Bay Area region between 2003 and 2032. As seen with damage in San Francisco and Oakland due to the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake that was centered about 50 miles south, significant damage can occur at considerable distances. Higher levels of shaking and damage would be expected for earthquakes occurring at closer


distances. The faults considered capable of generating significant earthquakes in the area are generally associated with the well-defined areas of crustal movement, which trend northwesterly. Faults considered active by the State of California and located closest to the site include San Andreas, and Hayward. The presence of these two faults within 10-15 miles (13 miles southwest and 5.6 miles northeast, respectively) of Oakland creates a high cumulative probability of future earthquakes locally. Of these two faults, the Hayward fault poses the most serious threat by far to Oakland due to its location through the city, the intensity of land uses near the fault zone, and the long interval since the last major quake along the fault (ABAG 2013). The Project Area is not located within a State-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault rupture zone.12


a-i, ii) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project site is subject to fault rupture from a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Map or based on substantial evidence of a known fault. Additionally, a significant impact may occur if the Proposed Project were to represent an increased risk to public safety or destruction of property by exposing people, property, or infrastructure to seismically induced ground shaking hazards that are greater than the average risk associated with locations in the Northern California region. Geologic records show that fault displacement usually happens in areas where displacement has previously occurred. For this reason, the ground-displacement hazard is normally confined to a narrow zone along the traces of earthquake faults considered to be active or potentially active. These zones have been legally defined by the State Geologist as earthquake fault zones (EFZs). The only EFZ found in Oakland occurs through the Oakland hills, along both sides of the Hayward fault. No faults cross through the Project Area, and surface rupture associated with a fault is not anticipated in the Project Area. Seismic-related ground failure is not anticipated in the Project Area, and the project would not expose people to these hazards.

Seismic activity associated with nearby faults could cause ground shaking in the Project Area and could create a risk for construction workers, if an earthquake happens during construction. Occasional ground shaking is common in the Bay Area, and construction workers would take the necessary precautions to maintain worker safety in the event of an earthquake. In addition, the design of project components would adhere to California Building Code requirements specific to the area to minimize the potential for damage from earthquake activity in the future. Therefore, impacts associated with seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.

a-iii) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a Proposed Project were to represent an increased risk to public safety or destruction of property by exposing people, property, or infrastructure to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. ABAG has created a map of the Bay Area which classifies land according to five liquefaction-susceptibility levels: very low, low, moderate, high and very high. These maps indicate that most of West Oakland, areas surrounding San Leandro Bay and much of the rest of the City of Oakland’s shoreline have a “high” or “very high” susceptibility to liquefaction (ABAG 2013). The project is subject to all Federal, State, and local regulations and standards for seismic conditions

12 California Geological Survey Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps. Available at:

http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ap_maps.htm. Accessed: December 30, 2012.


including the Uniform Building Code, California Edition and would be designed to conform with all building requirements. Therefore, impacts associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than significant.

a-iv) No Impact. A project-related significant adverse effect may occur if a project is located in a hillside area with soil conditions that would suggest a high potential for landslides. The Project Area is relatively flat and would not be at risk for slope failure. The project does not involve additional construction on undeveloped soil. Final project design and construction details will conform to applicable Federal, State, and local regulations and standards for seismic conditions including the Uniform Building Code, California Edition. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts related to landsides.

b) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project exposes large areas to the erosional effects of wind or water for a protracted period of time. Equipment installation would involve soil disturbance below-grade for equipment installation, which would temporarily expose soils to wind and water erosion. No native topsoil would be disturbed because the activities would take place in existing paved areas. Construction measures included in Section 4.9 would be implemented to minimize the potential for erosion and indirect effects associated with soil erosion (i.e., water quality impacts, fugitive dust). Therefore, impacts associated with substantial soil erosion are less than significant.

c, d) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project is built in an unstable area without proper site preparation or design features to provide adequate foundations for the project buildings, thus posing a hazard to life and property. The potential for geologic and soil hazards from unstable or expansive soils in the Project Area is considered low based on the geologic units, soil types, and flat topography. The project is subject to all Federal, State, and local regulations and standards for seismic conditions including the Uniform Building Code, California Edition and would be designed to conform with all building requirements. Therefore, impacts associated with soil hazards or life and property are less than significant.

e) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project is built in an area with soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. The project does not involve construction of septic tanks but does include the installation of an oil/water separator. A similar oil/water separator is currently operating on the site. Soils, therefore, are capable of supporting the use of such equipment. Final project design and construction details will conform to applicable Federal, State, and local regulations and standards for seismic conditions including the Uniform Building Code, California Edition. Therefore, impacts associated with inadequate soil support are less than significant.


4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Would the project:


Impact

Less than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Source

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

1

b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

1


Assembly Bill 32, adopted in 2006, established the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 which requires the State to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Senate Bill 97, adopted in 2007, required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to develop CEQA guidelines “for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions,” and the Resources Agency certified and adopted the amendments to the guidelines on December 30, 2009. GHGs are recognized by wide consensus among the scientific community to contribute to global warming/climate change and associated environmental impacts. The major GHGs released from human activity are carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 2008). The primary sources of GHGs are vehicles (including planes and trains), energy plants, and industrial and agricultural activities (such as dairies and hog farms). Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which have local or regional impacts, emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming or global climate change have a broader, global impact. Global warming is a process whereby GHGs accumulating in the atmosphere contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. The principal GHGs contributing to global warming are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated compounds. These gases allow visible and ultraviolet light from the sun to pass through the atmosphere, but they prevent heat from escaping back out into space. Among the potential implications of global warming are rising sea levels, and adverse impacts to water supply, water quality, agriculture, forestry, and habitats. In addition, global warming may increase electricity demand for cooling, decrease the availability of hydroelectric power, and affect regional air quality and public health. Like most criteria and toxic air pollutants, much of the GHG production comes from motor vehicles. GHG emissions can be reduced to some degree by improved coordination of land use and transportation planning on the city, county, and subregional level, and other measures to reduce automobile use. In 2010, BAAQMD adopted a quantitative threshold of significance of 10,000 metric tonnes per year (MT/yr) of GHG emissions, expressed in CO2 equivalents (CO2e), which applied only to operational emissions (i.e., not construction emissions). While BAAQMD “is no longer recommending that [those] Thresholds be used as a generally applicable measure of a project’s


significant air quality impacts”,13 BAAQMD did support the threshold14 with evidence that at least the cumulative impacts of all projects with emissions above 10,000 MT/yr CO2e would be significant, though the District did not address the fact that “the mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the Proposed Project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable” [§15064(h)(4)]. 10,000 MT/yr CO2e is a tiny fraction of the AB 32 GHG reduction goals (reducing annual emissions by 169,000,000 MT/yr by 2020, when business-as-usual scenario emissions would otherwise be 596,000,000 MT/yr). At the federal level, the so-called "Tailoring Rule," see 75 Fed. Reg. 31514 (2010) establishes greenhouse gas emissions thresholds for purposes of triggering Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review of new sources or major modifications of existing sources. Under the Tailoring Rule, the threshold for most new sources or modified existing sources of greenhouse gases is 75,000 MTCO2e, and it will not fall below 50,000 MTCO2e before 2016. Based on the foregoing, the threshold that BAAQMD adopted in 2010, though currently not recommended for use by BAAQMD due to litigation, is very conservative—i.e., projects which are below that threshold are clearly not significant.


The project involves changing out a test cell to enable the testing (and subsequent use) of newer engines which are more efficient than the ones previously being tested. The emissions associated with testing the engines at the facility are higher than they were previously, however, in part because the test cycles are longer (3 hours, compared with 1.5 hours for the current engines). As a result GHG emissions from testing the engines are expected to increase by between 93 and 133 MT CO2/yr (the range depends on whether 35 engines are tested per year or 50 engines are tested per year).15 As shown in Table 4, this is far below the significance threshold adopted by BAAQMD in 2010 (1,100 MT C02e/yr) and the overall benefit associated with subsequent use of the newer engines would far outweigh these minor increases in emissions associated with longer test cycles. a) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to

generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. With the exception of GHG emissions associated with tank truck trips required to periodically dispose of contents pumped from the oil/water separation system, the project would not result in an increase in operational GHG emissions related to traffic as no new employees would be required. The increase in GHG emissions from testing is far below even the significance threshold adopted by BAAQMD in 2010, and this minor increase in emissions during testing would also be outweighed by the subsequent use of more efficient engines in aircraft than those that have been used in the past. While the Proposed Project would have an incremental contribution to GHG emissions within the context of the City and region, the individual impact is considered less than significant.

13 BAAQMD, “Updated CEQA Guidelines”, available from http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-

and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx. 14 BAAQMD, “Revised Draft Options and Justification Report, California Environmental Quality Act

Thresholds of Significance,” October 2009, available from http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx.

15 Emissions of other GHGs, such as CH4 and N2O.


b) No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The project would not generate significant emissions of GHG and, therefore, would not conflict with any applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Source

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

1, 10

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

1, 10

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

1, 10

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

1, 10

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project Area?

1, 2

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project Area?

1, 2

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

1, 2

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

1, 2



The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) defines “hazard” as any substance or chemical which is a “health hazard” or “physical hazard,” including: chemicals which are carcinogens, toxic agents, irritants, corrosives, sensitizers; agents which act on the hematopoietic system; agents which damage the lungs, skin, eyes, or mucous membranes; chemicals which are combustible, explosive, flammable, oxidizers, pyrophorics, unstable-reactive or water-reactive; and chemicals which in the course of normal handling, use, or storage may produce or release dusts, gases, fumes, vapors, mists or smoke which may have any of the previously mentioned characteristics.16 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) incorporates the OSHA definition, and lists over 350 hazardous and extremely hazardous substances. EPA includes any item or chemical which can cause harm to people, plants, or animals when released by spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping or disposing into the environment.17 The U.S. Department of Transportation defines a hazardous material as any item or chemical which, when being transported or moved, is a risk to public safety or the environment and is regulated under the Hazardous Materials Regulations.18 Under Government Code Section 65962.5, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintains a list of hazardous substance sites. This list, referred to as the “Cortese List,” includes CALSITE hazardous material sites, sites with leaking underground storage tanks, and landfills with evidence of groundwater contamination. The Project Area is listed in the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB) webpage GeoTracker with a Global ID of T06019775776, and as such is considered listed on the Cortese List. Environmental investigations and remediation for the site are conducted with regulatory oversight by Alameda County Environmental Health (ACEH, formerly ACDEH) under site number #RO0002606 (PES 2010). Three documented chemical releases have occurred at the Test Cell Facility since 1992 (all of which occurred under the previous operator). The Test Cell Facility’s main features include six engine test cells with auxiliary structures, one 30,000-gallon above-ground liquefied petroleum (LP) fuel tank, three jet-A-fuel underground storage tanks (USTs; one 10,000-gallon & twin 8,000-gallon tanks), and an unlined drainage ditch along the southwestern edge of site which formerly collected storm water and runoff from operations at Test Cells 1 through 4. Collected storm water flows through the ditch into an underground pipe, which drains to the south where it is pumped to the muted tidal wetland (Fan Marsh) and eventually discharges to San Leandro Bay (PES 2010).

On-site Soil

Three petroleum hydrocarbon mixtures (TPHj, TPHg, and TPHd) as well as benzene and naphthalene, were identified as chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) in on-site soil. Five metals (antimony, arsenic, lead, mercury, and zinc) also exceeded commercial/industrial and/or construction/trench worker San Francisco RWQCB Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) in at least one on-site location, and were therefore identified as COPCs (PES 2010). Concentrations of TPHg, TPHd and TPHj in soil exceeded risk-based commercial/industrial and/or construction/trench worker ESLs at numerous locations across the site. Naphthalene exceeded the construction/trench worker ESL, while benzene exceeded the commercial/industrial ESL only in sidewall samples from an excavation performed near Test 16 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910.1200.). 17 40 CFR § 355. 18 49 CFR §§ 100-180.


Cell #2 in September 2007 (PES 2010). Arsenic concentrations exceeded commercial/industrial and construction/trench worker screening levels across the site, but were consistent with background arsenic levels in fill material across the Port, of which OAK is a part, of 16.4 mg/kg, as identified in the SMP (SAIC 2010; PES 2010). None of the samples that exceeded the commercial/industrial and/or construction/trench worker ESLS for the constituents noted above was located near the Proposed Project upgrade areas located at Test Cell #1. Airport Land Use Committee The Project Area is within OAK’s Airport Influence Area (AIA), which is subject to the airport land use commission (ALUC) review. The Project Area is located adjacent to the North Field of the OAK, which is regulated by the Alameda County ALUC. The potential for aircraft accidents in the North Field of OAK is substantial and the need for land use restrictions is high. .


a, b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if a project would involve the use or disposal of hazardous materials as part of its routine operations, or create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials.

Excavation, Transportation and Disposal of Potentially Contaminated Soil

Small amounts of hazardous materials would be used during construction activities for equipment maintenance (e.g., fuel and solvents) and re-paving equipment, if necessary. Use of hazardous materials would be limited to construction and would comply with applicable local, state, and federal standards associated with the handling and storage of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials would not be stored or used, such as for equipment maintenance, where they could affect nearby land uses. Standard construction measures will be implemented to contain spills of oil and other hazardous materials, and the contractor will be required to ensure that adequate materials are on hand to clean up any accidental spill that may occur. Any spills will be cleaned up immediately, and all wastes and used spill control materials will be properly disposed of at approved disposal facilities as required.

As part of the project, soil may be removed from the site and transported to designated landfills for disposal. The soil removal would be required only during site preparation for foundation modifications (e.g., trenching for the water supply, water tower foundation, and test bed foundation work) and is expected to be of a short duration. Any contaminated materials encountered during the site preparation would be handled and disposed of in accordance with any applicable State and Federal regulations for transportation and disposal of contaminated materials or hazardous waste.

The Project Area is considered a low risk for exposure to employees or construction crews since there is no indication that constituents present in other areas of the site are present within the Test Cell #1 area. However, exposure to potentially contaminated soils by workers during construction of the Proposed Project may occur and as such a potentially significant impact; however, the potential construction duration is expected to be short and temporary. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, impacts associated with the use or accidental spill of


hazardous materials or exposure to contaminated soil, groundwater or hazardous waste would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure HAZ–1: Excavation, Transportation and Disposal of Potentially Contaminated Soils

1. Site Specific Health and Safety Plan. Develop and implement a site specific Health and Safety Plan for construction activities to reduce the potential for adverse exposure of people to hazardous contamination. The Health and Safety Plan will include personal protective equipment, a hazard assessment, site control, handling procedures, chain of command, and emergency evacuation plan.

2. Response Measures. If potentially contaminated soil is encountered during construction, identify and implement response measures necessary to comply with all applicable local, state and Federal laws and regulations.

3. Handling, Recycling, and Hauling. Adhere to all applicable local, State and Federal laws, regulations and standards regarding the handling (including storing), recycling and hauling of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials will be hauled by certified hazardous waste haulers if required by applicable law. All hazardous materials will be adequately characterized and hazardous waste loads, if any, will be manifested following EPA procedures.

4. Disposal. The disposal of contaminated soil and hazardous materials will comply with applicable local, State and Federal laws and regulations. Hazardous wastes generated as part of the project, if any, will be properly disposed of in accordance with applicable law. Disposal sites will provide written acceptance of the characterized material before the material leaves the site.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Dewatering, Water Testing, Storage and Treatment

For locations requiring dewatering where environmental contamination could be encountered during construction, the RRESO would ensure that the contractor pre-arranges for dewatering, water testing, storage, and treatment, in compliance with applicable NPDES or pretreatment permits, depending on the discharge point and the nature of any contamination encountered.

c) No Impact. A project-related significant adverse effect may occur if the project site is located within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school site, and is projected to release toxic emissions, which would pose a health hazard beyond regulatory thresholds. The Project Area is not located within 0.25-mile of existing or proposed school. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to schools in the area.

d) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if a project is located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Proposed Project occurs in an area that has been used as an airport for at least seventy years, including a period prior to the advent of many current environmental laws and regulations. Environmental investigations and remediation are conducted with regulatory oversight by Alameda County Environmental Health (ACEH, formerly ACDEH) under site number #RO0002606. The Project Area is listed in the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB) webpage GeoTracker with a Global ID of T06019775776, and there have been documented releases elsewhere within the Test Cell Facility (though not within the


Project Area). Accordingly, human and environmental exposure due to the disturbance of soils during excavation activities in connection with project construction would be considered to be a potentially significant impact. Excavated soils shall be handled and disposed of following local, State and Federal regulations, including, as applicable, regulations governing the transportation and disposal of hazardous waste. Compliance with Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would ensure that the Proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public, to construction workers or site employees or to the environment, and impacts would be less than significant.

e) Less than Significant Impact. A significant project-related impact may occur if a project were placed within a public airport land use plan area or within two miles of a public airport, and subject to a safety hazard. The Project Area is within a one-half mile north of OAK. According to the Airport Influence AIA boundary for OAK, the Project Area is within the AIA, which is subject to the ALUC review. The Project Area is located adjacent to the North Field of the OAK, which is regulated by the Alameda County ALUC.

Additionally, the FAA sets forth guidelines in the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, to determine if an object is an obstruction to air navigation. The regulations address potential light, glare, and air emissions that could distract aircraft operators. The Proposed Project would neither include development that would exceed height restrictions nor result in light, glare, and air emissions that could distract aircraft operators.

There are no other implications with respect to safety and proximity to OAK; the Proposed Project would not conflict with the height restrictions set forth by the FAA and would not interfere with air traffic. Operation of the Proposed Project would be similar to existing conditions. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.

f) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were placed within the vicinity of a private airstrip that could result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The Project Area is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The Proposed Project includes internal improvements within an existing facility. The Proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people working in the Project Area.

g) No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to interfere with roadway operations used in conjunction with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, or would generate sufficient traffic to create traffic congestion that would interfere with the execution of such a plan. Emergency access to or evacuation from surrounding areas would not be restricted during construction because of the Proposed Project is not located in an area that would block emergency response or evacuation and all equipment would be staged within the Project Area. No impact would occur.

h) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project is located in proximity to wildland areas and would pose a potential fire hazard, which could affect persons or structures in the area in the event of a fire. The Project Area is in a developed area in between a maintained non-native annual grassland and adjacent muted tidal wetlands associated the Fan Marsh and is not near any wildlands that provide suitable fuel for a wildland fire. However, according to the Association of


Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Threat map, the Project Area is located in an area subject to moderate fire threat and adjacent to a fire threatened community.19 Given the project’s location and control measures already enforced within the Test Cell Facility, the project would not increase the risk of wildfire near an urban area and impacts would be less than significant.

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Source

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

1

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

1, 2, 7, 9, 10

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

1, 2, 7, 10

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

1, 7, 10

e) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

1, 7, 10

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

1, 7, 10

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

1, 2, 7, 9

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

1, 2, 7, 9

19 ABAG. ABAG Geographical Information Systems - Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Threat.

Accessed October 20, 2010. Available at: http://quake.abag.ca.gov/wildfires/. Accessed December 30, 2012.


HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Source

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

1, 2, 7, 9

j) Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1, 2, 7, 9


According to the RWQCB’s Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Basin, the Project Area is located in the South Bay Basin. San Leandro Bay is the closest natural surface water body south of the Project Area but the Test Cell Facility is also bordered by muted tidal wetlands to the east (Fan Marsh) and non-tidal wetlands to the south. In the Project Area, the soil is artificial fill on top of mostly unconsolidated clays (bay mud) on top of older, consolidated clays. These soil conditions mean that significant structures (i.e., buildings) must be constructed on piles and that drainage conditions are often challenging (e.g., ground water does not percolate into the soil) (Port of Oakland 2006). The Test Cell Facility includes an unlined drainage ditch along the southwestern edge of site which formerly collected storm water and runoff from operations at Test Cells 1 through 4. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), the Project Area is not located in a flood zone.20 The Project Area is located in Zone X, areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. However, the Project Area is located within the projected inundation area for the 16 inch sea level rise scenario over the next century.21 The Project Area is also located within a mapped Tsunami Inundation Area22 but is not subject to seiches or dam failure inundation.23


a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if a project were to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

Impact HYDRO–1: Water Quality Standards

The proposed internal and external modifications to the Test Cell Facility include the conversion of the indoor propeller test stand, Test Cell #1, into a dynamometer test stand configuration. Externally, the only changes to the site are expected to be the addition and operation of a water cooling system for the dynamometer and an oil/water separation system, similar to ones that are currently used for Test Cells #6 and #7. The oil/water separation system tanks will be periodically emptied by pumping the contents into tank trucks for disposal at an approved location off-site.

20 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Community-Panel Number

06001C0251G. August 3, 2009. 21 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Sea Level Rise Scenario Map for Long-Range

Planning, http://gis.abag.ca.gov/Website/SeaLevelRise/index.html, accessed January 15, 2013. 22 ABAG. Earthquake and Hazards Program, Tsunami Maps and Information. December 11, 2012.

Available at: http://quake.abag.ca.gov/tsunamis/ and accessed on January 15, 2013 23 ABAG. Earthquake and Hazards Program, Dam Failure Inundation. January 3, 2013. Available at:

http://quake.abag.ca.gov/dam-failure/ and accessed on January 15, 2013


Soils excavated during construction would be handled and disposed of following applicable State and Federal regulations. The Proposed Project would be subject to RRESO’s Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCCP) (RRESO 2009). RRESO also has and is subject to the requirements of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes Best Management Practices applicable to oil spill prevention and spill response that is monitored by the Port. Detailed procedures for varied emergency response including fire, weather and hazardous material spills are described in RRESO’s Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP). Additionally, RRESO’s Facility Response Plan would be used in the event of a major oil release into navigable waters. Additional standard construction measures are recommended during periods of rain to minimize pollutants carried from the Project Area in runoff. Violations of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be potentially significant. After implementation of BMPs described under Mitigation Measure HYDRO–1, water quality impacts during construction and operation of the project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure HYDRO–1: Water Quality Standards

The project shall comply with terms of the Port’s project level Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) for projects under one acre of impact. The project shall also comply with the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCCP), the Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP), and the Industrial SWPPP.

b) No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project includes deep excavations resulting in the potential to interfere with groundwater movement or includes withdrawal of groundwater or paving of existing permeable surfaces important to groundwater recharge. The project would not require use of groundwater supplies or affect groundwater recharge in the area as the Project Area is already developed. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

c, d, e) No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project results in a substantial alteration of drainage patterns that would result in a substantial increase in erosion or siltation during construction or operation of the project, results in increased runoff volumes during construction or operation of the project that would result in flooding conditions affecting the project site or nearby properties, or increases the volume of storm water runoff to a level which exceeded the capacity of the storm drain system serving a project site. The Proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area. The proposed internal and external modifications to the Test Cell Facility would not contribute substantial erosion or siltation or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site.

f) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if a project substantially degrades water quality. The project would not have other water quality impacts beyond those discussed under Section 4.8 (a-b) and item 4.9 (a) above. Although it is not likely that the project would otherwise substantially degrade water quality any such impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 would lessen potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.


g, h, i) No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map, place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows, or expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam The Project Area is not located in a FEMA designated floodplain. San Leandro Bay and the larger San Francisco Bay are not enclosed water bodies, thus the Project Area is not susceptible to seiches. Also, the flat topography and location of the Project Area prohibits mudflow events. Therefore, the project would not involve placement of housing or other structures in a flood zone and would not expose people or structures to risks from flooding or inundation by seiche or mudflow. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

j) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if a project were subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The Proposed Project is located in a tsunami inundation area. A tsunami is a series of waves generated in a body of water by a rapid disturbance that vertically displaces the water. These changes can be caused by an underwater fault rupture (that generates an earthquake) or underwater landslides (typically triggered by earthquakes). Tsunamis affecting the Bay Area can result from off-shore earthquakes within the Bay Area, or from very distant events. The Project Area is located approximately two miles east of the open waters of the San Francisco Bay. The mouth of the San Francisco Bay is too constricted to permit a significant wave to form inside the Bay from a tsunami. Tsunami waves would be expected to attenuate through the bay (ESA 2012). Due to the distance of the Project Area from the open waters of the San Francisco Bay, project impacts associated with tsunami hazards are considered less than significant.

4.10 Land Use and Planning

LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Source

a) Physically divide an established community?

1

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

2, 3

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan?

1


The Project Area is located adjacent to the San Francisco Bay north of the OAK. To the west of the Project Area are the Chuck Corica Municipal Golf Complex and the North Field of OAK, which is a designated Area of Primary Importance (Local Historic District) and is administered


by the Port. The North Field accommodates a number of private and business/charter aircraft. To the east are lands associated with the Airport including the Federal Aviation Administration, and San Leandro Bay. The Project Area is located approximately 0.08 miles (422 feet) from the nearest shoreline and is adjacent to a parcel containing what appear to be diked wetlands. The Project Area encompasses a small area of the existing RRESO facilities adjacent to the existing indoor propeller test stand and water cooling system. The Project Area is located on an expanse of paved, developed ground. The Proposed Project includes a new exterior water cooling system for the proposed remodeled test stand, consisting of a cooling tower, water piping, pumps and sumps and an oil/water separation system. As discussed in Policy OS-7.4 of the Oakland General Plan, the only public access in the area is parallel to the northern edge of the main runway, where a short shoreline path extends from Harbor Bay Parkway along the top of the airport dike. The path skirts a tidal pond and provides viewing access to a least tern nesting area. Past the south end of the runway and along Oyster Bay, there is no public water access until San Leandro. The City of Oakland General Plan provides policies and implementation strategies for management of the resources and land uses in the City and the Port administrative area, and the City Codes provide restrictions and requirements to protect resources and comply with local, state, and federal laws. No habitat conservation plans have been adopted for the area.

Airport Land Use Committee

According to the Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary for OAK, the Project Area is within the AIA, which is subject to the airport land use commission (ALUC) review. The Project Area is located adjacent to the North Field of the Airport, which is regulated by the Alameda County ALUC. The Project Area is approximately 0.24 miles (1,428 feet) north of runway 15-33, which extends parallel to Harbor Bay Parkway. Per the ACLU plan (ACLUP), the Project Area is neither located within the airport’s Runway Protection nor the Safety Zones, but is located within the Inner Approach/Departure Zone and/or Inner Turning Zone and the typical approach and departure flight paths for Runway 15-33. Exposure to potential aircraft accidents diminishes with distance from the airport runways. The Inner Approach/Departure Zone and/or Inner Turning Zone are those portions of the airport which encompass areas overflown at low altitudes (typically 200-400 feet above runway elevation) and areas where aircraft are typically turning from the base to final approach legs of the standard traffic pattern and are descending from traffic pattern altitude; this zone also includes the area where departing aircraft normally complete the transition from takeoff power and flap settings to a climb mode and have begun to turn their en-route heading. The Proposed Project qualifies as infill development as defined in Section 2.7.5.7 of the ALUCP.

City of Oakland General Plan

The Proposed Project is subject to the following General Plan goals, policies, action items, and regulations:

Land Use Element

Policy I/C1.2: Existing businesses and jobs within Oakland which are consistent with the long-range objectives of this Plan should, whenever possible, be retained.


Policy I/C1.9: Adequate public infrastructure should be ensured within existing and proposed industrial and commercial areas to retain viable existing uses, improve the marketability of existing vacant or underutilized sites, and encourage future use and development of these areas with activities consistent with the goals of this Plan.

Policy I/C1.10: The City and Port should mutually develop and implement a coordinated plan-of-

action to support all airport and port-related activities which expand the local or regional employment or revenue base.

Policy I/C2.1: The environmental cleanup of contaminated industrial properties should be

actively pursued to attract new users in targeted industrial and commercial areas. Policy I/C4.1: Existing industrial, residential, and commercial activities and areas which are

consistent with long-term land use plans for the City should be protected from the intrusion of potentially incompatible land uses.

Policy W5.1: Lands needed for maritime and aviation operations are of local, regional,

national, and international importance and should be recognized as a valuable economic resource. The development of these lands to enhance maritime and aviation functions should be encouraged, and uses that would impair functional operation of the airport and seaport should not be permitted.

Policy W6.2: Development of sites proximate to airport flight paths should be in conformance

with Federal and State standards, as articulated in Federal Aviation Regulation, Part 77 and Part 150 ALUC planning guidelines, and any other applicable regulations and amendments.

Policy W7.1: Outside of the seaport and airport, land should be developed with a variety of

uses that benefit from the close proximity to the seaport and airport and that enhance the unique characteristics of the seaport and airport. These lands should be developed with uses which can buffer adjacent neighborhoods from impacts related to such activities.

Policy W7.2: Other commercial and industrial uses should be encouraged at appropriate

locations (Port-owned or not) where they can provide economic opportunity to the community at large.

Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element

Action OS-1.2.6: Encourage the Port of Oakland to retain wetlands within Oakland International Airport as Resource Conservation Areas, where compatible with FAA regulations.

Objective OS-3: To retain institutional and functional (including the clear zones around

Oakland Airport) open space areas and enhance their recreational and aesthetic benefits.

Action CO-1.1.3: Consider soil constraints such as shrink-swell and low soil strength in the

design of buildings and roads. Suitable base materials and drainage provisions should be incorporated where necessary.


Policy CO-1.2: Minimize hazards associated with soil contamination through the appropriate storage and disposal of toxic substances, monitoring of dredging activities, and clean-up of contaminated sites. In this regard, require soil testing for development of any site (or dedication of any parkland or community garden) where contamination is suspected due to prior activities on the site.

Policy CO-5.3 Employ a broad range of strategies, compatible with the Alameda

Countywide Clean Water Program, to: a) reduce water pollution associated with hazardous spills, runoff from hazardous material areas, improper disposal of household hazardous wastes, illicit dumping, and marina “live-aboards;” and c) improve water quality in Lake Merritt to enhance the lake’s aesthetic, recreational, and ecological functions.

Action CO-5.3.7: Work with the Port of Oakland on an on-going basis to clean up toxic hot

spots, prevent further pollutant accumulation, compile and monitor water quality data, and develop a clean-up plan for live-aboards (houseboats) in Oakland waters.

Policy CO-13.3: Encourage the use of energy-efficient construction and building materials.

Encourage site plans for new development which maximize efficiency.

Noise Element

Action 1.1: Use the noise-land use compatibility matrix in conjunction with the noise contour maps (especially for roadway traffic) to evaluate the acceptability of residential and other proposed land uses and also the need for any mitigation or abatement measures to achieve the desired degree of acceptability.

Action 1.3: Continue working with the Alameda County Community Development Agency (in

its role as the county’s airport land use commission) and with the Port of Oakland to ensure consistency with the county’s airport land-use plan of the city’s various master-planning documents, zoning ordinance and land-use development proposals near Oakland’s airport.

Safety Element

Action HM-1.4: Continue to participate in the Alameda County Waste Management Authority and, as a participant, continue to implement policies under the county’s hazardous-waste management plan to minimize the generation of hazardous wastes.

Airport Land Use Plan

Table 2-3 Inner Approach/Departure Zones/Approach Surface

Schools, day care centers, libraries, hospitals, nursing homes, and places of worship are prohibited.

Nonresidential development is limited to low—intensity uses Above-ground storage, hazardous materials or other hazards to flight or objects

exceeding Part 77 height limits are prohibited. Only low-density residential development is permitted, unless unacceptable due to noise

impacts. Aviation easement dedication.


Table 2-3 Inner Turning Zones/Transitional Surface

Critical infrastructure facilities are prohibited. Only low-density residential development is permitted, unless unacceptable due to noise

impacts. Avoid non-residential uses having moderate or higher usage intensities (e.g. major

shopping centers, fast food restaurants, theaters, meeting halls, buildings with more than three above-ground floors).

Schools, day care centers, libraries, hospitals, nursing homes, and places of worship are prohibited.

Aviation easement dedication.

Section 3.3.1.6 Interior Noise Levels

(b): The maximum, aircraft-related, interior noise level which shall be considered acceptable for land uses including office environments and other miscellaneous commercial facilities within the AIA is 50dB CNEL

Table 3-1 Noise Compatibility Criteria

Exterior noise exposures of 65 to 70 dB CNEL for commercial and industrial uses is acceptable for outdoor activities, although some noise interference may occur; caution should be exercised with regard to noise-sensitive uses.

Table 3-2 Safety Compatibility Criteria

Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77

Section 77.5(b): [This part applies to] alteration of any permanent or temporary existing structure by a change in its height (including appurtenances), or lateral dimensions, including equipment or materials used therein.

Section 77.13(a)(iii): [Except as provided in Section 77.15, each sponsor who proposes any of the following construction or alteration shall notify the Administrator in the form and manner prescribed in Sec. 77.17] 25 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 5,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest landing and takeoff area of each heliport specified in paragraph (a)(5) of this section).


a) No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to physically divide an established community. The Project Area encompasses an interior remodel and a new exterior water cooling system for the proposed remodeled test stand, consisting of a cooling tower, water piping, pumps and sumps and an oil/water separation system, located on an expanse of paved, developed ground within a small area of the existing RRESO facilities. The project will have no physical impacts on established communities and no impacts are expected.

b) Less than Significant Impact. A Proposed Project would have a significant impact if it were to conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Proposed Project is subject to several local policies, plans, and regulations, as described above.

The Proposed Project is an interior remodel and the installation of a new exterior water cooling system for the proposed remodeled test stand, consisting of a cooling tower, water piping, pumps and sumps, and an oil/water separation system located


on an expanse of paved, developed ground within a small area of the existing RRESO facilities. These actions would not conflict with the Oakland General Plan or other applicable plans or policies.

The Proposed Project would not be in an area is located within the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s (BCDC) approximate 100-foot shoreline band and therefore is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) (Figure 7a). The Proposed Project would therefore require authorization through the BCDC permit process. BCDC’s jurisdiction generally extends to all areas of San Francisco Bay that are subject to tidal action, including sloughs and marshlands, a line 100 feet landward of and parallel with that line surrounding the Bay. It also includes salt ponds, managed wetlands, and certain designated waterways. However, neither the muted Fan Marsh nor any portion of the Project Area is mapped as within the 100-foot shoreline protection band by the agency (BCDC 1997 and 2007) or otherwise falls within BCDC Jurisdiction. The Project Area is located in an area illustrated in the San Francisco Bay Plan as part of the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport and therefore is not subject to BCDC requirements.

Based on a review of the San Francisco Bay Plan as well as the Proposed Project setting and characteristics, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable policies of the San Francisco Bay Plan and would be consistent with the McAteer-Petris Act. Specifically, the Proposed Project would not result in any dredging or fill, nor affect navigational safety, in San Francisco or San Leandro Bay. No subtidal areas, tidal marshes or flats would be impacted by the Project. In addition, after mitigation, the Proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts related to water quality or biological resources. Also, the Proposed Project would not result in any impacts to public access given the isolated location of the Proposed Project, and impacts related to views would be less than significant.

Furthermore, as mentioned above, the project is located within OAK’s influence area. The project proposes temporary construction work. The project does not propose uses with a very high concentration of people. Operation of the project would be similar to existing conditions and would be consistent with the Oakland Comprehensive Land Use Plan policies and applicable policies. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

c) No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans have been adopted for the City of Oakland. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan.


Figure 7a. Approximate BCDC 100' Shoreline Band


0 100 20050

Feet

.

Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\23000\23015\GIS\ArcMap\Fig7a_BCDC_20130517.mxd



Approximate BCDC 100' Shoreline Band

Indoor Project Area


Old Earhart Road

Pump House #2

Test Cell #1


(NPORDS)



4.11 Mineral Resources

MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project:


Impact

Less than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Source

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

2

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?

2


The Project Area is situated on a thin band of artificial fill (af; USGS 2000). The USGS defines artificial fill as “Man-made deposit(s) of various materials and ages…” There are no known mineral resources within the vicinity of the Project Area.


a, b) No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project site is located in an area used or available for extraction of a regionally-important mineral resource, or if the Proposed Project would convert an existing or future regionally-important mineral extraction use to another use, or if the Proposed Project would affect access to a site used or potentially available for regionally-important mineral resource extraction. The Project Area is not in or adjacent to any important mineral resource areas. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

4.12 Noise

NOISE — Would the project result in:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Source

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

1,2

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

1

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

1

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

1


NOISE — Would the project result in:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Source

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport of public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the Project Area to excessive noise levels?

1

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the Project Area to excessive noise levels?

1


Sound is technically described in terms of amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Noise, on the other hand, is typically defined as unwanted sound. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady “background” noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources. These can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to virtually continuous noise from, for example, traffic on a major highway. Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on people. Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise upon people is largely dependent upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. Those that are applicable to this analysis are as follows:

Leq – An Leq, or equivalent energy noise level, is the average acoustic energy content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night.

Lmax – The maximum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time.

Lmin – The minimum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time.

CNEL – The Community Noise Equivalent Level is a 24-hour average Leq with a 5 dBA “weighting” during the hours of 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. and a 10 dBA “weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. to account


for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24 hour Leq would result in a measurement of 66.7 dBA CNEL.

Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels during the day, night, or over a 24-hour period. For residential uses, environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the CNEL is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60–70 dBA range, and high above 70 dBA.24 Noise levels greater than 85 dBA can cause temporary or permanent hearing loss. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated, natural settings with noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet suburban residential streets with noise levels around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate level noise environments are urban residential or semi-commercial areas (typically 55–60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with more noisy urban residential or residential-commercial areas (60–75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65–80 dBA). It is widely accepted that in the community noise environment the average healthy ear can barely perceive CNEL noise level changes of 3 dBA. CNEL changes from 3 to 5 dBA may be noticed by some individuals who are extremely sensitive to changes in noise. A 5 dBA CNEL increase is readily noticeable, while the human ear perceives a 10 dBA CNEL increase as a doubling of sound. Noise levels from a particular source generally decline as distance to the receptor increases. Other factors, such as the weather and reflecting or barriers, also help intensify or reduce the noise level at any given location. A commonly used rule of thumb for roadway noise is that for every doubling of distance from the source, the noise level is reduced by about 3 dBA at acoustically “hard” locations (i.e., the area between the noise source and the receptor is nearly complete asphalt, concrete, hard-packed soil, or other solid materials) and 4.5 dBA at acoustically “soft” locations (i.e., the area between the source and receptor is normal earth or has vegetation, including grass). Noise from stationary or point sources is reduced by about 6 to 7.5 dBA for every doubling of distance at acoustically hard and soft locations, respectively. Noise levels are also generally reduced by 1 dBA for each 1,000 feet of distance due to air absorption. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures – generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The normal noise attenuation within residential structures with open windows is about 17 dBA, while the noise attenuation with closed windows is about 25 dBA.25

Oakland Municipal Code

The City of Oakland Municipal Code (Chapter 17.120) contains noise performance standards for noise generating land uses. Table 5 shows the standards which are based on the type of receiving land use and the duration of the noise. The noise level is to be measured at the receiving land use. These noise levels are to be reduced by 5 dBA for a simple tone noise such as a whine, screech, or hum, noise consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulse noise such as hammering or riveting. In the event the measured ambient noise level

24 Office of Planning and Research, State of California General Plan Guidelines, October 2003 (in

coordination with the California Department of Health Services). 25 National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 117, Highway Noise: A Design Guide for

Highway Engineers, 1971.


exceeds the applicable noise level standard in any category above, the stated applicable noise level shall be adjusted so as to equal the ambient noise level.Table 5. Maximum Allowable Receiving Noise Level Standards (dBA)

Cumulative Number of Minutes in Either the Daytime or Nighttime One Hour Time

Period

Residences and Schools

Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)

Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to

7:00 a.m.)

