Source: https://vibdoc.com/volume-i-part-14-chapter-4-section-4.html
Timestamp: 2020-04-05 05:45:29
Document Index: 146579369

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 14', 'art 12', 'art 13', 'art 09', 'art 07', 'art 08', 'art 05', 'art 93', '§ 1500', 'art 402', 'art 10', 'art 21', 'art 402']

Volume I Part 14 Chapter 4 Section 4 - PDF Free Download
4.12 Air Quality 4.12.1 Regulatory Setting The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1963 (amended in 1990) governs air quality...
Volume I Part 12 Chapter 4 Sections 4
4.7 Cultural Resources 4.7.1 Introduction to Analysis/Methodology Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Ac
Volume I Part 13 Chapter 4 Sections 4
4.10 Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography 4.10.1 Introduction to Analysis/Methodology This section describes the geologic re
Volume I Part 09 Chapter 4 Sections 4
4.0 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 4.1 Land U
Volume I Part 07 Chapter 3 Section 3
3.3 Non-Motorized Transportation This section describes non-motorized transportation in the project corridor including e
Volume I Part 08 Chapter 3 Section 3
3.4 Parking This section describes parking in the project corridor and potential impacts of the No-Build and Build East
Volume I Part 05 Chapter 3 Section 3
3.0 Transportation Analysis This chapter describes existing transit, traffic, and parking conditions within the East Bay
WWW.OURPGS.COM WWW.OURPGS.COM WWW.OURPGS.COM WWW.OURPGS.COM WWW.OURPGS.COM WWW.OURPGS.COM WWW.OURPGS.COM W
HFM 4 4 14
Chapter 4: Stereochemistry Introduction To Stereochemistry Consider two of the compounds we produced while finding all
Read and Download Ebook Holt Physics Chapter 4 Section Quiz Answers PDF at Public Ebook Library HOLT PHYSICS CHAPTER 4
950544559VI Chapter 4(Ex 4
4.12 Air Quality 4.12.1 Regulatory Setting The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1963 (amended in 1990) governs air quality in the United States of America. In addition to being subject to the requirements of CAA, air quality in California also is governed by more stringent regulations under the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). At the federal level, CAA is administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In California, the CCAA is administered by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) at the state level and by the air quality management districts and air pollution control districts at the regional and local levels. United States Environmental Protection Agency EPA is responsible for establishing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). NAAQS is required under the CAA and subsequent amendments. EPA regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain types of locomotives. EPA has jurisdiction of emission sources outside state waters (e.g., beyond the outer continental shelf) and establishes various emission standards including those for vehicles sold in states other than California. Automobiles sold in California must meet more strict emission standards established by CARB. California Air Resources Board CARB became part of the California EPA in 1991 and is responsible for meeting the state requirements of the CAA, administering the CCAA, and establishing the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The CCAA, as amended in 1992, requires all air districts in the state to endeavor to achieve and maintain the CAAQS. CAAQS is generally more stringent than the corresponding federal standards and incorporate additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles. CARB regulates mobile air pollution sources, such as motor vehicles. CARB is responsible for setting emission standards for vehicles sold in California and for other emission sources, such as consumer products and certain off-road equipment. CARB established passenger vehicle fuel specifications, which became effective in March 1996. CARB oversees the functions of local air pollution control districts and air quality management districts, which, in turn, administer air quality activities at the regional and county levels. Bay Area Air Quality Management District The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is primarily responsible for assuring that the federal and state ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the Bay Area Air Basin (BAAB). BAAQMD also is responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, and conducting public education campaigns as well as many other activities. BAAQMD has jurisdiction of an approximately 5,600-square-mile area of the BAAB. This area includes all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Napa AC Transit East Bay BRT Project FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Counties; the southwestern portion of Solano County; and the southern portion of Sonoma County. 4.12.1.1 National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Under the CAA and CCAA, areas are designated as either attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant, based on whether the NAAQS or CAAQS have been achieved. Areas are designated as nonattainment for a pollutant if air quality data show that a state or federal standard for the pollutant was violated at least once during the previous three calendar years. Exceedances that are affected by highly irregular or infrequent events are not considered violations of a state standard and are not used as a basis for designating areas as nonattainment. Table 4.12-1 summarizes the state and federal standards and lists the state and federal attainment status for Alameda County. Table 4.12-1. State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status California Pollutant
Ozone (O3) 1 hour
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)1
8 hour 24 hour Annual Arithmetic Mean 24 hour Annual Arithmetic Mean
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 hour
1 hour Annual Arithmetic Mean 1 hour
AC Transit East Bay BRT Project FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) 0.07 (137 µg/m3) 50 µg/m3
Nonattainment -0.075 ppm Nonattainment (147 µg/m3) Nonattainment 150 µg/m3
Nonattainment Attainment
20 µg/m3 --
Nonattainment --35 µg/m3
-Nonattainment
12 µg/m3 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 20 ppm (23 mg/m3)
Nonattainment 15 µg/m3 9 ppm (10 Attainment mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 Attainment mg/m3)
0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3)-- -0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3) Attainment
53 ppb (100 µg/m3) 100 ppb (188 µg/m3)
Attainment Unclassified
California Pollutant Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Averaging Period 24 hour 1 hour
Standards 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3)
Attainment Status Attainment Attainment
Federal Standards -75 ppb (196 µg/m3)
Source: CARB, September 8, 2010.