20 60 45

10 65 50

5 70 55

1 75 60

0 80 65

Source: City of Oakland, Planning Code Performance Standards, Chapter 17.120.050, Table 17.120.1

The municipal code also has separate noise limits for daytime construction and demolition activities as shown in Table 6. For time periods outside the hours addressed in Table 6 the noise limits in Table 5 apply. Table 6. Maximum Allowable Receiving Noise Level Standards from Temporary Construction or Demolition (dBA)

Time Period Daily

7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Weekends

9 a.m. to 8 p.m.

Short-Term Operation

Residential 80 65

Commercial, Industrial 85 70

Long-Term Operation

Residential 65 55

Commercial, Industrial 70 60

Source: City of Oakland, Planning Code Performance Standards, Chapter 17.120.050, Table 17.120.04

Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)

The Alameda County ALUC specifies maximum acceptable airport-related noise levels for various types of land use developments in its Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The ALUCP for the Airport (adopted in December 2010) contains the noise compatibility criteria shown in Table 7. Table 7 indicates that residential uses and schools are considered “compatible” when exposed to a community noise equivalent level (CNEL) of up to 60 dBA and are “conditional” when exposed to a CNEL of up to 65 dBA. A CNEL in excess of 65 dBA or greater is considered incompatible. Table 7 does not indicate the compatibility of schools when exposed to a CNEL less than 60 dBA but it does include an interpretation/comment that residences are “compatible”


when exposed to a CNEL of less than 60 dBA. Since the graphical designations in Table 7 for schools are identical to those for residences, it is presumed that schools would also be acceptable when exposed to a CNEL of less than 60 dBA.

Oakland General Plan

The City of Oakland’s General Plan Noise Element compatibility guidelines are shown in Table 8. Residential and school land use are considered “normally acceptable” when exposed to a CNEL of 60 dBA or less, “conditionally acceptable” when exposed to a CNEL between 60 and 70 dBA. The City’s Noise Element also provides compatibility guidelines as shown in Table 8.

Noise Environment

To quantify the existing noise environment, ambient noise measurements were conducted at the nearest residential areas. These locations are in the City of Alameda to the north and west of the project site. Location 1 is along the shoreline adjacent to the playfields at Lincoln Middle School. This location is also next to residences along Washington Court. Location 2 is along Island Drive near the Earhart Elementary School and homes along Centre Court. The noise measurement locations are shown in Figure 8 and the results are shown in Figures 9 and 10 and Table 9. The long-term measurement charts also indicate the times when the engine test cells at RRESO were operating. The major noise sources at the ambient noise measurement locations were traffic and aircraft. At Location 1 the traffic noise was from distant roadways including Interstate 880, Fernside Boulevard, Doolittle Drive and the Bay Farm Island Bridge. During the short-term measurement, jets from OAK generated maximum noise levels ranging from 52 to 60 dBA. Seagulls and children playing at the adjacent school were also audible. General aviation aircraft from North Field were not a significant noise source during the short-term noise measurement. At Location 2 the noise levels were entirely from traffic on Island Drive. To determine the noise level contribution of the existing Test Cell #1, it was turned on and off during the short-term ambient noise measurements. The instantaneous noise level at Location 1 was barely affected, if at all, when Test Cell #1 was operating. For example, the background noise level (in between identifiable events such as aircraft or birds) increased from 46 dBA to 47 dBA when Test Cell #1 was operating. This means that the noise level contribution from Test Cell #1 was, at most, about 40 dBA.26 This noise exposure is within the Oakland Noise Ordinance limits for continuous noise at residences and schools of 60 dBA during the day and 45 dBA at night. At Location 2, because of the nearby roadway traffic, there was no detectable change in background noise level that might be due to the Test Cell operation. The long-term noise measurements results also show that the noise levels in the nearest residential areas are not affected by the operation of the RRESO Test Cells. This is apparent in Figures 9 and 10 since the noise levels do not show a consistent correlation with highlighted times when the engine test cells were operating. In other words, the noise levels at the noise monitors are affected by the daily variation in ambient noise sources other than the engine test cells at RRESO.

26 By the mathematics of decibel addition, 40 + 46 = 47. That is, if one source by itself generates a

sound level of 40 dBA and another noise source by itself generates a sound level of 46 dBA, then with the two sources operating simultaneously the combined noise level will be 47 dBA. The formula for decibel addition is as follows: L = 10·Log10( ∑10(Li/10) ).


Table 7. Alameda County ALUC Noise Compatibility Criteria27

27 Alameda County ALUC, Oakland International Airport – Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, page 9,

Table 3-1, December 2010.


Table 8. Oakland General Plan Noise Land Use Compatibility Matrix28

28 City of Oakland, Oakland General Plan Noise Element, page 21, Figure 6, June 2005


Figure 8. Ambient Noise Measurement


Figure 9. Long-term Noise Measurement, Location 1

30

40

50

60

70

801

6:0

0

18

:00

20

:00

22

:00

0:0

0

2:0

0

4:0

0

6:0

0

8:0

0

10

:00

12

:00

14

:00

16

:00

18

:00

20

:00

22

:00

0:0

0

2:0

0

4:0

0

6:0

0

8:0

0

10

:00

12

:00

14

:00

Time of Day

A-w

eig

hte

d S

ou

nd

Le

ve

l, d

BA

Leq L90

Monday, 7 January 2013 Tuesday, 8 January 2013 Wednesday, 9 January 2013

RRESO Test Cell Run Times

Figure 10. Long-term Noise Measurement, Location 2

30

40

50

60

70

80

16

:00

18

:00

20

:00

22

:00

0:0

0

2:0

0

4:0

0

6:0

0

8:0

0

10

:00

12

:00

14

:00

16

:00

18

:00

20

:00

22

:00

0:0

0

2:0

0

4:0

0

6:0

0

8:0

0

10

:00

12

:00

14

:00

Time of Day

A-w

eig

hte

d S

ou

nd

Le

ve

l, d

BA

Leq L90

Monday, 7 January 2013 Tuesday, 8 January 2013 Wednesday, 9 January 2013

RRESO Test Cell Run Times


Table 9. Short-Term Ambient Noise Measurements, 8 January 2013

Location Time A-weighted Sound Level, dBA

Leq Lmax L10 L33 L90 CNEL*

1 Along Shoreline near Lincoln Middle School and Homes on Washington Court.

1:22 – 1:42 PM

51 64 54 50 46 61

2 Along Island Drive next to Homes on Centre Court. 30 feet from curb.

1:51 – 2:10 PM

67 78 69 67 60 68

* CNEL estimated based on correlation with simultaneous measurement at long-term noise measurement location.


a, c) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies or a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. In the existing condition, Test Cell #1 operates with the older engine model fitted with a propeller. With the project, Test Cell #1 would be used with the newer engine model fitted with a dynamometer. Since the two engines are comparable in size and power, the major change (with respect to noise) will be the operation of Test Cell #1 with a dynamometer instead of a propeller. Based on observations of the existing Test Cell #1, the dominant noise source is the propeller. The noise is associated with the air turbulence created at the propeller blades as the propeller converts the power of the engine into air flow. With the Proposed Project there would no longer be a propeller and, therefore, no air turbulence noise from the propeller blades. Instead the engine shaft would be attached to a dynamometer which converts the engine power into heat through a system of gears in oil. This is generally a quieter operation since the gears are enclosed in a substantial steel casing. Acoustical measurements at RRESO were taken outdoors approximately 240 to 300 feet from the existing test cells operating with older engines. After correcting for distance, these measurements indicate that Test Cell 7 with a dynamometer is about 17 dBA quieter than Test Cell #1 with a propeller (or approximately a one-quarter of the perceived noise with a propeller). This comparison includes the noise contribution of the cooling tower associated with the dynamometer used in Test Cell #7. Under the Proposed Project, Test Cell #1 would run as frequently as the existing conditions (approximately 35-50 test cycles per year), however, each test cycle would increase in length from approximately 1.5 hours to 3 hours with the new engine type. The time of day of the operations would not be expected to change, as the project would be allowed to run at any time, as in the existing condition. The increase in duration of test cell cycle run times will not affect the compliance with the City of Oakland Noise Ordinance since the run time in both instances is greater than 20 minutes in an hour.


Comparative noise measurement data for the proposed new engine model was not available at the time of this analysis. Based on the community noise measurements and the operating conditions at the existing facility, the noise generated by the existing RRESO does not exceed applicable standards at the nearest residences and schools and it is not expected that noise exposure will increase as a result of the project. Thus, because the Proposed Project includes the testing of qualitatively quieter engines, it is not expected that noise exposure will substantially increase and therefore impacts are considered less than significant.

b) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Construction activities can generate groundborne vibration that is feelable (causes annoyance) and in extreme cases, causes physical damage to nearby buildings. Generally, groundborne vibration is feelable at much lower levels than would be necessary to cause physical damage. Piles would be installed to support the cooling tower structure. The closest sensitive receptors are 3,600 feet or more from the Project Area. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels and impacts would be less than significant.

d) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Construction activities will temporarily increase noise level in the vicinity of the project site. Table 10 presents noise levels from typical construction activities at a reference distance of 50 feet. Since the nearest residences and schools are at least 3,600 feet from the project site, the noise levels at these locations will be at least 37 dBA less than the levels shown in Table 10. Therefore, the temporary construction noise levels experienced by the nearest residences and schools would be below the Noise Ordinance Limits for construction activities and the Proposed Project would not result substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

e) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. The Project Area is located within the ALUP for the Airport and within the CNEL 60 dBA contour. This noise exposure is considered compatible for industrial land use such as the RRESO facility. Although the Proposed Project would expose people residing or working in the Project Area to excessive noise levels, these noise levels have been analyzed and impacts are considered less than significant.

f) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project is located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. The North Field is a public facility but private planes are permitted to use the airstrip. This existing use has been included as part of the ambient noise calculations and the Proposed Project would not permanently increase noise levels in the Project Area. Therefore, the Proposed


Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project Area to excessive noise levels and impacts would be less than significant.

Table 10. Construction Equipment Noise Generation

Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA)

50 feet from Source

Air Compressor 81

Backhoe 80

Ballast Equalizer 82

Ballast Tamper 83

Compactor 82

Concrete Mixer 85

Concrete Pump 82

Concrete Vibrator 76

Crane, Derrick 88

Crane, Mobile 83

Dozer 85

Generator 81

Grader 85

Impact Wrench 85

Jack Hammer 88

Loader 85

Paver 89

Pile-driver (Impact) 101

Pile-driver (Sonic) 96

Pneumatic Tool 85

Pump 76

Roller 74

Saw 76

Scarifier 83

Scraper 89

Shovel 82

Truck 88

Source: Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006


4.13 Population and Housing

POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Source

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

1

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

1

c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

1


The Project Area is located east of a developed residential neighborhood community of Alameda. The Project Area has a City of Oakland General Plan land use designation of general industrial/transportation. Surrounding land uses west of the Project Area are the Chuck Corica Municipal Golf Complex and the North Field of OAK, which is a designated Area of Primary Importance (Local Historic District) and is administered by the Port. The North Field accommodates a number of private and business/charter aircraft. To the east are lands associated with the Airport including the Federal Aviation Administration, and San Leandro Bay.


a-c) No Impact. A significant impact would occur if a project would locate new development such as homes, businesses, or infrastructure, with the effect of substantially inducing growth in the project area that would otherwise not have occurred as rapidly or in as great a magnitude. A significant impact may also occur if the project would result in the substantial displacement of existing housing units or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The Project Area is located in Census Tract 4090, which is a large irregularly shaped tract that extends roughly between the San Francisco Bay and San Leandro Boulevard, and High Street and 98th Avenue (ESA 2012). External equipment associated with the Proposed Project includes the installation a cooling tower and below-grade equipment associated with engine testing.

The equipment would be similar to current conditions and would be installed adjacent to existing buildings. All other modification would be internal to the existing Test Cell Facility. The Proposed Project is located in a developed industrial area and is not designed to extend infrastructure to accommodate growth. The Proposed Project would not displace people or housing. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.


4.14 Public Services

PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Source

a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection? 1

Police protection? 1

Schools? 1

Parks? 1

Other public facilities? 1


Fire protection services to the Project Area are provided by the Oakland Fire Department- Airport Division (Fire Department). The Fire Department serves a population of approximately 390,72429 and covers the City of Oakland and the Airport. The Fire District responds to approximately 60,000 emergency calls a year with over 80 percent of them being emergency medical services calls.30 The Operations Division responds out of 25 Fire Stations, located throughout the City and the Airport, operating a fleet of 24 Engines, 7 Trucks, and numerous other special operations, support, and reserve units throughout 3 Battalions.31 The Airport houses a 33,000 square foot facility with four Oshkosh specialized airport fire trucks as well as other rescue vehicles and equipment. The station houses a crew of six including a captain and five firefighters. The crew provides firefighting, and fire prevention services as well as first aid and emergency medical technician services throughout the airport area.32 Police services to OAK are provided by the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office Airport Police Services (APS) which operates from its headquarters at 8980 Earhart Road.33 The Project Area is located approximately 0.33 miles (1,742 feet) north of the Doolittle Staging Area and Trail, which is part of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline Park. The rest of Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline Park, including a segment of the Francisco Bay Trail,

29 2010 US Census. Available at:

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1. Accessed January 2, 2013.

30 City of Oakland Fire Department. Available at: http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/OFD/index.htm. Accessed January 8, 2013.

31 Ibid. 32 Press release, Oakland International Airport. Available at:

http://www.flyoakland.com/press_releases_detail.aspx?ID=93&t=p. Accessed January 8, 2012. 33 Alameda County Sheriff’s Office website. Available at:

https://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/les_contracts.php. Accessed January 8, 2013.


is located to the east across San Leandro Bay. The park is owned and operated by the East Bay Regional Parks District. To the west of the Project Area is Spunkmeyer Field, NPORDS, and the Chuck Corica Municipal Golf Complex in the City of Alameda. The Project Area is within 1.58 miles of Bay Farm Elementary School and 2.0 miles from Brookside Elementary School. Other schools in the area include Embry-Riddle College and the Institute of Medical Education located approximately 1.06 miles east of the Project Area.

Discussion of Impact

a) No Impact. A significant impact to public services may occur if a project resulted in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objective for any of the above mentioned public services. As the project does not involve any new residential population or employees, it would not increase the demand for public services or require construction of new governmental facilities. The purpose of the project is an interior remodel and minor exterior alterations to an existing commercial and industrial parcel.

4.15 Recreation

RECREATION — Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Source

a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

1

b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

1


The Project Area is located approximately 0.33 miles (1,742 feet) north of the Doolittle Staging Area and Trail, which is part of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline Park. The rest of Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline Park, including a segment of the Francisco Bay Trail, is located to the east across San Leandro Bay. The Park is owned and operated by the East Bay Regional Parks District. To the west of the Project Area are the North Port of Oakland Refuse Disposal Site (former landfill), Harbor Bay Parkway, and the Alameda Chuck Corica Golf Complex. To the east of the Project Area is the tidal Fan Marsh and San Leandro Bay. To the north is Harbor Bay Parkway. To the south is the North Field, which is a designated Area of Primary Importance (Local Historic District) by the City of Oakland. Immediately to the north of the Project Area is Doolittle Pond, a designated wildlife sanctuary.


The Quimby Act (California Government Code 66477 (a)(4)) standard is three acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The City currently has a population of 390,724.34 Therefore, using this standard, the City is required to have 1,172 acres of parkland. The City currently owns or operates more than 112,000 acres of parkland encompassing 65 parks,35 far more than the total needed. No changes or encroachments on existing parkland are proposed as a part of the Project.


a, b) No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would include substantial employment or population growth which could generate an increased demand for public park facilities that exceeds the capacities of existing parks and causes premature deterioration of the park facilities. A significant impact may also occur if a project includes the construction or expansion of park facilities and such construction would have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The project would not affect recreational facilities or increase the use of nearby recreational facilities. The purpose of the project is an interior remodel and a new exterior water cooling system for the proposed remodeled test stand, consisting of a cooling tower, water piping, pumps and sumps installed and an oil/water separation system, located on an expanse of paved, developed ground within a small area of the existing RRESO facilities. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.

4.16 Transportation/Traffic

TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Source

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

1

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

1

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels

1

34 2010 US Census. Available at:

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1. Accessed January 8, 2013.

35 East Bay Regional Parks District. Available at: http://www.ebparks.org/. Accessed January 8, 2013.


TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Source

or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

1

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

1


The Proposed Project includes work within the existing Test Cell Facility located at 6701 Old Earhart Road. O’Connor Street. Doolittle Drive (SR 61) provides regional access to the Project Area. Hegenberger Road/Expressway runs south to north from Interstate 880 and connects with Doolittle Drive which provides access to Old Earhart Road through Langley Street. There are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities in the Project Area. The nearest facilities are primarily hiking and biking opportunities on developed paths in the Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline, approximately 0.30 miles south and east of the Project Area or athletic events associated with Spunkmeyer Field west of the Project Area. Regional bicycle access to the Project Area is provided by the Doolittle Drive (proposed). Doolittle Drive is also proposed to be a Class I Bike Path and a Class II Bike Lane.36 There is no public on-street parking available along the local roads within the Project Area.


a) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.

Construction traffic (equipment and materials transport and daily worker traffic) would increase traffic on local roads during construction.

Temporary construction traffic would be limited to equipment and material transport periodically during construction, primarily at the beginning and end of construction, and a few vehicles daily during construction. The temporary construction-related traffic would not result in a noticeable increase in traffic on local roads and is not expected to reduce the levels of service for the roads. Traffic delays are not anticipated because large vehicles transporting equipment and materials to the Project Area would not stop and unload equipment or materials outside of the Project Area. Furthermore, no lane or road closures are expected because staging areas are located in the Project Area and not on the local roads. With the exception of tank truck trips required to periodically dispose of contents pumped from the oil/water

36 City of Oakland Bicycle Master Plan, 2007. Available at

http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/PWA/o/EC/s/BicycleandPedestrianProgram/OAK024597#download and accessed January 15, 2013.


separation system, the project would not result in an increase in operational traffic levels as no new employees would be required. Impacts to traffic in the area would be less than significant.

b) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the adopted California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and Alameda County Congestion Management Program thresholds for a significant project impact would be exceeded. To address the increasing public concern that traffic congestion is impacting the quality of life and economic vitality of the State of California, the Congestion Management Program (CMP) was enacted by Proposition 111. The CMP designated a transportation network including all State highways and some arterials within the County to be monitored by local jurisdictions. If the Level of Service (LOS) standard deteriorates on the CMP network, then local jurisdictions must prepare a deficiency plan to be in conformance with the CMP program.

As discussed above, the Proposed Project would not significantly increase traffic on local roads or highways to a level that would affect intersection LOS. With the exception of tank truck trips required to periodically dispose of contents pumped from the oil/water separation system, the project would not result in an increase in operational traffic levels as no new employees would be required. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program.

c) No Impact. A significant impact would occur if a project were to result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. The Proposed Project would not change air traffic patterns, increase air traffic levels or result in a change in location that would result in substantial safety risks.

The project would be constructed to Federal Aviation Administration standards and therefore, would not be a hazard to air navigation (refer to Section 4.10 Land Use and Planning).

d) No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to include a new roadway design, introduce a new land use or permanent project features into an area with specific transportation requirements and characteristics that have not been previously experienced in that area, or if project access or other features were designed in such a way as to create hazardous conditions. The project would not involve new road construction or activities that could increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. Adequate sight distance would be available for motorists to access and depart the Project Area.

e) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project design would not provide emergency access meeting the requirements of the Fire Department or in any other way threaten the ability of emergency vehicles to access and serve the project site or adjacent uses. Delays for emergency access to the residences adjacent to the work area are not expected. The Proposed Project would be staged off of local roads and within RRESO’s Test Cell Facility. RRESO or its construction contractors will coordinate with law enforcement and emergency service providers prior to the start of construction to ensure minimal disruption to service during construction. Impacts relating to emergency access would be less than significant.


f) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. The project is located in an established urban area, and as stated above, the planned development would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The Proposed Project would not be expected to generate a substantial number of transit trips, nor would it be expected to generate many new bicycle or pedestrian trips, given the proposed land use. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would not result in the obstruction or restriction of access to existing alternative modes of transportation or facilities therein; nor would the project result in the decrease in performance of such facilities and users of these modes. Based on these findings, the project would not conflict with policies, plans, or programs related to transit, bicycle, or pedestrian travel and impacts would be less than significant.

4.17 Utilities and Service Systems

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Source

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

1

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

1

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

1

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

1

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

1

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

1

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

1



The Project Area is located in a developed area that provides all utilities and services (e.g., water supply and distribution, sewage distribution and treatment, storm drainage facilities, and solid waste management). Electrical and other utility lines are also located along the roads, either underground or aboveground. The various utility and service agencies that serve the Project Area are described below. Water Service/Wastewater Services

East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) supplies water and provides wastewater treatment for significant parts of Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Based on 2010 census data, approximately 1.34 million people are served by EBMUD’s water system in a 332-square-mile area extending from Crockett on the north, southward to San Lorenzo (encompassing the major cities of Oakland and Berkeley), eastward from San Francisco Bay to Walnut Creek, and south through the San Ramon Valley. The wastewater system serves approximately 650,000 people in an 88-square-mile area of Alameda and Contra Costa counties along the Bay’s east shore, extending from Richmond on the north, southward to San Leandro (EBMUD 2011). RRESO’s Test Cell Facility is not connected to EBMUD’s wastewater system. Wastewater is collected in an on-site storage tank and taken to EBMUD’s wastewater treatment plant approximately three times per month by a septic waste hauler. EBMUD’s main wastewater treatment plant, which provides primary and secondary wastewater treatment, is located southwest of the Interstate 580/Interstate 80 interchange in Oakland. Currently, the primary wastewater treatment can provide for up to 320 million gallons of water per day (mpg), and secondary treatment can provide up to 168 mgd. With the current average dry-weather flow of 75 mgd, the plant is operating at 23 percent capacity (ESA 2012; EBMUD 2011). Storm Drainage

According to the RWQCB’s Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Basin, the Project Area is located in the South Bay Basin. The Test Cell Facility includes an unlined drainage ditch along the southwestern edge of site which formerly collected storm water and runoff from operations at Test Cells 1 through 4. Collected storm water flows through the ditch into an underground pipe, which drains to the south where it is pumped to the muted tidal wetland (Fan Marsh) and eventually flows to San Leandro Bay (PES 2010). Solid Waste

The City of Oakland is served by the Altamont Sanitary Landfill, located at 10840 Altamont Pass Road in Livermore. Solid Waste is delivered to the landfill by Waste Management of Alameda County (WMAC), the City’s franchise hauler. WMAC collects solid waste from residential, commercial and industrial customers and delivers it to the landfill. As of August 2005, the landfill has a remaining capacity of 45.72 million cubic yards, with a cease operation date of January 2025.37


a, e) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality

37 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Facility/Site Summary

Details for Altamont Sanitary Landfill. Available at: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/01-AA-0009/Detail/ Accessed January 15, 2013.


Control Board or result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. With the exception of construction, the project would not involve any new employees. The project would not generate a substantial amount of wastewater during construction and wastewater generation over the long-term would be similar to existing conditions. The amount of wastewater that is anticipated by the project is incremental and would not be expected to exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Furthermore, no additional wastewater treatment facilities would need to be constructed to accommodate the Proposed Project. For these reasons, impacts would be less than significant.

b) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. The Proposed Project would not require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing wastewater facilities. As stated previously, the Test Cell Facility uses a septic waste hauler to take wastewater to EBMUD’s treatment facility. The Proposed Project does include a new cooling tower; however, the construction of the cooling tower would be in a developed area and thus it would not cause significant environmental effects. Impacts would be less than significant.

c) No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the volume of storm water runoff increases to a level exceeding the capacity of the storm drain system serving the project site or if a project would substantially increase the probability that polluted runoff would reach the storm drain system. The project does not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. No impacts would occur.

d) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to increase water consumption to such a degree that new water sources would need to be identified, or that existing resources would be consumed at a pace greater than planned for by purveyors, distributors, and service providers. The Proposed Project includes a new water cooling tower which would result in an increase in water consumption on-site. With the implementation of water conservation and recycling programs already in place, EBMUD estimates that projected 2015 demand in its service area would be approximately 223 mgd, and projected 2040 demand would be approximately 230 mgd (EBMUD, 2011). The Proposed Project’s water demand would be a small percentage of the City’s total demand; therefore, the project’s impact would be less than significant.

f, g) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to increase solid waste generation to a degree that existing and projected landfill capacity would be insufficient to accommodate the additional solid waste or generate solid waste that was not disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. The project would generate a small quantity of solid waste during construction, but all generated waste would be properly disposed or recycled in a nearby landfill or disposal facility with capacity to receive the waste. Any materials used during construction would be properly disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. Solid waste generation from the operation of the project would be


similar to existing conditions as no new employees are required. Impacts on solid waste facilities would be less than significant.

4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance

MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No

Impact Source

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

1

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

1

c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

1

Discussion

a) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if a project degrades the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The project would not significantly affect natural habitats or federally or state-listed species. Impacts on wildlife would be less than significant after implementation of mitigation measures. The project would not affect known historical resources and has a very low potential to affect buried cultural deposits or human remains. Impacts on cultural resources would be less than significant and would be further reduced with incorporation of mitigation. Also, impacts related to hydrology and water quality, and hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation.

b) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if a project, in conjunction with other related projects in the project area, would result in impacts that are less than significant when viewed separately, but would be


significant when viewed together. The project includes construction measures to minimize the temporary impacts of construction activities, and no long-term adverse impacts are anticipated. With these measures, the project would result in individually minor impacts and would not contribute substantially to cumulative impacts on any resource.

Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires an evaluation of potential environmental impacts when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. These impacts can result from a combination of the Proposed Project together with other projects causing related impacts. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. At the time of preparation of this Initial Study there are six cumulative projects that are projected to be constructed or implemented within the next year in the vicinity of the Project Area. These projects include: the Oakland International Airport Runway Safety Area (RSA) Improvement Project, BART Airport Connector, Pump House 6 Replacement, Airport Perimeter Dike Improvement Project, Bike Path Improvements, and a Utility Program Upgrade. Each project is detailed below.

Oakland International Airport Runway Safety Area (RSA) Improvement Project

This project includes a combination of runway shifts, resurfacing, and other improvements for the four Airport runways. This project would not change operations or increase aircraft activity at the airport.

BART Airport Connector

This project involves the construction of a link from OAK via an automated guideway transit system from the Coliseum BART Station to a new BART station at the Airport. The 3.2-mile elevated connector is located primarily within the median of Hegenberger Road from the Coliseum BART Station to Doolittle Drive, and on Airport property. The automated guideway transit will be operated in its own exclusive right-of-way. This project is currently under construction.

Pump House 6 Replacement

The purpose of this project is to reconstruct Pump House 6 within the same forebay and outfall location. The structure has exceeded its design life: the steel piles supporting the pump house are corroded and the entire structure needs to be replaced. Reconstruction of the pump house allows installation of updated materials and technology. The reconstructed pump house helps to prevent flooding of a significant portion of OAK.

Airport Perimeter Dike Improvement Project

This project would construct improvements to the perimeter dike that forms the southwestern shoreline of the Airport property. The perimeter dike serves as the flood protection system for the Airport and surrounding areas.


Bike Path Improvements

A Class 1 bike trail will be extended along the south side of Ron Cowan Parkway, connecting Airport Drive to Harbor Bay Parkway.

Utility Program Upgrade

This project includes the replacement of critical and deteriorating utility infrastructure, a Terminal 1 substation, and a sanitary sewer along Airport Drive. The Proposed Project is located within the Airport-North Field property but wholly within the existing RRESO property. Given the Project Area is isolated from the other cumulative projects and that the project does not result in any significant impacts that cannot be completely mitigated to less-than-significant levels, the project would not result in impacts that are cumulative considerable. 8350 Pardee Drive This project consists of constructing a 374,725-square-foot distribution and storage facility, composed of an approximate 364,725-square-foot distribution and storage facility and two 5,000-square-foot offices located in the southeast and southwest corners of the building. The distribution facility would operate as a conventional warehouse, with racked products which would be received, repackaged, stored as inventory, and distributed. Some limited assembly could occur on site such as product testing and assembly of parts and equipment. This project is currently under construction.

d) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may occur if the project were to have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project’s construction would result in potentially significant impacts related to, biological resources, hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality; however, all impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels via the mitigation measures included in this Initial Study. The project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.


5.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

5.1 Introduction

On April 18, 2013 the Port (Lead Agency) released for public review a Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Project at 6701 Old Earhart Road in the City of Oakland (SCH# 2013042047). The 30-day public review and comment period on the Draft Initial Study began on April 18, 2013 and closed at 5:00 p.m. on May 17, 2013.

The Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and the response to comments on the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are informational documents prepared by the Lead Agency that must be considered by decision-makers before approving the proposed project and that must reflect the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15090).

This section summarizes and responds to the comments and questions on the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration circulated by the Port to public agencies and the public as required by CEQA. As discussed below in Response to Comments, edits to the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration have incorporated the comments where appropriate. With these edits, this Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration does not describe a project having any new or substantially more severe impacts than those identified and analyzed in the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, recirculation of a Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required.

This section contains copies of the comment letters submitted during the public review period on the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the individual responses to those comments. Each written comment letter is designated with an alphabet letter in the upper right-hand corner of the letter. Within each written comment letter, individual comments are labeled with the designated alphabet letter and a number in the margin. Immediately following each comment letter is an individual response to each numbered comment. Where responses have resulted in changes to the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, these changes are shown in the response and also appear in Section 4 of this document as underlined or strike-out text.

Colleen Liang Port of Oakland 530 Water Street Oakland, California 94607

Making ."t<m Frauci.'fC"O Bt1\' Beller

May l, 2013

SUBJECT: BCDC Comments: Draft IS I Proposed MND for Rolls-Royce Engine Services -Oakland Inc. Test Cell Upgrade Project (SCH No. 2013042047)

Dear Ms. Liang:

Thank you for sending us a copy of the Draft Initial Study I Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Rolls-Royce Engine Services - Oakland Inc. Test Cell Upgrade Project at 6701 Old Earhart Road, in the City of Oakland, Alameda County. The document describes a proposal by the Rolls-Royce Engine Services - Oakland Inc., to modify its existing Test Cell Facility to accommodate repair and maintenance of new engines.

The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission ("Commission" or "BCDC") staff reviews such documents on behalf of its Commission to assess, among other things, the project's consistency with the McAteer-Petris Act, the Commission's San Francisco Bay Plan, the Commission's federally-approved management plan for the San Francisco Bay, and the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and the project's relationship to the Commission's jurisdiction.

At this site, the Commission has permit jurisdiction over all tidal areas of the Bay up to the mean high tide line or to the inland edge of wetland vegetation in marshlands (up to five feet above Mean Sea Level), all areas formerly subject to tidal action that have been filled since September 17, 1965, and a 100-foot shoreline band extending 100 feet inland from and parallel to the Bay jurisdiction.

Commission permits are required for placing and grading fill, construction, dredging, dredged material disposal, and substantial changes in use within the Commission's jurisdiction. Permits are issued when the Commission finds proposed activities to be consistent with its laws and policies. In addition to any needed permits under its state authority, federal actions, permits, and grants affecting the coastal zone are subject to review by the Commission, pursuant to the federal CZMA, for their consistency with the Commission's federally-approved management program for the Bay.

From reviewing the document, it appears that the proposed project would be located within the Commission's 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction and, thus, would require authorization through a Commission permit. Please visit our website at www.bcdc.ca.gov for the relevant laws and policies that should be considered when evaluating your project under CEQA, as well as the Commission's application form. Please feel free to contact us to discuss the type of approval necessary for the proposed project, the process for obtaining Commission authorization, and whether, as proposed, the project would be consistent with the Commission's laws and policies. If you have any questions, please contact me at 415-352-3668 or [email protected].

EK cc: State Clearinghouse

Sincerely,

~~-<2--Ellie Knecht Coastal Analyst

State of Ca/rfornia • SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION • Edmund G. Brown Jr. , Governor 50 California Street, Suite 2600 • San Francisco, California 94111 • (415) 352·3600 • Fax: (415) 352·3606 • [email protected] • www.bcdc.ca.gov

Comment Letter A

A-1

greilly

Line


Response to Comment A-1

This comment is acknowledged. The first full paragraph on page 62 of the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration indicates that the Project (Test Cell #1) is located outside of BCDC’s jurisdiction. This statement was based on a BCDC 100-foot shoreline band map from the Port’s BCDC Shoreline Maintenance Permit No. M1989.075.09, which illustrates the Project being outside the 100-foot shoreline band. Based on Comment A-1 and subsequent communication between the Port and BCDC, it is understood that the map is incorrect and that the Project is indeed located within BCDC’s 100-foot shoreline band. See Figure 7a (Approximate 100’ BCDC Shoreline Band) which illustrates that approximately one-half of Test Cell #1 is located within BCDC’s 100-foot shoreline band.

Therefore, the first full paragraph on page 62 of the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration has been revised to read as follows:

The Proposed Project would not be in an area is located within the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s (BCDC) approximate 100-foot shoreline band and therefore is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) (Figure 7a). The Proposed Project would therefore require authorization through the BCDC permit process. BCDC’s jurisdiction generally extends to all areas of San Francisco Bay that are subject to tidal action, including sloughs and marshlands, a line 100 feet landward of and parallel with that line surrounding the Bay. It also includes salt ponds, managed wetlands, and certain designated waterways. However, neither the muted Fan Marsh nor any portion of the Project Area is mapped as within the 100-foot shoreline protection band by the agency (BCDC 1997 and 2007) or otherwise falls within BCDC Jurisdiction. The Project Area is located in an area illustrated in the San Francisco Bay Plan as part of the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport and therefore is not subject to BCDC requirements.

Based on a review of the San Francisco Bay Plan as well as the Proposed Project setting and characteristics, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable policies of the San Francisco Bay Plan. Specifically, the Proposed Project would not result in any dredging or fill nor affect navigational safety in San Francisco or San Leandro Bay. No subtidal areas, tidal marshes or flats would be impacted by the Project. In addition, after mitigation, the Proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts related to water quality or biological resources. Also, the Proposed Project would not result in any impacts to public access given the isolated location of the Proposed Project, and impacts related to views would be less than significant.


Figure 7a. Approximate BCDC 100' Shoreline Band


0 100 20050

Feet

.

Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\23000\23015\GIS\ArcMap\Fig7a_BCDC_20130517.mxd




Indoor Project Area


Old Earhart Road

Pump House #2

Test Cell #1


(NPORDS)


From: Alison Kirk [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 10:27 AM To: Colleen Liang Subject: RRESO Test Cell Upgrade Project - Port of Oakland IS/MND

Hello,

Will this project require any permits from the Air District?

Thank you.

Alison Kirk, AICP Senior Environmental Planner Bay Area Air Quality Management District 939 Ellis Street San Francisco, CA 94109

Tel. 415‐749‐5169 Fax 415‐749‐4741

Comment Letter B

B-1

greilly

Line


Response to Comment B-1

The Project applicant (RRESO) has an existing BAAQMD permit for RRESO’s existing engine testing operations at the Test Cell Facility. This existing permit and its conditions still apply to the Proposed Project as RRESO would still be testing turbine engines in Test Cell #1, similar to existing conditions. Therefore, no new permits would be required from BAAQMD for the Proposed Project.

SHUTE MIHALY ~WEINBERG ER LLP

396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102

T: 415 552-7272 F: 415 552-5816

www.smwlaw.com

Via Electronic Mail Onlv

Colleen Liang Port Environmental Scientist Port of Oakland

May 17, 2013

Environmental Programs and Planning Division 530 Water Street Oakland, California 94607 E-Mail: [email protected]

Re: Rolls-Royce Engine Services-Oakland Inc. Test Cell Upgrade Project- Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Dear Ms. Liang:

On behalf of the Citizens League for Airport Safety and Serenity ("CLASS"), we have reviewed the Port of Oakland's ("Port's") Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") prepared for the proposed Rolls-Royce Engine Services-Oakland Inc. Test Cell Upgrade Project ("Project") located at 6701 Old Earhart Road, Oakland, California, in the North Field of Oakland International Airport ("OAK"). The purpose of this letter is to provide comments to the Port on the MND for the Project and to express our opinion that the MND does not comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Res. Code§§ 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.).

As you know, based on previously submitted comments from CLASS, the group is very concerned about Projects that could result in increased noise to the surrounding communities. Like all concerned members of the public, CLASS relies heavily on the environmental document required by CEQA for an honest evaluation of the environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Project.

greilly

Typewritten Text

Comment Letter C

greilly

Typewritten Text

greilly

Typewritten Text

greilly

Typewritten Text

greilly

Typewritten Text

greilly

Typewritten Text

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-1

greilly

Line

Colleen Liang May 17, 2013 Page2

Under CEQA, decision-makers and the public are to be given sufficient information about impacts and mitigation .to come to their own judgments and decisions about a proposed project. See Pub. Res. Code § 21061. CEQA requires that environmental documents must be detailed, complete, and reflect a good-faith effort at full disclosure. Guidelines § 15151. The document should provide a sufficient degree of analysis to inform the public about a proposed project's adverse environmental impacts and to allow decision-makers to make intelligent judgments. Id.; Environmental Planning and Information Council v. County of El Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 357-58 (finding an EIR for a general plan amendment inadequate where the document did not make clear the effect on the physical environment).

The role of the EIR is to make manifest a fundamental goal of CEQA: to "inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decision before they are made." Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123 (citation omitted). To do this, an EIR must contain facts and analysis, not merely bare conclusions. See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 568. Any conclusion regarding the significance of an environmental impact not based on analysis of the relevant facts fails to achieve CEQA's informational goal.

Here, the applicant proposes to expand operations of engine tests at the Rolls Royce facility in the North Field of OAK. The Project as described, would continue testing operations of the existing test cells and would include additional testing using the proposed facility. Testing operations will be conducted any time 24 hours a day and the duration of the tests will double from the existing 1.5 hour tests to 3 hours in length. The facility is in close proximity to residential areas, recreational areas, and schools. Therefore, an accurate evaluation of the Project's potential noise impacts and other impacts is critical.

As detailed below, and in the attached comments prepared by noise consultant Chris Papadimos (Exhibit A), several inadequacies and omissions in the MND render it insufficient as an environmental review document. The MND's analysis of the Project's noise impacts is inadequate because it fails to: (a) evaluate the Project's consistency with the City of Alameda's Noise Ordinance; and (b) support its conclusions with the necessary facts and analysis.

I. The MND Fails to Evaluate the Project's Consistency with the City of Alameda's Noise Ordinance.

SHUTE1

MIHALY O'---- w E I N B E R G E R LLP

greilly

Typewritten Text

Comment Letter C (cont.)

greilly

Typewritten Text

greilly

Line

greilly

Line

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-1

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-2

Colleen Liang May 17, 2013 Page 3

The MND evaluates the Project's consistency with the City of Oakland's noise ordinance. However, despite the potential for noise impacts to Alameda residents, the MND fails to analyze the Project's consistency with the City of Alameda's noise ordinance. Given the proximity of the facility to City of Alameda residents, this omission is unacceptable.