Carbon Monoxide Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless and odorless gas that interferes with the transfer of oxygen to the brain. It can cause dizziness and fatigue and can impair central nervous system functions. CO is emitted almost exclusively from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. Automobile exhausts release most of the CO in urban areas. CO dissipates relatively quickly, so ambient CO concentrations generally follow the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. CO concentrations are influenced by local meteorological conditions – primarily wind speed, topography, and atmospheric stability. Under the CAA and the CCAA, the Alameda County portion of the BAAB is in attainment for CO. Ozone Ozone (O3), a colorless toxic gas, is the chief component of urban smog. O3 enters the blood stream and interferes with the transfer of oxygen, depriving sensitive tissues in the heart and brain of oxygen. O3 also damages vegetation by inhibiting growth. O3 forms in the atmosphere through a chemical reaction between reactive organic gas (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) under sunlight. The greatest source of smog-producing gases is the automobile. Under the CAA and the CCAA, the Alameda County portion of BAAB is in nonattainment for O3. Nitrogen Dioxide Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), a brownish gas, irritates the lungs. It can cause breathing difficulties at high concentrations. Like O3, NO2 is not directly emitted, but is formed through a reaction between nitric oxide (NO) and atmospheric oxygen. NO and NO2 are collectively referred to as NOx and are major contributors to ozone formation. NO2 also contributes to the formation of particulate matter (PM). Under the CAA and the CCAA, the Alameda County portion of BAAB is in attainment for NO2. Sulfur Dioxide Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) is a product of high sulfur fuel combustion. Main sources of SO2 are coal and oil used in power stations, domestic heating, and industries, such as chemical manufacturing. SO2 is an irritant gas that attacks the throat and lungs. SO2 can also erode iron and steel and cause plant leaves to turn yellow. In recent years, SO2 concentrations in the region have been reduced to levels well below the state and federal standards, but further reductions in emissions are needed to attain compliance with standards for sulfates and PM10, of which SO2 is a AC Transit East Bay BRT Project FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.12-3
contributor. Under the CAA and the CCAA, the Alameda County portion of BAAB is in attainment for SO2. Suspended Particulate Matter PM10 pollution consists of very small liquid and solid particles floating in the air, which can include smoke, soot, dust, salts, acids, and metals. Particulate matter also forms when gases emitted from industries and motor vehicles undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere. Respirable particulate matter (PM10) refers to particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter, about oneseventh the thickness of a human hair. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) refers to particulate matter that is 2.5 microns or less in diameter, roughly one-twenty-eigth the diameter of a human hair. PM10 and PM2.5 pose a greater health risk than larger-size particles. When inhaled, these tiny particles can penetrate the human respiratory system’s natural defenses and damage the respiratory tract. Major sources of PM10 include motor vehicles; wood burning stoves and fireplaces; dust from construction, landfills, and agriculture; wildfires and brush/waste burning, industrial sources, windblown dust from open lands; and atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions. PM2.5 results from fuel combustion (from motor vehicles, power generation, and industrial facilities), residential fireplaces, and wood stoves. In addition, PM2.5 can be formed in the atmosphere from gases such as SO2, NO X, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Under the CCAA, the Alameda County portion of the BAAB is in nonattainment for PM10, and PM2.5. Lead Prior to 1978, mobile emissions were the primary source of lead resulting in air concentrations. Between 1978 and 1987, the phase-out of leaded gasoline reduced the overall inventory of airborne lead by nearly 95 percent. Currently, industrial sources are the primary source of lead resulting in air concentrations. Since the East Bay BRT Project does not contain lead emission sources, emissions and concentrations related to lead are not analyzed in this report. Toxic Air Contaminants A substance is considered toxic if it has the potential to cause adverse health effects in humans. A toxic substance released into the air is considered a toxic air contaminant (TAC). TACs are identified by state and federal agencies based on a review of available scientific evidence. In the State of California, TACs are identified through a two-step process that was established in 1983 under the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act, Assembly Bill 1807, Tanner. This two-step process of risk identification and risk management was designed to protect residents from the health effects of toxic substances in the air. The BAAQMD’s Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program was initiated in 2004 to evaluate and reduce health risks associated with exposures to outdoor TACs in the Bay Area. The program examines TAC emissions from point sources, area sources and on- and off-road mobile sources with an emphasis on diesel exhaust, which is a major contributor to airborne health risk in California. The main objectives of the program are to:
4.12-4