The City of Alameda's noise ordinance specifies noise level standards of 55 dBA during the day and 50 dBA during the night (10:00 pm to 7:00 am). In addition, the noise ordinance states that "each of the noise level standards ... shall be reduced by five (5) dB(A) for simple tone noises ... or for recurring impulsive noises." Alameda Municipal Code§ 4-10.4. According to the MND, measured nighttime ambient noise levels along Island Drive range from approximately 42 dBA to 55 dBA. MND at 71. The analysis of the Project's noise impacts should have considered adjustments for simple tones and impulsive noise elements. See, id. and Oakland General Plan Noise Element at 20.

In addition, as discussed further below, the MND fails to substantiate the claim that noise produced by the new test cell would be less than that of the existing test cells. Therefore, the MND also fails to provide evidence that noise from the new test cell would not exceed acceptable noise standards for residential and school uses. This omission renders the MND incomplete and inadequate under CEQA. A revised analysis, must include a complete listing of all applicable policies and regulations, and an analysis of the Project consistency with each provision.

II. The MND's Analysis of the Project's Noise Impacts is Inaccurate and Incomplete

The MND's noise analysis is inadequate because it provides an incomplete analysis of the potential noise impacts from the new facility. First, the MND indicates that ambient noise measurements were conducted along the shoreline at Lincoln Middle School (location 1) and along Island Drive (location 2). MND at 66. However, these noise readings may not be representative of the full range of noise exposure to the nearby community. Papadimos letter at 1. The noise measurements, particularly at location 2, were heavily influenced by traffic noise due to the nearby roadway traffic. MND at 67. For this reason, the analysis should have also measured ambient noise in an interior street away from Island Drive, which would represent the range of background conditions.

Second, the MND's analysis of the Project's impacts ignores noise impacts to recreational users of the adjacent golf course. Given that construction will last

SHUTE MIHALY ~ w EI NB ERGER LLP

greilly

Typewritten Text


greilly

Line

greilly

Line

greilly

Line

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-2

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-3

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-4

Colleen Liang May 17, 2013 Page4

approximately four months, and that the testing cells may operate round the clock, impacts to these users should have been included in the noise analysis.

Third, the MND's noise analysis fails to adequately describe the spectral quality of the noise resulting from the Project (i.e., presence of tones and frequency content). The MND presents only A-weighted data, which is not appropriate for evaluating noise sources that have strong low-frequency content or tonal qualities. Exhibit A at 2. Low-frequency noise is experienced by human listeners as audible noise, vibration, and/or a sensation of pressure at the eardrums and can travel with relatively undiminished strength over long distances. Id. The Project has the potential to produce low frequency sound both during construction (pile driving) and in the long-term when the proposed test cell is operational. Id. Similarly, the presence of tones needs to be addressed as per City of Alameda noise ordinance. These types of noise can result in substantial, periodic increases in noise and annoyance that would be considered significant under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Section XII(d).

Moreover, temperature and wind can affect how noise travels. Papadimos Letter, at 1. We find no reference in the MND to temperature gradient or wind vectors in the area. A revised analysis must include these variables in the analysis. The residents and schoolchildren located within a half a mile of the facility (e.g., Earhart Elementary School) may be impacted by low frequency noise and a revised environmental document must analyze the extent and severity of this impact.

Fourth, the MND relies in part on measurements of existing noise levels produced by the existing test cells to conclude that the new facility will not result in significant noise impacts to the surrounding community. MND at 67 and 73. The MND presents ambient noise data that includes two periods of test cell operations to measure test cell noise levels at residences. However, despite the fact that the MND clearly indicates that test cells may operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the MND presents noise data measurements of test cell run times conducted only during the daytime and evening hours. MND at 72 and 7l(Figure 10 indicates that test cell run times were conducted between approximately 7:00 am and 8:30 am, and 1:00 pm and 3:00 pm.) This data is misleading because daytime ambient levels are generally higher than nighttime ambient levels, which masks noise events, such as the test cell run. Noise can be far more intrusive during nighttime hours when ambient noise levels are at their lowest and when sensitive receptors are more likely to be sleeping. The MND should have taken into account this higher sensitivity to noise and evaluated how the increase in noise from the proposed project would affect receptors during these sensitive time periods. Nighttime ambient noise levels are typically 10 dB lower than daytime ambient levels. Therefore, test cell runs conducted between the hours of midnight and 6:00 am would

SHUTE MIHALY 6~ w E I N BERG ER LLP

greilly

Typewritten Text

greilly

Typewritten Text


greilly

Line

greilly

Line

greilly

Line

greilly

Line

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-4

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-5

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-6

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-7


result in higher noise measurements than presented in the MND. Exhibit A at l; MND at 71. A revised analysis should provide noise levels, for both existing conditions and postproject implementation, that account for nighttime test cell runs.

Fifth, the MND provides no evidence to substantiate its claim that the proposed Test Cell 7 would be 17 dBA quieter than the existing test cell. MND at 6 and 72. The MND states that "comparative noise measurement data for the proposed new engine model was not available at the time of this analysis." MND at 73. The MND provides no data for the outdoor measurements noted in the MND (at page 72). Without such data or evidence to support the claim that the new test cell would operate more quietly, it is impossible for the public or decision makers to evaluate if the analysis is accurate. Moreover, given that the engine is currently manufactured and in use, it is difficult to understand why noise measurement data cannot be made available. In light of the fact that the test cell can operate any time round the clock, an accurate description of the anticipated noise levels and the characteristics of that noise, is a necessary component of this noise analysis.

In addition, the MND does not address the potential for testing of multiple cells at one time. The revised analysis should clarify whether the test cells may operate one at a time or if they may be operated simultaneously. In the latter case, the MND must include an estimate of noise levels when multiple test cells are operated at once.

The MND's approach violates CEQA's core purpose to protect "the right of the public to be informed in such a way that it can intelligently weigh the environmental consequences of a[] contemplated action." Mira Monte Homeowners Assn. v. County of Ventura (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 357, 365 (citation omitted). A revised document should provide a sufficient degree of analysis to inform the public about the proposed project's . adverse environmental impacts and to allow decision-makers to make intelligent judgments. See Pub. Res. Code 21061.

In light of existing conditions (i.e., a surrounding community that is already excessively burdened with aircraft noise), there is no question that any increase in noise levels has the potential to result in significant noise impacts to neighboring residents. For all of the foregoing reasons, a fair argument supports the conclusion that the proposed Project may result in significant noise impacts.

III. Conclusion

Because the MND fails to adequately analyze the environmental impacts of the Project, and ~ails to support its conclusion that the Project will have less than significant impacts related to noise, the MND is· legally deficient. Therefore, CLASS

SHUTE MIHALY ~ w EI N BERGER LLP

greilly

Typewritten Text

greilly

Typewritten Text

greilly

Typewritten Text

greilly

Typewritten Text

greilly

Typewritten Text


greilly

Line

greilly

Line

greilly

Line

greilly

Line

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-7

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-8

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-9

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-10


requests that the Port prepare a more thorough analysis in accordance with CEQA prior to further consideration of this Project.

Thank you for consideration of our views. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us or CLASS.

Cc: Red Wetherill, CLASS President Joshua Safran, Deputy Port Attorney

480410.3

Very truly yours,

St;J: ~ WEmBERGER LLP

Osa L. Wolff d ~-J.~_:y Carmen J. Borg, AICP Urban Planner

SHUTE, MIHALY ~WEINBERGERLLP

greilly

Typewritten Text


greilly

Line

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-10

300 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 908

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104

TEL +1 (415) 986-9100

www.papadimosgroup.com

A C O U S T I C A N D V I B R A T I O N C O N S U L T A N T S

16 May 2013

Carmen Borg, AICP

Urban Planner

Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger

396 Hayes Street

San Francisco, CA 94102

SUBJECT: Test Cell Upgrade Project – Oakland, CA

Acoustic Review of Draft Initial Study

Dear Carmen:

As requested, we have reviewed the noise section of the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated

Negative Declaration prepared by WRA Environmental Consultants (April 2013).

In summary, there is limited information to allow for a determination that the proposed project under

the full range of operating conditions will comply with the relevant standards and address CEQA

guidelines.

Our review has focused on the noise section of the above referenced document (Chapter 4.12) and our

key comments are as follows:

1. While the nearest residential receptors are located in the City of Alameda, the initial study does

not assess project noise against the noise provisions of the City of Alameda Noise Ordinance

(Chapter IV, Article II, 4.10 Noise Control).

2. Other land uses such as the Shoreline Park and Golf Course are much closer to the Test Cell

Facility and may also need to be addressed appropriately in terms of project noise.

3. The noise monitoring carried out as part of this study does not describe weather conditions and

in particular prevailing winds that have pronounced effects on noise propagation.

4. The noise measurement positions may not be representative of the full range of noise exposure

in the nearby community. At least one position should have been selected away from streets,

perhaps in an interior street with limited traffic or the backyard of a home to cover the entire

range of ambient conditions used in the assessment.

5. Test Cells were mostly operated during daytime hours; however, the study states test cells

would be allowed to run at any time (bottom of page 72) that would imply also nighttime

hours, weekends and holidays. Measured background levels at night are below 45 dBA

(Location 2) and as such the entire range of background conditions needs to be considered.

6. The assessment of Test Cell noise (page 67 of the study) is inconclusive and technically lacking

without properly defining method of testing, number of cells running during the test, condition

of testing in terms of load and detailed results of the measurements both in terms of overall

levels and spectral content.

greilly

Typewritten Text

greilly

Typewritten Text

greilly

Typewritten Text

greilly

Typewritten Text


greilly

Typewritten Text

greilly

Line

greilly

Line

greilly

Line

greilly

Line

greilly

Line

greilly

Line

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-11

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-12

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-13

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-14

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-15

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-16

Carmen Borg, AICP

16 May 2013

Page 2 of 3

7. We are of the opinion that any test cell measurements need to document noise output both

close-in and at the nearest receptors while defining the full range of operating conditions –

both for existing and proposed operations.

8. The study does not quantify the spectral noise content of the test cell operation in terms of

tonal conditions that often times are associated with triggering complaints. The city of

Alameda Code has provisions for tonal content that warrants proper evaluation by the study

and this may also be the case for the City of Oakland.

9. Low frequency noise should also be addressed as if of sufficient intensity it may induce

vibration into structures including rattling windows. While we do not anticipate such levels to

result in structural damage they could be annoying and result in sleep disturbance depending

on intensity.

10. A reference to consider for low frequency assessment is the ASHRAE 2011 Handbook, (Chapter

48, Table 1) that sets dBC noise limits inside residential dwellings. Another reference is

Appendix B of ANSI Standard B133.8 (Gas Turbine Installation Sound Emissions) that also sets

dBC limits for low frequency noise and this is routinely used for power generation projects.

11. Also no spectral data has been provided for any of the test cell measurements or where such

measurements were taken and how the test cells were operated. This should be fully defined

for both existing and proposed test cell operations to allow for making a determination that the

project will not result in significant noise impacts.

12. The study does not define what constitutes a substantial increase in noise per CEQA guidelines.

Often a noise increase of 3 to 5 dB over existing ambient is used for assessing project specific

noise and such limits should also be considered in this study.

13. The project should include limits in procurement documents for new equipment to ensure that

resulting noise levels in the community comply with relevant codes. This should include new

test engines, cooling towers and any other project equipment and contractor submittals should

be properly reviewed during construction.

14. We recommend against use of pile driving without proper noise analysis. The study makes

reference to using piles to install the cooling tower structure and this should be preferably

done with drilling as opposed to impact or vibratory means of driving the piles.

I trust you will find this information useful but please let me know if you have any questions or require

further assistance.

Sincerely,

THE PAPADIMOS GROUP, INC.

Chris Papadimos

Principal

greilly

Typewritten Text


greilly

Line

greilly

Line

greilly

Line

greilly

Line

greilly

Line

greilly

Line

greilly

Line

greilly

Line

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-17

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-18

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-20

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-19

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-21

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-22

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-23

greilly

Typewritten Text

C-24


Response to Comment C-1

The commenter contends that the Draft IS/MND noise analysis is inadequate because it fails to: (a) evaluate the project's consistency with the City of Alameda's Noise Ordinance; and (b) support its conclusions with the necessary facts and analysis. The following responses address these issues. In general, Comments C-1 through C-10 are based on the items raised in the attached Papadimos Group letter (Comments C-11 – C-24). Accordingly, responses to Comments C-2 through C-10 frequently reference the subsequent responses to the Papadimos Group comments.

Overall, while Comment Letter C raises a number of questions, it does not provide data, references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinions supported by facts. The noise analysis in the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the following responses to comments, were prepared with the advice, analysis and assistance of acoustical and noise expert consultants Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz, Inc.

The proposed internal modifications to the Test Cell Facility include the conversion of the indoor propeller test stand, Test Cell #1, into a dynamometer test stand configuration. Externally, the only visible changes to the site are expected to be the addition of a water cooling system for the dynamometer, water supply and return piping with associated water pumps from the dynamometer to the cooling tower system, and an oil/water separation system, similar to ones that are used for Test Cells #6 and #7. The water cooling system would be comprised of a cooling tower (14’ by 24’), water piping (8” diameter supply and 14” diameter return), and associated pumps and sumps. The foundation for the cooling tower will be approximately four feet below grade, resting on pilings spaced around the perimeter that will be driven approximately 60 feet through the ground. The final height of the water tower resting on the mentioned foundation would be approximately 17 feet, compared to the existing building height of 22 feet (or approximately 5 feet higher). Similarly, the oil/water separation system would include an above grade separator unit, approximately 4’ by 7’ by 3’ in size along with a 1,500-gallon gray water collection tank and a 55-gallon container for collecting the separated waste. The slab foundation for the separator and pumps will be adjacent to the Test Cell #1 building, along its north side, and will be supported by an additional two pilings to those mentioned above. The dynamometer test bed and control systems would be located entirely within the existing building (Test Cell #1). Internally, there would also be some unique propeller test structures, such as the propeller ring, propeller test bed and exhaust turning vane that would be removed to allow for the test bed to be installed. A new engine exhaust system would be installed and would be contained within the existing building structure. No changes are expected to the entrances or exits of the building. Regarding the engine operation, advanced design technology relative to the older engines has been incorporated in the new model, so that fuel consumption is expected to be lower than it has been for the engines that have previously been tested in Test Cell #1. Conducting tests with a dynamometer rig rather than a propeller system would also move much less airflow through the building, resulting in a reduction in noise levels during operation of Test Cell #1.

Under the Proposed Project, Test Cell #1 would run as frequently as the existing conditions (approximately 35-50 test cycles per year); however, each test cycle would increase in length from approximately 1.5 hours to 3 hours with the new engine type. RRESO does not have any scheduled work shifts prior to 6 AM; normal shifts occur between 6 AM and 2:30 PM. Also,


neither the Port nor RRESO have received any noise complaints related to the existing test cell facility operations.

To address the potential noise impacts on the nearby recreational land uses the applicable noise criterion is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). This noise descriptor is used by the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission and is the 24-hour average noise level with penalties for noise occurring during the evening and nighttime hours.

The Draft IS/MND uses the A-weighted sound level to assess the project generated noise because that is required by the local standards. A-weighting is a frequency weighting system that de-emphasizes low-frequency and very high frequency sound in a manner that correlates with human hearing. Some of the comments suggest the use of C-weighting to address low-frequency noise and its potential to induce vibration in buildings. C-weighting is essentially “flat” (or un-weighted) within the range of human hearing.

To provide information on the frequency content of the Test Cell noise and the ambient, spectral plots are provided in response to some comments. These plots graph the amplitude of the sound across the audible spectrum of frequencies. This information is useful for assessing the quality of the sound and the presence of pure tones.

The construction duration of the project is expected to be approximately 3-4 months. During that time the most common noisy activities will involve diesel equipment (i.e., grading equipment, cranes, etc.) It is expected that the Project will include installation of about 10 piles. If these are driven with an impact or vibratory driver, this activity is expected to last approximately 2-3 days. As explained in the response to comments and the Draft IS/MND, this daytime activity is expected to comply with the City of Oakland's Noise Ordinance limits.


The City of Oakland’s Noise Ordinance was used as a threshold of significance instead of the City of Alameda’s Noise Ordinance because the Project is located in the City of Oakland. The City of Alameda’s Noise Ordinance only regulates noise sources located in the City of Alameda (Alameda Municipal Code 4-10.4a) and, therefore, is not an appropriate or applicable standard of significance for evaluation of impacts of the Project on the environment.


See Response to Comment C-14 for a discussion of the noise measurement locations.


See Response to Comment C-12 for a discussion of the less than significant noise impact on recreational land uses.


See Response to Comment C-16, C-17 and C-19 for a discussion of spectral quality, tones and the City of Alameda Noise Ordinance.


Weather data during the noise measurement program is provided in Appendix C to the Final IS/MND. During the acoustical measurements of Test Cell 1 the wind direction was from the


south by southeast. This direction is roughly perpendicular to the direction of sound propagation between the Project site and the measurement locations near the residences and schools in the City of Alameda. This perpendicular wind, also known as a “crosswind” would tend to have a minimal effect on sound propagation. However, during the year, the prevailing wind direction in the study areas is from west to east and this would tend to reduce the sound propagation from the Project site to the west, the direction of the nearest residential area and schools. Therefore, the wind conditions during the measurements of the Test Cell 1 result in a conservative analysis relative to the typical wind conditions in the study area. . Low-frequency noise is addressed in Response to Comment C-19.


See Response to Comment C-15 for a discussion of nighttime noise limits. To address nighttime periods of low background noise, the analysis in the Draft IS/MND subtracts out the background noise from the measurements and compares the noise of Test Cell 1 with the most stringent nighttime standard of the Oakland Noise Ordinance (which is more stringent than the City of Alameda Noise Ordinance).


The Draft IS/MND relies on the observation that the noise from the propeller is the dominant noise source when engines are being tested with a propeller and, therefore, with the Project the noise will be decreased because a dynamometer is used in lieu of a propeller. Measurements and observations of noise from engine testing at Test Cell 7 with a dynamometer compared with testing at Test Cell 1 of an engine equipped with a propeller validated this observation. The comparison with the noise from Test Cell 7, which does not use a propeller when testing the engines, shows a dramatically quieter condition. The measured difference of 17 dBA corresponds to a sound level from Test Cell 7 that is perceived as approximately 70% quieter than the sound level from Test Cell 1 (see response to Comment C-16 for more information on the acoustical measurements). While the exact magnitude of the difference in outdoor sound levels in the vicinity of the project site associated with the testing of engines on a dynamometer and on a propeller within the same test cell (Test Cell 1) will be dependent upon several factors such as the specific structural features of the Test Cell 1 building, and hence cannot be measured at this time, the noise level will necessarily be reduced during testing because the engines will be tested on a dynamometer, which is inherently much quieter than testing with a propeller. Since the sound levels from Test Cell 1 currently comply with the applicable standards, it is concluded that they will also comply with the standards with the Project. Also, neither the Port nor RRESO have received any noise complaints related to the existing test cell facility operations.


The Project involves an upgrade to one of the several test cells at the RRESO facility and therefore, the quantitative analysis in the Draft IS/MND focuses on the noise level of that test cell. The Project does not affect the frequency or duration of testing operations at other test cells. To the extent that the noise from Test Cell 1 does not increase substantially (in fact, it is expected to decrease) then the noise from the whole facility will not increase significantly.


See Response to Comment C-1. The Draft IS/MND provides an adequate analysis of the


potential noise impacts of the project.


See Response to Comment C-2.


The nearest recreational land uses to the Project are Spunkmeyer Field and the Chuck Corica Golf Complex. The City of Oakland Noise Ordinance does not include noise standards for recreational land uses (and neither does the Alameda Noise Ordinance). The Project is within OAK’s Airport Influence Area (AIA), which is subject to the airport land use commission (ALUC) review. The Project is located adjacent to the North Field of the OAK, which is regulated by the Alameda County ALUC. The Alameda County ALUC Noise Compatibility Criteria (Draft IS/MND Table 7) indicates that regional parks, golf courses and athletic fields are compatible with an exterior CNEL of up to 70 dBA.

The noise measurement of the existing Test Cell 1 operating with the older engine type (T56) fitted with a propeller indicates that it generates a steady noise level of 78 dBA at a distance of 255 feet. The closest point of Spunkmeyer Field is 355 feet from Test Cell 1. Using a standard attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance, the calculated steady noise level at Spunkmeyer field is 75 dBA during operations of Test Cell 1.

To calculate the CNEL for comparison to the compatibility criteria it is necessary to account for the duration and time of day of the operations. The duration of Test Cell 1 operation with the Project would be 3 hours per test. Almost all of the testing would be conducted during daytime hours (7 AM to 7 PM). On the average, 8% of the testing duration would before 7 AM (considered nighttime) and 2% would be conducted during the evening (7 PM to 10 PM). Using the appropriate noise level penalties for time of day (10 dBA during the nighttime and 5 dBA during the evening) this activity would generate a CNEL of 68 dBA at Spunkmeyer Field on an average day of testing. Since there would be approximately 60 days of testing per year, the average annual CNEL would be 8 dBA less, or 60 dBA. Both the daily and annual average CNEL would be considered compatible with respect to the Alameda County ALUC Noise Compatibility Criteria standard of CNEL 70 dBA.

The nearest point of the Golf Course is 1,100 feet from Test Cell 1 and noise levels would be 10 dBA less than those at those at Spunkmeyer Field and, therefore, also be compatible. Shoreline Park, located north of the Project site, is even farther from the Project site than the golf course and, therefore, it would also be exposed to compatible noise levels.


Historical weather data from Oakland Airport during the noise monitoring period is provided in Appendix C to the Final IS/MND. Further discussion on the effects of weather on the noise analysis is provided in Response to Comment C-6.


The noise measurement positions were selected to document the existing noise levels at the nearest residential and school areas to the Project. One of the positions (Location 1) was selected because it is also distant from major streets. This methodology is consistent with the


opinion expressed in the comment that “At least one position should have been selected away from streets, perhaps an interior street with limited traffic...”


During the ambient noise monitoring the RRESO test cells were operating during daytime hours because those are their normal operating times. RRESO does not have any scheduled work shifts prior to 6 AM; normal shifts occur between 6 AM and 2:30 PM. Measured background noise levels were, at times, below 45 dBA (see Figure 10, page 71 Draft IS/MND), and therefore, contrary to the statement in the Comment, the nighttime exterior noise limit of 45 dBA was considered in the analysis (page 67 Draft IS/MND). This methodology is consistent with the opinion expressed in the comment that “Measured background levels at night are below 45 dBA (Location 2) and as such the entire range of background conditions needs to be considered.”


The comment contends that the noise assessment is inconclusive and technically lacking since it does not describe the testing method, the operation parameters during the measurements and the spectral content. This technical data was gathered during the noise measurement program, but, for the sake of conciseness and lay comprehensibility, was not included in the IS/MND. Because the question has been raised, this data is provided in this response to comments. Figure R1 provides sound level and spectral information gathered during the short-term measurements of Test Cell 1 with a propeller both at Location 1 which is 3,600 feet from Test Cell 1 and at a location Close-In, 255 feet from Test Cell 1.

The spectrum charts in Figure R1 allow the reader to see how the sounds are comprised of various frequencies, from the very low, 12.5 Hz (Hertz or cycles per second) to the very high, 20,000 Hz. Most of the sound data in the IS MND is expressed in terms of A-weighted Sound Level (in units of dBA). The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes low- and very high-frequency sound in a manner that correlates with human hearing. Since A-weighting correlates well with perceived noisiness, it is used in the standards applicable to this project.

Spectrum measurements were made using a Larson Davis Model 824 Real Time Analyzer located 5 feet above the ground on a tripod. The analyzer was checked before and after the measurements with a Larson Davis Model Cal200 acoustical calibrator.

Figure R2 shows a chart of the sound level versus time while Test Cell 1 was running, as well as before and after. The sound level is charted for both the Close-In measurement location, 255 feet from Test Cell 1and at Locations 1 and 2, both of which are at the nearest residential areas about 3,600 feet from Test Cell 1. The background sound levels at Location 1 are highlighted. These background sound levels are used in the analysis to calculate the contribution of Test Cell 1 in the community. Although Test Cell 1 had no effect at Location 2 due to the presence of nearby traffic, the noise levels at Location 2 (in the absence of traffic) are expected to be comparable to Location 1 since the distance from the Project is the same. During these measurements, Test Cell 7 was also operating, but with an engine on a dynamometer. Since the noise contribution of this operation was significantly quieter than the noise from Test Cell 1 (which was operating an engine driving a propeller), it did not have an effect on the analysis of Test Cell 1 noise in the community.

The Close-In measurements were also used to compare the noise from Test Cell 1 testing an engine fitted with a propeller with the noise from Test Cell 7 testing the same model engine attached to a dynamometer. The sound level was 78 dBA at the Close-in Location while Test


Cell 1 was operating, and 60 dBA when only Test Cell 7 was operating. After applying a 1 dBA correction for distance (the Close-In Location was 255 feet from Test Cell 1 and 300 feet from Test Cell 7) the test cell with the dynamometer was found to be 17 dBA quieter than the test cell with the propeller.

Close-In measurements were not made of the other Test Cells at the RRESO facility; however, they did operate during the ambient noise monitoring at the nearest residential areas (Locations 1 and 2). The following is information on the times and conditions that the other test cells operated.

Table R1: Test Cell Run Times During Noise Monitoring

Date Time Location Engine Conditions

1/7/13 06:50 - 07:28 11:44 - 12:32

Cell 3 Model 250 on dynamometer

1/8/13

09:00 - 09:33 Cell 3 Model 250 on dynamometer 13:15 - 13:45 Cell 1 Model T56 leak check no propeller 07:47 - 08:11 08:45 - 09:28 13:47 - 15:45

Cell 7 Model T56 on dynamometer

1/9/13

09:08 - 09:56 12:28 - 13:15

Cell 3 Model 250 on dynamometer

12:50 - 14:13 Cell 7 Model T56 on dynamometer 13:33 – 14:08 Cell 1 Model T56 with propeller


Response to Comments C-16 and C-12 provide noise measurement results at the Close-In position of Test Cell 1 under the full range of operating conditions. The Draft IS/MND includes noise measurement data at the nearest residential receiver for the existing conditions. As described in the Draft IS/MND, and in Response to Comment C-8, the noise levels with the Project are expected to be lower because there will not be a propeller attached to the engine under testing in Test Cell 1.


Figure R1: Measured Sound Level Spectra, 9 January 2013

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1001

2.5

Hz

16

.0 H

z

20

.0 H

z

25

.0 H

z

31

.5 H

z

40

.0 H

z

50

.0 H

z

63

.0 H

z

80

.0 H

z

10

0 H

z

12

5 H

z

16

0 H

z

20

0 H

z

25

0 H

z

31

5 H

z

40

0 H

z

50

0 H

z

63

0 H

z

80

0 H

z

10

00

Hz

12

50

Hz

16

00

Hz

20

00

Hz

25

00

Hz

31

50

Hz

40

00

Hz

50

00

Hz

63

00

Hz

80

00

Hz

10

00

0 H

z

12

50

0 H

z

16

00

0 H

z

20

00

0 H

z

1/3 Octave Band Frequency

So

un

d P

res

su

re L

ev

el,

dB

Close In (255 ft) Test Cell 1 Off

Close In (255 ft) Test Cell 1 Cruise Power

Close In (255 ft) Test Cell 1 Full Power

Location 1 Test Cell 1 Off

Location 1 Test Cell 1 Cruise Power

Location 1 Test Cell 1 Full Power


Figure R2: Chart of Sound Level versus Time

During Measurements of Test Cell 1 January 9, 2013

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

13:2

5

13:3

0

13:3

5

13:4

0

13:4

5

13:5

0

13:5

5

14:0

0

14:0

5

14:1

0

14:1

5

Time of Day

A-w

eig

hte

d S

ou

nd

Lev

el,

dB

A

Close In LocationLocation 1 - Washington CtLocation 2 - Island Drive

Cell 1 Cruise Cell 1 Cruise

Cell 1 Full

Cell 1 IdleCell 1 offCell 7 on

Cell 1 OffCell 7 On

Background 46 dBA Background 47 dBA Background 46 dBA


The comment states that the IS/MND does not quantify the spectral noise content of the test cell operation. This is addressed by the data provided in Response to Comment C-16 which includes spectral noise measurement data of the existing condition. The commenter further contends that spectral data can help identify tonal content that can trigger complaints and that may require special assessment by some noise ordinances. The City of Oakland’s noise ordinance contains a provision for reducing the allowable exterior noise level standard if the noise contains a “simple tone such as a whine, screech or hum.” The ordinance does not provide a useable methodology to determine the presence of a tone. Therefore, the ordinance does not provide a usable basis for altering the allowable noise level (and hence the applicable threshold of significance) on account of a tone.

A review of the measured spectra at both the Close-In location and at the nearest residential receiver (Location 1) using the methodology contained in the State of California Model Noise Ordinance (Department of Health, 1977) indicates that the spectrum of Test Cell 1 with the current engine type does not contain a tone. It is possible that the spectrum of Test Cell 1 will change with the new engine type attached to a dynamometer. However, even if its noise contains a tone, it is not expected to exceed the nighttime standard even with the adjustment for a tone, because the measured Test Cell 1 noise level is already 5 dB below the nighttime standard with a much noisier engine configuration. For example, based on the analysis in the Draft IS/MND, the current test cell generates a noise level of 40 dBA at the nearest homes and school. This meets the City of Oakland’s nighttime standard of 45 dBA and would do so even if it were adjusted downward by 5 dBA to 40 dBA on account of a tone, which, as noted, it does not contain. Because the noise from the propeller is being eliminated by the Project from Test Cell 1 operations, the noise level with the Project is expected to be much lower than the existing


level, and hence lower than an adjusted 40 dBA standard even if the post-Project noise from Test Cell 1 were to contain a tone.


The comment states that low-frequency noise should be addressed because if it is of sufficient intensity it can induce vibration into structures and cause annoyance and sleep disruption. To address this concern the spectral measurements are compared to criteria suggested by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). The ASME criteria uses the C-weighted sound level. C-weighting is essentially “flat” (or un-weighted) within the range of human hearing. C-weighted sound levels are used primarily when low-frequency sound is of particular interest, such as when determining the likelihood of a low-frequency sound to induce vibration into a structure. A-weighting would not be appropriate for this task because it de-emphasizes low-frequency sound.

The spectrum of the Test Cell 1 noise shows a peak at the 63 Hz 1/3 octave band frequency (63 Hz is considered low-frequency). This frequency band coincides with the propeller blade passage frequency (1020 RPM with 4 propeller blades). This frequency component of the noise is expected to be significantly reduced with the Project since the propeller will be eliminated from Test Cell 1.

Even with the noise from the propeller, the C-weighted noise level at the nearest residences is 72 dBC. According to the Nonmandatory Appendix B of the standard ASME/ANSI B133.8-2011, Gas Turbine Installation Sound Emissions, the C weighted sound level at the nearest occupied frame structure should not exceed 75 dBC to 80 dBC to avoid complaints of building/window vibration cause by low-frequency airborne sound. The existing noise from Test Cell 1 is within these limits at the nearest residences. The C-weighted noise level is expected to be even less with the Project due to the absence of the low-frequency propeller sound.


See Response to Comment C-19 for a discussion of low-frequency noise and C-weighting.


See Response to Comment C-16 for spectral data.


An increase of 3 to 5 dBA in long-term average sound levels would be considered a significant impact. Based on the analysis in the Draft IS/MND the noise exposure will not increase as a result of the Project (Draft IS/MND 73); rather, implementation of the proposed project is estimated to result in a 70% noise reduction.


The Draft IS/MND does not identify a significant noise impact associated with the Project and, therefore, does not include noise mitigation measures such as limits in procurement documents. The Oakland Municipal Code Noise Ordinance is the applicable regulation that establishes enforceable limits for noise from the RRESO facility and the Project related test cell upgrade.



According to the Draft IS/MND, daytime construction activities (including pile driving) will not exceed the Oakland Noise Ordinance standards at the nearest schools and residences. If pile driving is used then it would likely occur for 2-3 days, with a total of 10 piles. Pile driving noise levels are expected to be up to 64 dBA at the nearest residences and schools which are 3,600 feet away. This noise level is less than the limit of 65 dBA for long-term construction activities (17.120.050.G) and therefore less than significant. Even though construction noise will be below the threshold of significance for noise and thus would not require mitigation to avoid significant adverse impacts to humans, the Draft IS/MND includes Mitigation Measure BIO-1 which is designed to reduce noise impacts to the California Clapper Rail. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would result in additional reductions of Project construction noise. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires that the Project applicant or contractor shall implement the following measures during construction:

• The construction contractor shall implement feasible noise controls to minimize outdoor equipment noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. Feasible noise controls include improved mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds.

• Equipment used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered impact tools (e.g., jack hammers) wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Where use of pneumatically-powered tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used. A muffler could lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 A-weighted decibels (dB(A)). External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible; this could achieve a reduction of five dB(A). Quieter procedures shall be used (such as drilling rather than impact equipment) wherever feasible.

• The construction contractor shall implement appropriate additional noise reduction measures that include shutting off idling equipment.

• The construction contractor shall minimize use of vehicle backup alarms. A common approach to minimizing the use of backup alarms is to design the construction site with a circular flow pattern that minimizes backing up of trucks and other heavy equipment. Another approach to reducing the intrusion of backup alarms is to require all equipment on the site to be equipped with ambient sensitive alarms. With this type of alarm, the alarm sound is automatically adjusted based on the ambient noise.

• Construction workers’ radios shall be controlled so as to be inaudible beyond the limits of the project site boundaries.

• Heavy equipment, such as paving and grading equipment, shall be stored on-site whenever possible to minimize the need for extra heavy truck trips on local streets.


6.0 REFERENCES

Checklist Information Sources

1. Professional judgment and expertise of the environmental/technical specialists evaluating the project, based on a review of existing conditions and project details, including standard construction measures

2. City of Oakland General Plan 3. City of Oakland Zoning Map 4. California Department of Conservation, 2010 5. California Department of Transportation, 2012 6. Tamura Environmental, Air Quality Report Data Sheets, 2012 7. Rolls-Royce Engine Services Building Addition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative

Declaration 8. Association of Bay Area Governments Earthquake and Hazards Program 9. Final Pardee Drive Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 10. PES Test Cell Facility Tier I Screening Assessment

Setting References

[ABAG] Association of Bay Area Governments 2013. Earthquake and Hazards Program. Liquefaction Maps and Information Website: http://quake.abag.ca.gov/liquefaction/. Accessed January 14, 2013.

[CDC] California Department of Conservation. 2008. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program: Alameda County Important Farmland 2010. Available at: < ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/>. Accessed January 16, 2013.

[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2013. California Natural Diversity Database. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. Sacramento.

[Caltrans] California Department of Transportation. 2012. Scenic highways: Alameda County. Available at: < http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/ >. Accessed January 10, 2013.

[City] City of Oakland. 1999. General Plan. Website: http://www.ci.east-palo-alto.ca.us/planningdiv/. Accessed December 20, 1999

[DTSC] Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2011. EnviroStor database: Oakland. Available at: <http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/>. Accessed January 2013.

[EBMUD] East Bay Municipal Utility District. 2011. Urban Water Management Plan 2010. Available at http://www.ebmud.com/our-water/water-supply/long-term-planning/urban-water-management-plan.

ENVIRON, California Emissions Estimator Model™ version 2011.1.1, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality. 2011.


ESA. 2010. Oakland International Airport - Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Prepared for Alameda County ALUC. Adopted December 15, 2010.

ESA. 2012. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 8350 Pardee Drive Project. Prepared for the Port of Oakland. October 2012.

Holland, RF. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc. 2007. USACE Wetlands and Waters prepared for the Oakland International Airport, Oakland, California. April 2007.

Leidy, RA, GS Becker, and BN Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA.

[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007. Essential Fish Habitat. Online at: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/index.html; most recently accessed: January 2013.

[NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2012. Web Soil Survey for Oakland Area. Available at: <http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm>. Accessed January 2013.

Olofson Environmental Inc. Personal communication between Geoff Reilly and Tyler Barns of WRA and Ms. Jen McBroom of Olofson Environmental Inc. April 2013.

[PES] PES Environmental, Inc. 2010. Transmittal Letter Tier I Screening Assessment for the Rolls-Royce Engine Services – Oakland, Inc. Test Cell Facility. Available through GeoTracker: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T06019775776. Accessed January 16, 2013.

Port of Oakland. 2000. Rolls-Royce Engine Services Building Addition Project Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study. Prepared for Rolls-Royce Engine Services and the Port of Oakland. Prepared by Natural Resources Management.

Port of Oakland. 2006. Oakland International Master Plan. Prepared by the Port of Oakland’s Aviation Planning and Development staff, with assistance from Port staff in other Aviation Division departments and the Engineering Division.

State of California Office of Noise Control, April 1977. Model Community Noise Control Ordinance

URS. 2012 Habitat Assessment for Federally Listed Wetland Species at Oakland International Airport. Prepared for Port of Oakland.

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. Salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Sacramento, California. 49 pp. February 16.


USFWS. 2010b. Draft Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central California. Sacramento, California. 636 pp. January.

[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2000 Geologic map and map database of the Oakland metropolitan area, Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties California. 2000. Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/mf/2000/2342/

[WLA] William Lettis & Associates, Inc. 2008. Detailed Mapping of Artificial Fills, San Francisco Bay Area, California. Final Technical Report. Prepared by Christopher Hitchcock, Robert Givler, Greg De Pascale, and Ranon Dulberg. Prepared for the U.S. Geological Survey, National Earthquake Reduction Program. September 2008.


7.0 LIST OF ACRONYMS

AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACEH Alameda County Environmental Health AIA Airport Influence Area ALUC Airport Land Use Commission AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BCDC San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission BMP Best Management Practices CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model Cal-IPC California Invasive Plant Council CARB California Air Resources Board CBR California Black Rail CCR California Code of Regulations CCR California Clapper Rail CDC California Department of Conservation

CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG])

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CNPS California Native Plant Society CO Carbon Monoxide CO2 Carbon Dioxide Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dB(A) A-Weighted Decibel DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District EFH Essential Fish Habitat EFZs Earthquake Fault Zones EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Federal Endangered Species Act ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Federal Insurance Rate Maps GHG Greenhouse Gas HMMP Hazardous Materials Management Plan Inventory CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants ISP Invasive Spartina Project MLD Most Likely Descendent MND Mitigated Negative Declaration NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission


NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOx Oxides of Nitrogen NPORDS North Port of Oakland Refuse Disposal Site NSR Federal New Source Review NWI National Wetlands Inventory OAK Oakland International Airport OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark OSHA U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration PM Particulate Matter Port Port of Oakland PRC Public Resources Code Rank California Rare Plant Rank ROG Reactive Organic Gases RRESO Rolls-Royce Engine Services - Oakland RSA Runway Safety Area RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin SIP State Implementation Plans SMMH Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse SPCCP Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TPY Tons per Year USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey UST Underground Storage Tanks WMAC Waste Management of Alameda County WRA WRA, Inc.

APPENDIX A

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

April 3, 2013

Document Number: 130403080238

Tyler Barns WRA Inc. 2169-G East Francisco Blvd. San Rafael, CA 94901

Subject: Species List for RRESO (WRA Project #22245)

Dear: Mr. Barns

We are sending this official species list in response to your April 3, 2013 request for information about endangered and threatened species. The list covers the California counties and/or U.S. Geological Survey 7½ minute quad or quads you requested.