Characterize and evaluate potential cancer and noncancer health risks associated with exposure to TACs from both stationary and mobile sources throughout the Bay Area. Assess potential exposures to sensitive receptors including children, senior citizens, and people with respiratory illnesses. Identify significant sources of TAC emissions and prioritize use of resources to reduce TACs in the most highly impacted areas (i.e., priority communities). Develop and implement mitigation measures to achieve cleaner air for the public and the environment, focusing initially on priority communities. Two studies have been completed on air toxics in the BAAB: Phase I Findings and Policy Recommendations (BAAQMD 2006) and Diesel PM Emissions from Truck-Related Businesses and Construction in West Oakland (Sonoma Technology 2007). Both studies detail health risks to sensitive receptors in the Bay Area and are available for review at the BAAQMD’s web site. Federal Hazardous Air Pollutant Program Title III of the CAA requires EPA to promulgate national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) may differ for major sources than for area sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) (major sources are defined as stationary sources with potential to emit more than 10 tons per year [TPY] of any HAP or more than 25 TPY of any combination of HAPs; all other sources are considered area sources). The emissions standards are to be promulgated in two phases. In the first phase (1992 to 2000), EPA developed technology-based emission standards designed to produce the maximum emission reduction achievable. These federal rules are also commonly referred to as MACT standards, because they reflect the Maximum Achievable Control Technology. For area sources, the standards may differ based on generally available control technology. In the second phase (2001 to 2008), EPA is required to promulgate health risk-based emissions standards where deemed necessary to address risks remaining after implementation of the technologybased standards. Federal CAA Amendments required EPA to promulgate vehicle or fuel standards containing reasonable requirements that control toxic emissions, at a minimum to benzene and formaldehyde. Performance criteria were established to limit mobile source emissions of toxics including benzene, formaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene. In addition, CAA Section 219 required the use of reformulated gasoline in selected U.S. cities (those with the most severe ozone nonattainment conditions) to further reduce mobile source emissions. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) EPA issued a final rule on Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources, 66 FR 17229 (March 29, 2001). This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of the CAA. In its rule, EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile source control programs including its reformulated gasoline program, national low emission vehicle standards, tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control requirements, proposed heavy duty engine and vehicle standards, and on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements. Between 2000 and 2020, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) projects that even with a 64 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), these programs will reduce on-highway emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and AC Transit East Bay BRT Project FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
acetaldehyde by 57 to 65 percent, and will reduce on-highway diesel particulate matter emissions by 87 percent. As a result, EPA concluded that no further motor vehicle emissions standards or fuel standards were necessary to further control MSATs. The agency is preparing another rule under authority of CAA Section 202(l) that will address these issues and could make adjustments to the full 21 and the primary six MSATs. The FHWA published project-level MSAT assessment guidance in February 2006 as an air quality analysis tool for transportation projects.1 This guidance was updated on September 30, 2009.2 MSATs are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the CAA. The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and nonroad equipment. Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates. Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline. State Toxic Air Contaminant Programs California regulates TACs primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588). The Tanner Act sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. This includes research, public participation, and scientific peer review before CARB can designate a substance as a TAC. To date, CARB has identified more than 21 TACs and adopted EPA’s list of HAPs as TACs. Most recently, diesel exhaust particulate was added to the CARB list of TACs. Once a TAC is identified, CARB then adopts an Airborne Toxics Control Measure for sources that emit that particular TAC. If there is a safe threshold for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If there is no safe threshold, the measure must incorporate Toxic Best Available Control Technology (TBACT) to minimize emissions. None of the TACs identified by CARB have a safe threshold. The Hot Spots Act requires that existing facilities that emit toxic substances above specified level prepare a toxic emission inventory, prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant, notify the public of significant risk levels, and prepare and implement risk reduction measures. CARB has adopted diesel exhaust control measures and more stringent emission standards for various on-road mobile sources of emissions including transit buses, and off-road diesel equipment (e.g., tractors andgenerators). In February 2000, CARB adopted a new public transit bus fleet rule and emission standards for new urban buses. These new rules and standards provide for more stringent emission standards for some new urban bus engines beginning with 2002 model year engines, zero-emission bus demonstration and purchase requirements applicable to transit agencies, and reporting requirements that transit agencies must demonstrate compliance with the urban transit bus fleet rule. Milestones include the low sulfur diesel fuel requirement and tighter emission standards for heavy-duty diesel trucks (2007) and off-road diesel equipment (2011) nationwide. Eventually, the replacement of older vehicles will result in a vehicle fleet that produces substantially less TACs than under current conditions. Mobile 1
FHWA, Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents, February 3, 2006. FHWA, Interim Guidance Update on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents, September 30, 2009.
4.12-6
source emissions of TACs (e.g., benzene, 1-3-butadiene, and diesel PM) have been reduced significantly during the last decade and will be reduced further in California through a progression of regulatory measures (e.g., Low Emission Vehicle/Clean Fuels and phase II reformulated gasoline regulations) and control technologies. With implementation of CARB’s Risk Reduction Plan, it is expected that diesel PM concentrations will be reduced by 75 percent in 2010 and 85 percent in 2020 from the estimated year 2000 level. 3 Adopted regulations also are expected to continue to reduce formaldehyde emissions from cars and light-duty trucks. As emissions are reduced, it is expected that risks associated with exposure to the emissions also will be reduced. Bay Area Air Quality Management District The BAAQMD has regulated TACs since the 1980s. At the local level, air pollution control or management districts may adopt and enforce CARB’s control measures. Under BAAQMD Regulation 2-1 (General Permit Requirements), Regulation 2-2 (New Source Review), and Regulation 2-5 (New Source Review), all nonexempt sources that possess the potential to emit TACs are required to obtain permits from BAAQMD. Permits may be granted to these operations if they are constructed and operated in accordance with applicable regulations including new source review standards and air toxics control measures. The BAAQMD limits emissions and public exposure to TACs through a number of programs. The BAAQMD prioritizes TAC-emitting stationary sources based on the quantity and toxicity of the TAC emissions and the proximity of the facilities to sensitive receptors. Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) was identified as a TAC in 1986 by CARB. NOA is located in many parts of California and, according to the California Department of Geology’s special publication titled Guidelines for Geologic Investigations of Naturally Occurring Asbestos in California, is commonly associated with ultramafic rocks. BAAQMD’s NOA program requires that the applicable notification forms from its web site be submitted by qualifying operations in accordance with the procedures detailed in the air toxics control measures (ATCM) inspection guidelines, policies, and procedures. The lead agency should reference BAAQMD’s ATCM policies and procedures to determine what NOA notification form is applicable to the proposed project (NOA Notification Forms). The ATCM requires regulated operations engaged in road construction and maintenance activities, construction and grading operations, and quarrying and surface mining operations in areas where NOA is likely to be found, to employ the best available dust mitigation measures to reduce and control dust emissions. In addition, the BAAQMD has adopted Regulation 11, Rules 2, which addresses asbestos demolition renovation, manufacturing, and standards for asbestos containing serpentine. The purpose of Regulation 11, Rule 2 is to control emissions of asbestos to the atmosphere during demolition, renovation, milling, and manufacturing as well as establish appropriate waste disposal procedures.4 Some of the regulations listed in Regulation 11, Rule 2 include:
BAAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, June 2010. BAAQMD, Regulation 11, Rule 2, October 1998.
4.12-7
Visible Emissions: There shall be no visible emissions to the outside air from any asbestos mill or from any operation involving the demolition, renovation, removal, manufacture, or fabrication of any product containing asbestos. Demolition, Renovation, and Removal: To prevent emissions from asbestos containing material, a person responsible for scheduled, nonscheduled, or emergency demolition; renovation; or removal of any building elements containing any amount of RACM shall use the procedures specified in subsections 303.1 through 303.13. This shall not apply to maintenance or decontamination procedures where no removal takes place. Waste Disposal: To prevent emissions from asbestos-containing material, a person responsible for the collection, processing (including incineration and conversion), packaging, transporting, or disposition of any asbestos-containing waste material that is generated by manufacturing; fabricating; scheduled, nonscheduled, or emergency demolition or renovation, whether notified or not; spraying operations; or asbestos milling, shall use procedures specified in Regulation 11, Rule 2, Standard 304. Waste Disposal Sites: There shall be no visible emissions to the outside air from a waste disposal site where asbestos-containing waste material has been or is being deposited. 4.12.1.2 Air Quality Plans The BAAQMD, in coordination with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), is responsible for preparing air quality plans pursuant to the CAA and CCAA. Under the CAA, state implementation plans (SIPs) are required for areas that are designated as nonattainment for O3, CO, NOX, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5. For the BAAB, a SIP is required for O3 and PM2.5 since the region is currently designated as a federal nonattainment area for both criteria pollutants. The most current SIP, called the 2005 Ozone Strategy, is a comprehensive document that describes the Bay Area’s strategy for compliance with state one-hour ozone standards. Adopted on January 4th, 2006, the Ozone Strategy is a roadmap of how the San Francisco Bay Area will achieve compliance with the state one-hour air quality standard for ozone and how the region will reduce transport of ozone and ozone precursors to neighboring air basins. This document is in the process of being updated. In 2006, EPA lowered the 24-hour PM2.5 standard and, as a result, the Bay Area was designated as nonattainment in December 2009. An updated SIP that demonstrates the Bay Area will achieve the revised PM2.5 standard must be