Our database was developed primarily to assist Federal agencies that are consulting with us. Therefore, our lists include all of the sensitive species that have been found in a certain area and also ones that may be affected by projects in the area. For example, a fish may be on the list for a quad if it lives somewhere downstream from that quad. Birds are included even if they only migrate through an area. In other words, we include all of the species we want people to consider when they do something that affects the environment.

Please read Important Information About Your Species List (below). It explains how we made the list and describes your responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act.

Our database is constantly updated as species are proposed, listed and delisted. If you address proposed and candidate species in your planning, this should not be a problem. However, we recommend that you get an updated list every 90 days. That would be July 02, 2013.

Please contact us if your project may affect endangered or threatened species or if you have any questions about the attached list or your responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. A list of Endangered Species Program contacts can be found here.

Endangered Species Division

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605

Sacramento, California 95825

Page 1 of 1Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office Species List

4/3/2013http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ES_Species/Lists/es_species_lists_auto-letter.cfm

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in

or may be Affected by Projects in the Counties and/or U.S.G.S. 7 1/2 Minute Quads you requested

Document Number: 130403080238 Database Last Updated: September 18, 2011

Quad Lists

Listed Species

Invertebrates Branchinecta lynchi

vernal pool fairy shrimp (T)

Fish Acipenser medirostris

green sturgeon (T) (NMFS)

Eucyclogobius newberryi tidewater goby (E)

Hypomesus transpacificus delta smelt (T)

Oncorhynchus kisutch coho salmon - central CA coast (E) (NMFS)

Oncorhynchus mykiss Central California Coastal steelhead (T) (NMFS) Central Valley steelhead (T) (NMFS) Critical habitat, Central California coastal steelhead (X) (NMFS)

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon (T) (NMFS) winter-run chinook salmon, Sacramento River (E) (NMFS)

Amphibians Ambystoma californiense

California tiger salamander, central population (T)

Rana draytonii California red-legged frog (T)

Reptiles Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus

Alameda whipsnake [=striped racer] (T)

Birds Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus

western snowy plover (T)

Pelecanus occidentalis californicus California brown pelican (E)

Rallus longirostris obsoletus


4/3/2013http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ES_Species/Lists/es_species_lists.cfm

California clapper rail (E)

Sternula antillarum (=Sterna, =albifrons) browni California least tern (E)

Mammals Reithrodontomys raviventris

salt marsh harvest mouse (E)

Plants Lasthenia conjugens

Contra Costa goldfields (E)

Suaeda californica California sea blite (E)

Quads Containing Listed, Proposed or Candidate Species: SAN LEANDRO (447B)

County Lists No county species lists requested.

Key: (E) Endangered - Listed as being in danger of extinction.

(T) Threatened - Listed as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.

(P) Proposed - Officially proposed in the Federal Register for listing as endangered or threatened.

(NMFS) Species under the Jurisdiction of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service. Consult with them directly about these species.

Critical Habitat - Area essential to the conservation of a species.

(PX) Proposed Critical Habitat - The species is already listed. Critical habitat is being proposed for it.

(C) Candidate - Candidate to become a proposed species.

(V) Vacated by a court order. Not currently in effect. Being reviewed by the Service.

(X) Critical Habitat designated for this species

Important Information About Your Species List

How We Make Species Lists We store information about endangered and threatened species lists by U.S. Geological Survey 7½ minute quads. The United States is divided into these quads, which are about the size of San Francisco.

The animals on your species list are ones that occur within, or may be affected by projects within, the quads covered by the list.

Fish and other aquatic species appear on your list if they are in the same watershed as your quad or if water use in your quad might affect them.

Amphibians will be on the list for a quad or county if pesticides applied in that area may be carried to their habitat by air currents.

Birds are shown regardless of whether they are resident or migratory. Relevant birds on the county list should be considered regardless of whether they appear on a quad list.

Plants



Any plants on your list are ones that have actually been observed in the area covered by the list. Plants may exist in an area without ever having been detected there. You can find out what's in the surrounding quads through the California Native Plant Society's online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants.

Surveying Some of the species on your list may not be affected by your project. A trained biologist and/or botanist, familiar with the habitat requirements of the species on your list, should determine whether they or habitats suitable for them may be affected by your project. We recommend that your surveys include any proposed and candidate species on your list. See our Protocol and Recovery Permits pages.

For plant surveys, we recommend using the Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories. The results of your surveys should be published in any environmental documents prepared for your project.

Your Responsibilities Under the Endangered Species Act All animals identified as listed above are fully protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Section 9 of the Act and its implementing regulations prohibit the take of a federally listed wildlife species. Take is defined by the Act as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect" any such animal.

Take may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or shelter (50 CFR §17.3).

Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity may be authorized by one of two procedures:

If a Federal agency is involved with the permitting, funding, or carrying out of a project that may result in take, then that agency must engage in a formal consultation with the Service.

During formal consultation, the Federal agency, the applicant and the Service work together to avoid or minimize the impact on listed species and their habitat. Such consultation would result in a biological opinion by the Service addressing the anticipated effect of the project on listed and proposed species. The opinion may authorize a limited level of incidental take.

If no Federal agency is involved with the project, and federally listed species may be taken as part of the project, then you, the applicant, should apply for an incidental take permit. The Service may issue such a permit if you submit a satisfactory conservation plan for the species that would be affected by your project.

Should your survey determine that federally listed or proposed species occur in the area and are likely to be affected by the project, we recommend that you work with this office and the California Department of Fish and Game to develop a plan that minimizes the project's direct and indirect impacts to listed species and compensates for project-related loss of habitat. You should include the plan in any environmental documents you file.

Critical Habitat When a species is listed as endangered or threatened, areas of habitat considered essential to its conservation may be designated as critical habitat. These areas may require special management considerations or protection. They provide needed space for growth and normal behavior; food, water, air, light, other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; and sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination or seed dispersal.

Although critical habitat may be designated on private or State lands, activities on these



lands are not restricted unless there is Federal involvement in the activities or direct harm to listed wildlife.

If any species has proposed or designated critical habitat within a quad, there will be a separate line for this on the species list. Boundary descriptions of the critical habitat may be found in the Federal Register. The information is also reprinted in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 17.95). See our Map Room page.

Candidate Species We recommend that you address impacts to candidate species. We put plants and animals on our candidate list when we have enough scientific information to eventually propose them for listing as threatened or endangered. By considering these species early in your planning process you may be able to avoid the problems that could develop if one of these candidates was listed before the end of your project.

Species of Concern The Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office no longer maintains a list of species of concern. However, various other agencies and organizations maintain lists of at-risk species. These lists provide essential information for land management planning and conservation efforts. More info

Wetlands If your project will impact wetlands, riparian habitat, or other jurisdictional waters as defined by section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, you will need to obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Impacts to wetland habitats require site specific mitigation and monitoring. For questions regarding wetlands, please contact Mark Littlefield of this office at (916) 414-6520.

Updates Our database is constantly updated as species are proposed, listed and delisted. If you address proposed and candidate species in your planning, this should not be a problem. However, we recommend that you get an updated list every 90 days. That would be July 02, 2013.



APPENDIX B

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM


MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Introduction

When approving projects that identify significant impacts, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies to adopt monitoring and reporting programs or conditions of project approval to mitigate or avoid the identified significant effects (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(1)). A public agency adopting measures to mitigate or avoid the significant impacts of a proposed project is required to ensure that the measures are fully enforceable, through permit conditions, agreements, or other means (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(b)). The mitigation measures required by a public agency to reduce or avoid significant project impacts not incorporated into the design or program for the project may be made conditions of project approval as set forth in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The program must be designed to ensure project compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. The MMRP includes the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the RRESO Test Cell Upgrade Project which are required to address the significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project, specifically during construction. This MMRP also includes mitigation for less-than-significant cultural resources impacts even though such impacts were not considered significant. The required mitigation measures are summarized in this program; the full text of the impact analysis and mitigation measures are presented in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (June, 2013).

Format

The MMRP is organized in a table format (see Table B-1), keyed to each significant impact and each Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration mitigation measure. Only mitigation measures adopted to address significant impacts are included in this program. Each mitigation measure is set out in full, followed by a tabular summary of monitoring requirements. The column headings in the tables are defined as follows:

Mitigation Measures adopted as Conditions of Approval: This column presents the mitigation measure identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Implementation Procedures: This column identifies the procedures associated with

implementation of the migration measure.

Monitoring Responsibility: This column contains an assignment of responsibility for the monitoring and reporting tasks.

Monitoring and Reporting Action: This column refers the outcome from implementing the mitigation measure.

Mitigation Schedule: The general schedule for conducting each mitigation task,

identifying where appropriate both the timing and the frequency of the action.

Verification of Compliance: This column will be used by the lead agency to document the person who verified the implementation of the mitigation measure and the date on which this verification occurred.


Enforcement

If the proposed project is approved, the MMRP would be incorporated as a condition of such approval. Therefore, all mitigation measures for significant impacts must be carried out in order to fulfill the requirements of approval. A number of the mitigation measures would be implemented during the course of the development review process. These measures would be checked on plans, in reports, and in the field prior to construction. Most of the remaining mitigation measures would be implemented during the construction or project implementation phase. Reporting RRESO shall be responsible for reporting and monitoring during construction. RRESO shall submit a post construction report to the Port within 45 days of completion of construction activities. The post construction report shall include the following:

Before and after construction photographs; Photographs illustrating the temporary screening fence (refer to Mitigation Measure BIO-

2); As-built drawings; MMRP Verification of Compliance (Table B-1); and Any reports or correspondences submitted to regulatory agencies.

TABLE B-1 MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM


Mitigation Measures Adopted as Conditions of

Approval

Implementation Procedures

Monitoring and Reporting Action

Monitoring Schedule Verification of Compliance

4.4 Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BIO-1 – California Clapper Rail Indirect Impacts from Noise: The Project applicant or contractor shall implement the following measures during construction to minimize indirect impacts:

The construction contractor shall implement feasible noise controls to minimize outside equipment noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. Feasible noise controls include improved mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds.

Equipment used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered impact tools (e.g., jack hammers) wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered

Project sponsor and its contractor(s) shall implement measures described in Mitigation Measure BIO-1 during construction to minimize indirect impacts.

Inspect site during construction to ensure project compliance with noise reduction requirements.

One inspection shall occur during construction.

Verified by: Date:




Approval




tools. Where use of pneumatically-powered tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used. A muffler could lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 A-weighted decibels (dB(A)). External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible; this could achieve a reduction of five dB(A). Quieter procedures shall be used (such as drilling rather than impact equipment) wherever feasible.

The construction contractor shall implement appropriate additional noise reduction measures that include shutting off idling equipment.

The construction contractor shall minimize use of vehicle backup alarms. A common approach to minimizing the use of backup alarms is to design the construction site with a circular flow




Approval




pattern that minimizes backing up of trucks and other heavy equipment. Another approach to reducing the intrusion of backup alarms is to require all equipment on the site to be equipped with ambient sensitive alarms. With this type of alarm, the alarm sound is automatically adjusted based on the ambient noise.

Construction worker’s radios shall be controlled so as to be inaudible beyond the limits of the project site boundaries.

Heavy equipment, such as paving and grading equipment, shall be stored on-site whenever possible to minimize the need for extra heavy truck trips on local streets.

Significance of Impact Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Significance of Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant




Approval




Mitigation Measure BIO-2 –California Clapper Rail Visual Impacts: If outside construction work is proposed during the CCR breeding season (February 1 to August 31) placement of a temporary screen along the existing approximately 10-foot high fence above the grade of Fan Marsh at the eastern Project Area boundary will screen virtually all construction equipment (with the possible exception of a pile driver) and ensure that any potentially significant visual impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level. The temporary screen shall be installed from the existing berm up to the bottom of the barbed wire portion of the existing fence. Prior to the investigation, a construction employee education program shall be conducted to discuss potential listed species adjacent to the Project Area. At minimum, the program shall consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in listed species biology and protection to those personnel working within the Project Area.

Project sponsor and its contractor(s) shall implement measures described in Mitigation Measure BIO-2 during construction to minimize visual impacts. Project sponsor and its contractor(s) shall prepare an education program that adheres to all specifications in this measure.

Verify inclusion of visual barrier inapplicable construction plans and specifications. Inspect construction site to verify visual barrier installed. Review and approve education program.

Prior to construction. Verified by: Date:




Approval




Contractors, their employees, and other on-site personnel shall undergo sensitive species training prior to involvement with construction activities in the Project Area. The program will include the following:

a description of the species and their habitat needs,

reports of occurrences in the Project Area,

an explanation of the status of each endangered species and their protection under the ESA, and

a list of measures being taken to reduce potential impacts to the species during Project implementation.

Fact sheets conveying this information shall be prepared for distribution to investigation personnel and anyone else who may enter the Project Area. Records of sensitive species training shall be retained by the approved biologist.




Approval




Significance of Impact Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Significance of Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Mitigation Measure BIO-3 – Pre-Construction Breeding Bird Surveys: For any outside construction-related activities that are proposed to occur during the avian breeding season (February 1 through August 31), breeding bird surveys are required. Specifically, pre-construction breeding bird surveys shall be conducted within 14 days of ground disturbance to avoid disturbance to active nests, eggs, and/or young of nesting birds. A qualified biologist familiar with nesting birds shall conduct a pre-construction survey; if nesting birds are detected within the test cell facility near the construction activity (which is currently paved in its entirety), the biologist shall notify the construction site supervisor so that nest will be avoided until the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. As described in Mitigation Measure BIO-2, the qualified

Project sponsor and its contractor(s) shall implement measures described in Mitigation Measure BIO-3 during construction to minimize visual impacts.

Inspect site during construction to ensure project compliance with breeding bird avoidance requirements.

One inspection shall occur during of construction.

Verified by: Date:




Approval




biologist will conduct construction employee education program for all construction crews and contractors before work on the Proposed Project is initiated. The training will include a brief review of all the special-status species and other sensitive communities that may exist in the Study Area. Training will be conducted as-needed (i.e., for new workers after start of construction or any updates as the work progresses). Significance of Impact Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Significance of Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant 4.5 Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CULT-1 – Accidental Discovery: In the event of post-review discoveries of cultural resources the following requirements apply: If any archaeological or paleontological deposits are encountered, all soil-disturbing work should be halted at the location of any discovery until a qualified archaeologist or

Project sponsor and its contractor(s) shall train workers and monitor their activities. Project sponsor and its contractor(s) shall halt work and notify archaeologist if materials are discovered.

Review and approve extent and methodology of subsurface paleontological investigation. If resources are encountered, verify work is suspended and review and approve of the treatment and monitoring plan if archaeological materials are discovered.

Review extent and methodology of subsurface investigations prior to approval of grading permit(s). If resources encountered, review of treatment and monitoring plan prior to continuation of construction.

Verified by: Date:




Approval




paleontologist evaluates the significance of the find(s) and prepares a recommendation for further action. If the cultural materials are determined to be significant, a qualified archaeologist shall develop an appropriate treatment plan in consultation with the Port’s Environmental Programs and Planning Division and/or their representative to mitigate the discovery. The plan could include avoidance and preservation measures to preserve the materials in place; scientific collection and analysis; preparation of a professional report in accordance with current professional standards; and, professional museum curation of collected cultural materials and resource documentation. Significance of Impact Before Mitigation: Less than Significant Significance of Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant Mitigation Measure CULT-2 – Accidental Discovery of Human Remains or Funerary Objects: In the event of the accidental discovery or

Project sponsor and its contractor(s) shall train workers and monitor their activities.

Review and approve extent and methodology of subsurface paleontological investigation.

Review extent and methodology of subsurface investigations prior to approval of grading permit(s).

Verified by: Date:




Approval




recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps should be taken:

The treatment of human remains and of associated or unassociated funerary objects discovered during any soil-disturbing activity within the project shall comply with applicable State laws. Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and PRC Section 5097.94, in the event of the discovery of human remains during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Alameda County Coroner shall be immediately notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American.

In the event of the

Project sponsor and its contractor(s) shall halt work and notify archaeologist if materials are discovered.

Archaeologist shall conduct independent review and prepare treatment plan, if necessary. Project sponsor or its contractor(s) shall implement treatment plan.

If resources are encountered, verify work is suspended and review and approve of the treatment and monitoring plan if paleontological materials are discovered.

If resources encountered, review of treatment and monitoring plan prior to continuation of construction.




Approval




coroner's determination that the human remains are Native American, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), is required who shall appoint a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) (PRC Section 5097.98). The archaeological consultant, project sponsor, and MLD shall make all reasonable efforts to develop an agreement for the treatment, with appropriate dignity, of human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d)). The agreement should take into consideration the appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, custodianship, curation, and final disposition of the human remains and associated or




Approval




unassociated funerary objects.

California Public Resources Code allows 48 hours to reach agreement on these matters. If the MLD and the other parties do not agree on the reburial method, the project will follow PRC Section 5097.98(b) which states that "the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance."

Significance of Impact Before Mitigation: Less than Significant Significance of Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant




Approval




4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 – Excavation, Transportation and Disposal of Potentially Contaminated Soils: 1. Site Specific Health and

Safety Plan. Develop and implement a site specific Health and Safety Plan for construction activities to reduce the potential for adverse exposure of people to hazardous contamination. The Health and Safety Plan will include personal protective equipment, a hazard assessment, site control, handling procedures, chain of command, and emergency evacuation plan.

2. Response Measures. If potentially contaminated soil is encountered during construction, identify and implement response measures necessary to comply with all applicable local, state and Federal laws and regulations.

3. Handling, Recycling, and Hauling. Adhere to all applicable local, State and Federal laws, regulations and standards regarding the handling (including

Project sponsor and its contractor(s) shall incorporate the specifications of this measure into a site specific Health and Safety Plan.

Review Health and Safety Plan for inclusion of proper soil classification, handling, storage and transportation methods. Inspect construction site for proper storage and handling of hazardous and non- hazardous soils.

Prior to the start of construction. Inspection shall occur during construction.

Verified by: Date:




Approval




storing), recycling and hauling of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials will be hauled by certified hazardous waste haulers if required by applicable law. All hazardous materials will be adequately characterized and hazardous waste loads, if any, will be manifested following EPA procedures.

4. Disposal. The disposal of contaminated soil and hazardous materials will comply with applicable local, State and Federal laws and regulations. Hazardous wastes generated as part of the project, if any, will be properly disposed of in accordance with applicable law. Disposal sites will provide written acceptance of the characterized material before the material leaves the site.

Significance of Impact Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Significance of Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant




Approval




Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 – Dewatering, Water Testing, Storage and Treatment: For locations requiring dewatering where environmental contamination could be encountered during construction, the Port would ensure that the contractor pre-arranges for dewatering, water testing, storage, and treatment, in compliance with applicable NPDES or pretreatment permits, depending on the discharge point and the nature of any contamination encountered. Significance of Impact Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Significance of Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant

Project sponsor and its contractor(s) shall ensure that dewatering, water testing, and storage are in compliance with applicable NPDES or pretreatment permits, depending on the discharge point and the nature of any contamination encountered.

Inspect construction site for proper dewatering, water testing, storage, and treatment.

Prior to start of construction. Inspection shall occur during construction.

Verified by: Date:

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 – Water Quality Standards: The project shall comply with terms of the Port’s project level Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) for projects under one acre of impact. The project shall also comply with the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan

Project sponsor and its contractor(s) shall implement measures described in Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 during construction to minimize water quality impacts.

Inspect construction site for adherence to SWPPP.

Prior start of construction. Inspection shall occur during construction.