submitted to EPA by December 2012. Whereas the SIP is prepared pursuant to the CAA (federal requirement), the Bay Area Clean Air Plan (CAP) is prepared pursuant to the CCAA (state requirement). The CAP is the region’s plan for reducing ground-level ozone and provides a comprehensive plan to improve Bay Area air quality and protect public health. The CAP defines a control strategy that the air district and its partners will implement to reduce emissions and decrease ambient concentrations of harmful pollutants, safeguard public health by reducing exposure to air pollutants that pose the greatest health risk, with an emphasis on protecting the communities most heavily impacted by air pollution, and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to protect the climate. Additionally, the CAP also will act as a legal impetus for the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy update. AC Transit East Bay BRT Project FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
4.12.1.3 Air Quality Conformity Under the 1990 CAA amendments, the U.S. Department of Transportation cannot fund, authorize, or approve federal actions to support programs or projects that are not first found to conform to CAA requirements. A conformity determination demonstrates that total emissions projected for a plan or program are within the emissions limits established by the air quality plan or SIP, and that transportation control measures are implemented in a timely fashion. FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) jointly make conformity determinations within air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas to ensure that federal actions conform to the purpose of SIPs. In late 1993, EPA promulgated final rules for determining conformity of transportation plans, programs, and projects. These final rules, contained in 40 CFR Part 93, govern the conformity assessment for the proposed project. See Section 4.12.3 for the conformity criteria that would apply to this project. 4.12.1.4 Affected Environment Climate The Bay Area can be classified as a Mediterranean climate, characterized by cool, dry summers and mild, wet winters. The Eastern Pacific High, which is a strong persistent anticyclone, is the major influence on the climate in the Bay Area. Seasonal variations in the position and strength of this system are a key factor in producing weather changes. During the summer, the general area lies in the semipermanent high pressure zone of the northeastern Pacific Ocean. Because the high pressure cell prevents storms from affecting the California coast, the Bay Area experiences little precipitation during the summer months. During the winter, the high pressure cell weakens and shifts southward. Storms occur more frequently and winds are usually moderate; however, the Pacific high pressure cell periodically becomes dominant, bringing light winds. Temperature in the project area and its vicinity averages approximately 57 degrees Fahrenheit annually, with an average maximum summer temperature of approximately 70 degrees Fahrenheit and an average minimum winter temperature of approximately 44 degrees Fahrenheit. Total precipitation in the project area averages approximately 21 inches annually. Precipitation occurs mostly during the winter and relatively infrequently during the summer. Precipitation during the winter is approximately 11.5 inches and approximately 0.25 inches during the summer. 4.12.1.5 Existing Conditions Air Monitoring Data Historical data from four BAAQMD monitoring stations were used to characterize existing conditions within the vicinity of the project area and to establish a baseline for estimating future conditions. Two of the monitoring stations are located in proximity to the proposed BRT alignment, including Oakland – International, and San Leandro County Hospital. The Oakland – Alice Monitoring Station was previously used to characterize air quality conditions. However, this monitoring station is no longer active.
4.12-9
The pollutants monitored at these stations and the distance of these stations from the proposed BRT alignment are shown in Table 4.12-2. The nearest monitoring station that monitors PM2.5 and PM10 is the Berkeley - Sixth and Camelia monitoring station, located 2.5 miles from the proposed BRT alignment. Another monitoring station that monitors PM2.5 and PM10 for periods not available from the Berkeley - Sixth and Camelia monitoring station is the San Francisco – Arkansas monitoring station. Because both the Berkeley - Sixth and Camelli and San Francisco Arkansas stations are within the same climatological subregion as the project area, they accurately characterize existing PM2.5 and PM10 conditions in the project area. Table 4.12-2. Pollutants Monitored at Air Monitoring Stations Near Proposed BRT Alignment Monitoring Station
Oakland – International
O3, CO, NO2, SOx1
9925 International Boulevard, Oakland
1544 Foothill Boulevard, San Leandro
O3, PM2.5 , PM10, CO, NO2, SOx1
1340 Sixth St, Berkely
PM2.5 , PM10,
10 Arkansas Street, San Francisco
San Leandro County Hospital Berkeley – Sixth and Camellia San Francisco – Arkansas
Distance to BRT Alignment Adjacent to Proposed BRT Alignment
Notes: 1 The San Francisco – Arkansas monitoring station also monitors O3, CO, NOX, and SOX, but is used only to characterize PM2.5. and PM10 Source: CARB.
Summaries of the data recorded at the monitoring stations during the 2006 to 2010 period are shown in Table 4.12-3. The number of days that violations occurred is listed for each year. The one-hour ozone standard was exceeded at least once each year from 2006 to 2010. In addition, PM2.5 violations occurred on average of three days during the reporting period. If the maximum concentrations, or number of days these violations occurred, were not available from CARB, they are indicated by “n/a” in the listing column.