Verified by: Date:




Approval




(SPCCP), the Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP), and the Industrial SWPPP. Significance of Impact Before Mitigation: Potentially Significant Significance of Impact After Mitigation: Less than Significant

APPENDIX C

HISTORICAL WEATHER DATA FROM OAKLAND AIRPORT DURING NOISE

MONITORING

Weather History for Oakland, CAMonday, January 7, 2013

Monday, January 7, 2013

Page 1 of 4Weather History for Oakland, CA | Weather Underground

6/1/2013http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KOAK/2013/1/7/DailyHistory.html?req_city...

Hourly Weather History & Observations

Time (PST) Temp. Windchill Dew Point Humidity Pressure Visibility Wind Dir Wind Speed Gust Speed Precip Events Conditions

12:53 AM 39.9 °F 37.8 °F 39.9 °F 100% 30.20 in 10.0 mi NE 3.5 mph - N/A Clear

METAR KOAK 070853Z 05003KT 10SM CLR 04/04 A3020 RMK AO2 SLP226 T00440044 58001

1:53 AM 39.0 °F - 39.0 °F 100% 30.20 in 10.0 mi Calm Calm - N/A Clear

METAR KOAK 070953Z 00000KT 10SM CLR 04/04 A3020 RMK AO2 SLP227 T00390039

2:37 AM 39.2 °F - 39.2 °F 100% 30.21 in 10.0 mi Calm Calm - N/A Partly Cloudy

SPECI KOAK 071037Z 00000KT 10SM FEW006 04/04 A3021 RMK AO2


METAR KOAK 071053Z 00000KT 10SM FEW006 04/04 A3022 RMK AO2 SLP232 T00390039

3:53 AM 37.0 °F 33.3 °F 37.0 °F 100% 30.22 in 10.0 mi ENE 4.6 mph - N/A Partly Cloudy

METAR KOAK 071153Z 07004KT 10SM FEW006 03/03 A3022 RMK AO2 SLP232 70002 T00280028 10061 20028 50006

4:00 AM 35.6 °F 32.8 °F 35.6 °F 100% 30.21 in 10.0 mi East 3.5 mph - N/A Partly Cloudy

SPECI KOAK 071200Z COR 09003KT 10SM FEW007 02/02 A3021 RMK AO2





Show Hourly Obs Only | Hide full METARS | METAR FAQ | Comma Delimited File




5:53 AM 39.0 °F 36.8 °F 39.0 °F 100% 30.22 in 10.0 mi East 3.5 mph - N/A Partly Cloudy

METAR KOAK 071353Z 08003KT 10SM FEW007 04/04 A3022 RMK AO2 SLP233 T00390039 $

6:53 AM 37.9 °F - 37.9 °F 100% 30.23 in 10.0 mi Calm Calm - N/A Mostly Cloudy

METAR KOAK 071453Z 00000KT 10SM FEW007 BKN200 03/03 A3023 RMK AO2 SLP237 T00330033 53005

7:12 AM 39.2 °F 37.0 °F 39.2 °F 100% 30.24 in 0.1 mi SSE 3.5 mph - N/A Fog Fog

SPECI KOAK 071512Z 15003KT 1/8SM FG VV002 04/04 A3024 RMK AO2

7:36 AM 39.2 °F 35.9 °F 39.2 °F 100% 30.24 in 0.1 mi ESE 4.6 mph - N/A Fog Fog

SPECI KOAK 071536Z 12004KT 1/8SM FG VV001 04/04 A3024 RMK AO2 $

7:51 AM 39.2 °F - 39.2 °F 100% 30.25 in 0.5 mi Calm Calm - N/A Fog Fog

SPECI KOAK 071551Z 00000KT 1/2SM FG SCT001 BKN007 OVC085 04/04 A3025 RMK AO2

7:53 AM 39.9 °F - 39.9 °F 100% 30.26 in 0.5 mi Calm Calm - N/A Fog Fog

METAR KOAK 071553Z 00000KT 1/2SM FG SCT001 BKN007 OVC085 04/04 A3026 RMK AO2 SLP245 T00440044

8:03 AM 41.0 °F 39.0 °F 39.2 °F 93% 30.25 in 3.0 mi East 3.5 mph - N/A Overcast

SPECI KOAK 071603Z 10003KT 3SM BR FEW001 SCT007 OVC085 05/04 A3025 RMK AO2 VIS SW - W 1/2SM

8:53 AM 42.1 °F - 42.1 °F 100% 30.26 in 6.0 mi Calm Calm - N/A Overcast

METAR KOAK 071653Z 00000KT 6SM BR FEW003 BKN085 OVC200 06/06 A3026 RMK AO2 SLP245 T00560056 $

9:53 AM 45.0 °F 43.5 °F 45.0 °F 100% 30.28 in 7.0 mi South 3.5 mph - N/A Mostly Cloudy

METAR KOAK 071753Z 18003KT 7SM FEW003 SCT085 BKN200 07/07 A3028 RMK AO2 SLP253 T00720072 10072 20017 53015 $

10:53 AM 48.9 °F - 46.0 °F 90% 30.29 in 10.0 mi Calm Calm - N/A Mostly Cloudy

METAR KOAK 071853Z 00000KT 10SM FEW007 BKN200 09/08 A3029 RMK AO2 SLP256 T00940078 $

11:53 AM 48.9 °F - 46.9 °F 93% 30.25 in 10.0 mi SSW 5.8 mph - N/A Mostly Cloudy

METAR KOAK 071953Z 20005KT 10SM FEW007 BKN200 09/08 A3024 RMK AO2 SLP241 T00940083 $

12:53 PM 53.1 °F - 46.9 °F 80% 30.22 in 10.0 mi South 3.5 mph - N/AScattered Clouds

METAR KOAK 072053Z 19003KT 10SM FEW065 SCT200 12/08 A3022 RMK AO2 SLP232 T01170083 58020 $

1:53 PM 53.1 °F - 48.0 °F 83% 30.20 in 10.0 mi SSW 5.8 mph - N/A Mostly Cloudy

METAR KOAK 072153Z 21005KT 10SM BKN200 12/09 A3020 RMK AO2 SLP225 T01170089 $

2:53 PM 55.4 °F - 46.4 °F 72% 30.19 in 10.0 mi South 4.6 mph - N/A Mostly Cloudy

METAR KOAK 072253Z 19004KT 10SM BKN220 13/08 A3019

3:53 PM 55.0 °F - 46.0 °F 72% 30.19 in 10.0 mi Calm Calm - N/A Mostly Cloudy

METAR KOAK 072353Z 00000KT 10SM BKN220 13/08 A3019 RMK AO2 SLP222 T01280078 10139 20078 56010


METAR KOAK 080053Z 00000KT 10SM BKN220 12/09 A3019 RMK AO2 SLP222 T01220094




METAR KOAK 080253Z 00000KT 10SM BKN220 11/09 A3018 RMK AO2 SLP219 T01110094 58003

7:53 PM 51.1 °F - 48.0 °F 89% 30.19 in 10.0 mi Calm Calm - N/AScattered Clouds

METAR KOAK 080353Z 00000KT 10SM SCT220 11/09 A3019 RMK AO2 SLP222 T01060089



9:53 PM 48.9 °F - 48.0 °F 97% 30.19 in 10.0 mi Calm Calm - N/A





Scattered Clouds

METAR KOAK 080553Z 00000KT 10SM SCT220 09/09 A3019 RMK AO2 SLP222 T00940089 10128 20083 50004



11:53 PM 46.9 °F - 45.0 °F 93% 30.20 in 10.0 mi Calm Calm - N/A Clear



Flight from San Franciscounited.com

Great Rates are Still Available from United. Book Now



Weather History for Oakland, CATuesday, January 8, 2013

Tuesday, January 8, 2013



Flight from San Franciscounited.com

Great Rates are Still Available from United. Book Now







2:53 AM 42.1 °F 40.2 °F 41.0 °F 96% 30.21 in 9.0 mi NNE 3.5 mph - N/A Clear



METAR KOAK 081153Z 00000KT 10SM CLR 07/07 A3021 RMK AO2 SLP227 T00670067 10094 20056 58002


SPECI KOAK 081200Z 00000KT 1 1/4SM BR CLR 06/06 A3021 RMK AO2


SPECI KOAK 081211Z 00000KT 10SM CLR 06/06 A3021 RMK AO2










METAR KOAK 081353Z 00000KT 8SM FEW003 06/06 A3021

6:53 AM 45.0 °F - 45.0 °F 100% 30.21 in 6.0 mi Calm Calm - N/AScattered Clouds

METAR KOAK 081453Z 00000KT 6SM BR FEW003 SCT250 07/07 A3021 RMK AO2 SLP229 T00720072 53002

7:53 AM 43.0 °F - 43.0 °F 100% 30.23 in 6.0 mi Calm Calm - N/A Fog Shallow Fog

METAR KOAK 081553Z 00000KT 6SM MIFG BR FEW003 SCT250 06/06 A3023 RMK AO2 SLP236 T00610061

8:53 AM 48.0 °F - 48.0 °F 100% 30.25 in 6.0 mi SSE 3.5 mph - N/AScattered Clouds

METAR KOAK 081653Z 15003KT 6SM BR FEW003 SCT250 09/09 A3025 RMK AO2 SLP242 T00890089

9:53 AM 50.0 °F - 46.9 °F 89% 30.26 in 10.0 mi South 5.8 mph - N/A Partly Cloudy

METAR KOAK 081753Z 18005KT 10SM FEW250 10/08 A3026 RMK AO2 SLP247 T01000083 10100 20050 51018

10:53 AM 52.0 °F - 48.9 °F 89% 30.24 in 7.0 mi West 4.6 mph - N/A Clear


11:53 AM 54.0 °F - 50.0 °F 86% 30.21 in 7.0 mi West 6.9 mph - N/A Clear


12:53 PM 57.0 °F - 46.9 °F 69% 30.19 in 10.0 mi WNW 9.2 mph - N/A Partly Cloudy

METAR KOAK 082053Z 30008KT 10SM FEW250 14/08 A3018 RMK AO2 SLP221 T01390083 58026

1:53 PM 57.0 °F - 48.9 °F 74% 30.17 in 7.0 mi West 5.8 mph - N/A Partly Cloudy


2:53 PM 55.9 °F - 48.0 °F 75% 30.17 in 6.0 mi West 4.6 mph - N/A Haze

METAR KOAK 082253Z 26004KT 6SM HZ FEW250 13/09 A3017 RMK AO2 SLP216 T01330089

3:53 PM 55.9 °F - 48.9 °F 77% 30.17 in 10.0 mi West 5.8 mph - N/AScattered Clouds



METAR KOAK 090053Z 00000KT 10SM FEW150 BKN200 12/10 A3015 RMK AO2 SLP210 T01220100


METAR KOAK 090153Z 00000KT 10SM FEW150 SCT200 12/09 A3016 RMK AO2 SLP211 T01170094


METAR KOAK 090253Z 00000KT 10SM SCT200 10/08 A3016 RMK AO2 SLP212 T01000078 55002

7:53 PM 48.9 °F - 46.9 °F 93% 30.18 in 10.0 mi NW 3.5 mph - N/A Partly Cloudy


8:53 PM 50.0 °F - 48.2 °F 94% 30.16 in 10.0 mi NNW 3.5 mph - N/A Clear

METAR KOAK 090453Z 33003KT 10SM CLR 10/09 A3016

9:53 PM 48.0 °F - 46.9 °F 96% 30.17 in 10.0 mi Calm Calm - N/A Partly Cloudy

METAR KOAK 090553Z 00000KT 10SM FEW200 09/08 A3017 RMK AO2 SLP214 T00890083 10139 20083 51002

10:53 PM 48.9 °F - 48.0 °F 97% 30.17 in 10.0 mi NNW 3.5 mph - N/AScattered Clouds



METAR KOAK 090753Z 00000KT 10SM SCT200 09/08 A3017 RMK AO2 SLP215 T00890083 401500050




Weather History for Oakland, CAWednesday, January 9, 2013

Wednesday, January 9, 2013



Vuelo desde San FranciscoUnited.com

Vuele desde San Francisco. Obtenga Nuestro Precio Más Bajo Garantizado



12:53 AM 46.0 °F - 45.0 °F 96% 30.16 in 8.0 mi Calm Calm - N/APartly Cloudy

METAR KOAK 090853Z 00000KT 8SM FEW200 08/07 A3016 RMK AO2 SLP212 T00780072 58002

1:53 AM 45.0 °F - 44.1 °F 97% 30.16 in 8.0 mi Calm Calm - N/AMostly Cloudy


2:53 AM 45.0 °F - 44.1 °F 97% 30.15 in 10.0 mi Calm Calm - N/APartly Cloudy





METAR KOAK 091253Z 00000KT 7SM SCT200 06/06 A3014

5:53 AM 43.0 °F 41.3 °F 43.0 °F 100% 30.12 in 7.0 mi East 3.5 mph - N/A Clear


6:53 AM 45.0 °F - 45.0 °F 100% 30.13 in 6.0 mi Calm Calm - N/AMostly Cloudy





METAR KOAK 091453Z 00000KT 6SM BR BKN200 07/07 A3013 RMK AO2 SLP201 T00720072 55005

7:53 AM 42.1 °F 39.2 °F 42.1 °F 100% 30.13 in 2.5 mi NE 4.6 mph - N/AMostly Cloudy

METAR KOAK 091553Z 04004KT 2 1/2SM BR BKN009 06/06 A3013 RMK AO2 SLP203 T00560056

8:53 AM 46.9 °F - 46.9 °F 100% 30.13 in 2.5 mi Calm Calm - N/A Overcast

METAR KOAK 091653Z 00000KT 2 1/2SM BR OVC011 08/08 A3013 RMK AO2 SLP202 T00830083

9:20 AM 48.2 °F - 46.4 °F 93% 30.14 in 3.0 mi SE 4.6 mph - N/A Overcast

SPECI KOAK 091720Z 14004KT 3SM BR OVC011 09/08 A3014 RMK AO2




METAR KOAK 091753Z 14003KT 4SM BR OVC009 10/09 A3013 RMK AO2 SLP202 T01000089 10100 20056 55000

10:38 AM 51.8 °F - 48.2 °F 88% 30.12 in 4.0 mi SSE 4.6 mph - N/A Overcast

SPECI KOAK 091838Z 15004KT 4SM BR SCT009 OVC016 11/09 A3012 RMK AO2

10:49 AM 51.8 °F - 48.2 °F 88% 30.12 in 4.0 mi South 5.8 mph - N/A Overcast

SPECI KOAK 091849Z 17005KT 4SM BR BKN012 OVC016 11/09 A3012 RMK AO2


METAR KOAK 091853Z 16004KT 4SM BR BKN012 OVC016 11/09 A3011 RMK AO2 SLP196 T01060089


SPECI KOAK 091918Z 16007KT 5SM BR SCT010 OVC015 11/09 A3010 RMK AO2


METAR KOAK 091953Z 15006KT 5SM BR SCT010 OVC015 11/09 A3009 RMK AO2 SLP187 T01060089

12:53 PM 52.0 °F - 50.0 °F 93% 30.06 in 3.0 mi SSE 4.6 mph - N/A Overcast

METAR KOAK 092053Z 15004KT 3SM BR BKN017 OVC022 11/10 A3006 RMK AO2 SLP178 T01110100 58020 $


SPECI KOAK 092111Z 16007KT 2SM BR BKN017 OVC022 11/10 A3005 RMK AO2 $


METAR KOAK 092153Z 16006KT 3SM BR OVC017 12/10 A3004 RMK AO2 SLP173 T01170100

2:39 PM 53.6 °F - 51.8 °F 94% 30.03 in 6.0 mi SSW 6.9 mph - N/A Overcast


2:51 PM 53.6 °F - 51.8 °F 94% 30.03 in 2.0 mi SW 9.2 mph - N/A Overcast

SPECI KOAK 092251Z 22008KT 2SM BR FEW008 OVC013 12/11 A3003 RMK AO2

2:53 PM 54.0 °F - 53.1 °F 97% 30.03 in 1.0 mi SW 9.2 mph - 0.00 in Rain Light Rain

METAR KOAK 092253Z 22008KT 1SM -RA BR FEW008 OVC013 12/12 A3002 RMK AO2 RAB53 SLP167 P0000 T01220117

3:02 PM 53.6 °F - 53.6 °F 100% 30.03 in 2.0 mi West 16.1 mph - 0.00 in Rain Light Rain

SPECI KOAK 092302Z 27014KT 2SM -RA BR BKN006 OVC013 12/12 A3003 RMK AO2 CIG 004V011 VIS SE 1 1/2 P0000

3:11 PM 53.6 °F - 53.6 °F 100% 30.03 in 10.0 mi West 15.0 mph - 0.00 in Rain Light Rain

SPECI KOAK 092311Z 27013KT 10SM -RA BKN008 OVC015 12/12 A3003 RMK AO2 WSHFT 2257 VIS NE-E 2 P0000

3:19 PM 53.6 °F - 53.6 °F 100% 30.03 in 10.0 mi West 17.3 mph - 0.00 inMostly Cloudy

SPECI KOAK 092319Z COR 28015KT 10SM FEW007 BKN017 BKN026 12/12 A3003 RMK AO2 WSHFT 2257 RAE13 P0000

3:53 PM 53.1 °F - 51.1 °F 93% 30.02 in 10.0 mi WNW 20.7 mph 31.1 mph 0.00 inMostly Cloudy





METAR KOAK 092353Z 29018G27KT 10SM FEW008 BKN017 BKN021 12/11 A3002 RMK AO2 PK WND 29027/2345 WSHFT 2257 RAE13 SLP165 VCSH P0000 60000 T01170106 10122 20100 56013

4:21 PM 53.6 °F - 46.4 °F 77% 30.03 in 10.0 mi WNW 20.7 mph - 0.00 inMostly Cloudy

SPECI KOAK 100021Z 29018KT 10SM FEW015 SCT027 BKN041 12/08 A3003 RMK AO2 RAB2356E2358 VCSH P0000

4:53 PM 52.0 °F - 45.0 °F 77% 30.02 in 10.0 mi WNW 20.7 mph - 0.00 inMostly Cloudy

METAR KOAK 100053Z 29018KT 10SM FEW015 SCT026 BKN047 11/07 A3002 RMK AO2 RAB2356E2358 SLP166 P0000 T01110072

5:53 PM 52.0 °F - 42.1 °F 69% 30.04 in 10.0 mi West 15.0 mph - N/AMostly Cloudy

METAR KOAK 100153Z 28013KT 10SM FEW018 BKN065 BKN070 11/06 A3004 RMK AO2 SLP170 T01110056

6:53 PM 51.1 °F - 43.0 °F 74% 30.05 in 10.0 mi WNW 11.5 mph - N/AMostly Cloudy

METAR KOAK 100253Z 29010KT 10SM FEW025 BKN080 11/06 A3005 RMK AO2 SLP175 60000 T01060061 53010

7:53 PM 50.0 °F - 41.0 °F 71% 30.06 in 10.0 mi West 13.8 mph - N/AScattered Clouds


8:53 PM 50.0 °F - 39.0 °F 66% 30.07 in 10.0 mi WNW 13.8 mph - N/APartly Cloudy


9:53 PM 50.0 °F - 37.9 °F 63% 30.09 in 10.0 mi WNW 15.0 mph 23.0 mph N/AScattered Clouds

METAR KOAK 100553Z 29013G20KT 10SM FEW026 SCT150 10/03 A3008 RMK AO2 SLP187 60000 T01000033 10117 20094 53012

10:53 PM 48.9 °F - 39.0 °F 69% 30.10 in 10.0 mi WNW 13.8 mph - N/AScattered Clouds


11:53 PM 48.0 °F - 39.0 °F 71% 30.10 in 10.0 mi WNW 13.8 mph - N/AScattered Clouds

METAR KOAK 100753Z 29012KT 10SM FEW020 SCT200 09/04 A3010 RMK AO2 SLP193 T00890039 401220056




for the rolls-royce engine services-oakland inc. test cell … · 2016-03-10 · rolls-royce engine...

Documents