4.12-10
Table 4.12-3. 2006 to 2010 Criteria Pollutant Violations Pollutant
Concentrations/Exceedance 2006 of Standards
Berkley – Sixth and Camellia Street Monitoring Station Ozone (1 Maximum 1-hr concentration hour) (ppm) 0.04 n/a Days > 0.12 ppm (federal 10 n/a hr standard) 0 n/a Days > 0.09 ppm (state 1-hr standard) Ozone (8 Maximum 8-hr concentration n/a 0.032 hour) (ppm) n/a 0 Days > 0.075 ppm (federal 8-hr standard) PM2.5 Maximum 24-hr n/a 23 concentration (µg/m3) Estimated days > 12 µg/m3 n/a n/a (state standard, arithmetic mean) Estimated days > 35 µg/m3 n/a n/a (federal 24-hr standard) PM10 Maximum 24-hr n/a 36 concentration (µg/m3) Estimated days > 50 µg/m3 n/a 0 (state 24-hr standard) Estimated days > 150 µg/m3 n/a 0 (federal 24-hr standard) Carbon Maximum 8-hr concentration Monoxide (ppm) 1.6 n/a Days > 9.0 ppm (federal 80 n/a hr. standard) 0 n/a Days > 9.0 ppm (state 8-hr standard) Nitrogen Maximum 1-hr concentration n/a 0.05 Dioxide (ppm) 0 Days > 0.18 ppm (state 1-hr n/a standard)
0.08 0 0
0.050 0
4.12-11
Concentrations/Exceedance 2006 of Standards Sulfur Maximum 24-hr Dioxide concentration (ppm) n/a Days > .14 ppm (federal 24n/a hr standard) n/a Days > .04 ppm (state 24-hr standard) Oakland – International Monitoring Station Ozone (1 Maximum 1-hr concentration hour) (ppm) n/a Days > 0.12 ppm (federal 1n/a hr standard) n/a Days > 0.09 ppm (state 1-hr standard) Ozone (8 Maximum 8-hr concentration n/a hour) (ppm) Days > 0.08 ppm (federal 8- n/a hr standard) Carbon Maximum 8-hr concentration Monoxide (ppm) n/a Days > 9 ppm (federal 8-hr. n/a standard) n/a Days > 9.0 ppm (state 8-hr standard) Nitrogen Maximum 1-hr concentration n/a Dioxide (ppm) Days > 0.18 ppm (state 1-hr n/a standard) Sulfur Maximum 24-hr Dioxide concentration (ppm) 0.006 Days > .14 ppm (federal 240 hr standard) 0 Days > .04 ppm (state 24-hr standard) San Leandro Monitoring Station Ozone (1 Maximum 1-hr concentration hour) (ppm) 0.09 Days > 0.12 ppm (federal 10 hr standard) 0 Days > 0.09 ppm (state 1-hr standard) Pollutant
0.09 0 0
0.009 0 0
0.10 0 1
0.003 0 0
4.12-12
Concentrations/Exceedance 2006 of Standards Ozone (8 Maximum 8-hr concentration 0.07 hour) (ppm) Days > 0.08 ppm (federal 8- 0 hr standard) San Francisco – Arkansas Monitoring Station PM2.5 Maximum 24-hr 54 concentration (µg/m3) Estimated days > 12 µg/m3 n/a (state standard, arithmetic mean) Estimated days > 35 µg/m3 3.1 (federal 24-hr standard) PM10 Maximum 24-hr 61 concentration (µg/m3) Estimated days > 50 µg/m3 17 (state 24-hr standard) Estimated days > 150 µg/m3 0 (federal 24-hr standard) Pollutant
Notes: n/a – number of days are not available Source: CARB.
Existing Localized CO Analysis for Project Area Intersections CO is a localized gas that dissipates very quickly under normal meteorological conditions. The highest CO concentrations are typically found along sidewalks directly adjacent to congested roadway intersections and decrease substantially as distance from the intersection increases. The localized CO analysis was conducted in accordance to the guidelines provided in the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. A worst-case simulation of existing CO concentrations within the project area was modeled near 12 intersections. The selected intersections are listed in Table 4.12-4. One-hour CO concentrations are approximately 4 parts per million (ppm) at worst-case sidewalk receptors; eight-hour CO concentrations range from approximately 2.8 ppm to 3.0 ppm at worst-case sidewalk receptors. Since CO is a localized gas that disperses quickly, CO concentrations at specific sensitive receptors are lower than concentrations immediately adjacent to the intersections. Presently, CO concentrations do not exceed the state and federal one-hour CO standards of 20 ppm and 35 ppm, respectively. CO concentrations also do not exceed the state and federal eight-hour CO standard of 9.0 ppm. Table 4.12-4. Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (Modeled for Existing Conditions)1 PPM Intersection
Federal CO Standard
California State CO Standard
Shattuck Avenue and University Avenue (East) Fulton Street and Bancroft Way Adeline Avenue and Ashby Street College Avenue and Claremont Avenue Telegraph Avenue and 40th Street Broadway and West Grand Avenue Foothill Boulevard and Fruitvale Avenue International Boulevard and Seminary Avenue International Boulevard and 66th Avenue International Boulevard and 73rd Avenue/Hegenberger Expressway International Boulevard and 98th Avenue East 14th Street and Davis Street/Callan Avenue
2.8 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.0 2.9
Notes: 1 All concentrations include one- and eight-hour ambient concentrations of 3 ppm and 2.4 ppm, respectively. Source: Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, 2010. AC Transit East Bay BRT Project FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Sensitive Receptors The following categories of people, as identified by CARB, are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children younger than 14, the elderly older than 65, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups are called sensitive receptors and include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, elementary schools, and parks. Numerous sensitive receptors are located along the project corridor, many of which are identified in Section 4.4, Community Impacts. These include residences, schools, recreational facilities, and medical facilities.
4.12.2 Methodology and Significance Criteria 4.12.2.1 Methodology The following calculation methods and estimation models were used to determine air quality impacts: Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s (SMAQMD) roadway construction emissions model (RoadMod) CARB’s EMFAC2007 emissions factor model USEPA’s CAL3QHC microscale dispersion model Regional Construction Emissions Construction emissions were analyzed based on guidance provided in BAAQMD’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.5 The BAAQMD recommends using the SMAQMD’s RoadMod to quantify construction emissions associated with roadway construction. RoadMod is a data entry spreadsheet that uses various sources to estimate construction emissions including OFFROAD2007 and EMFAC2007. Assumptions used for the construction calculations are as follows: Year 2016 start date 14. 38-mile corridor length 68-foot corridor width 16-month construction period A maximum of 13,000 square feet per day of land to be graded A maximum of 275 cubic yards per day of soil to be imported A maximum of 190 cubic yards per day of soil to be exported Regional Operational Emissions EMFAC2007 was used to calculate operational emissions. EMFAC2007 is the latest emission inventory model for motor vehicles operating on roads in California. This model reflects the 5
BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, June, 2010.
4.12-15
CARB’s current understanding of how vehicles travel and how much they pollute. The EMFAC2007 model can be used to show how California motor vehicle emissions have changed throghout time and are projected to change in the future. Emissions were calculated using average speeds described above, VMT presented in Table 4.12-5, and emissions rates provided by EMFAC2007. Table 4.12-5. Average Weekday VMT Scenario 2015 No Project 2015 Project 2035 No Project 2035 Project
Automobile 4,954,375 4,943,059 5,781,545 5,739,366
Source: Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, November 2010.
Emissions are presented for the years 2015 and 2035. The on-road mobile source calculations assumed a systemwide vehicle speed of 30 miles per hour for 2015, and 27 miles per hour for 2035, based on the average speed for the corridor as provided by the project-specific traffic assessment. Localized CO Emissions The localized CO analysis was conducted in accordance with the guidelines provided in Caltrans’ Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (Caltrans 1997). The intersections analyzed were selected based on their proximity to nearby sensitive receptors and high daily traffic volumes. Localized CO concentrations for these worst-case intersections were then calculated using EPA CAL3QHC dispersion model, which uses traffic volume inputs and CARB EMFAC2007 emissions factors.
4.12.2.2 Significance Criteria NEPA Adverse Impact Criteria According to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR §§ 1500-1508), the determination of a significant impact is a function of both context and intensity. Context means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human and national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant. Intensity refers to the severity of impact. To determine significance, the severity of the impact must be examined in terms of the type, quality, and sensitivity of the resource involved; the location of the proposed project; the duration of the effect (short- or long-term); and other consideration of context. Adverse impacts will vary with the setting of the proposed action and the surrounding area. The following are the significance criteria BAAQMD has established to determine project impacts under CEQA. CEQA Significance Thresholds BAAQMD’s approach to the CEQA analysis of construction-related fugitive dust impacts is to emphasize the implementation of effective and comprehensive control measures rather than a detailed quantification of emissions. PM10 is the pollutant of greatest concern with respect to construction activities. The BAAQMD CEQA guidelines provide feasible control measures for construction emissions of PM10.6 If the appropriate construction controls are to be implemented, then fugitive dust emissions for construction activities would be considered less than significant. In addition, the BAAQMD has identified the following thresholds for construction equipment exhaust emissions (Table 4.12-6). Table 4.12-6. Construction Emissions Thresholds Criteria Pollutant Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10)
Pounds per Day 54 54 54 (exhaust only) 82 (exhaust only)
Source: BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, June 2010.
According to the BAAQMD, a transportation project would cause a significant operational impact if the proposed project would cause a net increase in emissions, the proposed project would generate CO concentrations at study intersections that exceed the state one- and eighthour standards shown in Table 4.12-1, operational activity would create an odor nuisance, and/or the proposed project would not be consistent with the BAAQMD air quality plans.7
BAAQMD, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, June 2010. BAAQMD, Personal Communication, August 11, 2010.
4.12.3 LPA Impact Discussion 4.12.3.1 Operational Phase Impacts NEPA Operational Phase Impacts Regional Emissions Table 4.12-7 compares project corridor emissions under the No-Build Alternative and LPA. This analysis considers emissions from all vehicles in the corridor (not only buses). The LPA will decrease regional emissions because regional VMT will be reduced with project implementation; therefore, under NEPA, the LPA will result in a beneficial impact related to regional operational emissions. Table 4.12-7. Criteria Pollutant Emissions Comparison Criteria Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day) Scenario 2015 No-Build LPA Build vs. NoBuild 2035 No-Build LPA Build vs. NoBuild
22,817 22,765
5,134 5,122
1,954 1,940
1,797 1,784
Source: Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, 2010.
Toxic Air Contaminants The purpose of the proposed project is to improve transit operations in the East Bay area by constructing right-of-way to allow for BRT. The LPA has been determined to generate minimal air quality impacts for CAAA criteria pollutants and has not been linked with any special MSAT concerns. As such, the LPA will not result in any increases in traffic volumes, vehicle mix, basic project location, or any other factor that will cause an increase in MSAT impacts of the LPA from that of the No-Build Alternative. Moreover, EPA regulations for vehicle engines and fuels will cause overall MSAT emissions to decline significantly during the next several decades. Based on regulations now in effect, an analysis of national trends with EPA's MOBILE6.2 model forecasts a combined reduction of 72 percent in the total annual emission rate for the priority MSAT from 1999 to 2050 while VMT are projected to increase by 145 percent.8 This will both reduce the background level of MSAT 8
U.S. Department of Transportation, Interim Guidance Update on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents, September, 2009.
4.12-18
as well as the possibility of even minor MSAT emissions from the LPA; therefore, under NEPA, the LPA will not result in an adverse impact related to TAC emissions. NEPA Air Quality Conformity Analysis Regional Conformity The proposed project was included in the regional emissions analysis completed by the MTC for the conforming Transportation 2035 Plan. 9 The design concept and scope have not changed significantly from what was analyzed in the Transportation 2035 Plan. This analysis found that the plan and, therefore, the individual projects contained in the plan, are conforming projects and will have air quality impacts consistent with those identified in the SIP for achieving the NAAQS. FHWA determined the Transportation 2035 Plan to conform to the SIP in May, 2009.10 The proposed project also is included in the federal 2009 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The “open-to-the-public-year” is consistent with (within the same regional emission analysis period as) the construction completion date identified in the federal TIP and Transportation 2035 Plan. The federal TIP gives priority to eligible transportation control measures identified in the SIP and provides sufficient funds to provide for their implementation. FHWA and FTA determined the TIP to conform to the SIP on November 17, 2008. The LPA is consistent with regional conformity guidelines. Local Conformity The local conformity anlaysis includes an assessment of localized CO and particulate matter concentrations. CO Hotspot Analysis Revisions to the traffic analysis for the Final EIS/EIR have resulted in minor adjustments to peak hour intersection volumes. A detailed CO hotspot analysis was completed for the Draft EIS/EIR. The hotspot analysis covered the most congested intersections affected by the project in 2015 and 2035. The modeled CO concentrations shown in Tables 4.12-8 and 4.12-9 were well below state and federal standards. For example, one-hour modeled concentrations were approximately 3 parts per million (ppm), which is less than the federal and state standards of 35 and 20 ppm, respectively. Eight-hour modeled concentrations were approximately 2 ppm, which is less than the federal and state standards of 9 ppm. Thousands of new peak hour intersection trips would be needed to increase the CO concentration by 7.0 ppm. Peak hour volumes did not increase by more than 1,000 vehicles at any intersection and CO levels would still be well below federal and state standards. Therefore, the results of the CO analysis remain valid. CO concentrations would not cause or contribute to any new localized violations of the federal one-hour or eighthour CO ambient standards. 9
MTC, Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, April 2009. MTC, Personal Communication, July 21, 2010.
PM2.5/PM10 Hotspot Analysis Qualitative particulate matter hotspot analysis is required under EPA Transportation Conformity rule for Projects of Air Quality Concern (POAQC). Projects that are not POAQC are not required to complete a detailed particulate matter hotspot analysis. The LPA does not meet the definition of a POAQC as defined in EPA’s Transportation Conformity Guidance. The LPA will not increase the percentage of diesel vehicles on the roadway, does not involve a bus or rail terminal that significantly increases diesel vehicles, and is not identified in the SIP as a possible PM2.5 or PM10 violation site. The MTC has confirmed that the LPA is not considered a POAQC.11 A particulate matter hotspot analysis is not required. Table 4.12-8. Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (Modeled for 2015)1 1-Hour No-Build Alternative
8-Hour LPA
Shattuck Avenue and University Avenue (East)
Fulton Street and Bancroft Way
Adeline Avenue and Ashby Street 3 College Avenue and Claremont Avenue 3
Telegraph Avenue and 40 Street Broadway and West Grand Avenue Foothill Boulevard and Fruitvale Avenue International Boulevard and Seminary Avenue International Boulevard and 66th Avenue International Boulevard and 73rd Avenue/Hegenberger Expressway 11
MTC, Fund Management System, http://fms.mtc.ca.gov, accessed October 26, 2010.
1-Hour No-Build Alternative
International Boulevard and 98th Avenue East 14th Street and Davis Street/Callan Avenue
All concentrations include one- and eight-hour ambient concentrations of 2.2 ppm and 1.6 ppm, respectively. Source: Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, 2010.
Table 4.12-9. Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (Modeled for 2035)1 1-Hour
Federal CO Standard California State CO Standard
Adeline Avenue and Ashby Street 2 College Avenue and Claremont Avenue 1
No-Build Alternative LPA 9 9.0
Telegraph Avenue and 40th Street 2 Broadway and West Grand Avenue 2 Foothill Boulevard and Fruitvale Avenue 2 International Boulevard and Seminary Avenue 2 th International Boulevard and 66 Avenue 2 rd International Boulevard and 73 Avenue/Hegenberger Expressway 2
4.12-21
No-Build Alternative LPA
International Boulevard and 98 Avenue 2 2 1.1 1.1 th East 14 Street and Davis Street/Callan Avenue 2 2 1.1 1.1 1 All concentrations include one- and eight-hour ambient concentrations of 1.4 ppm and 1 ppm, respectively. Source: Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, 2010.
CEQA Operational Phase Impacts Criteria Pollutant Emissions Table 4.12-7 compares project corridor emissions under the No-Build Alternative and LPA. This analysis considers emissions from all vehicles in the corridor (not only buses). Implementation of the LPA will reduce regional VMT and associated regional emissions; therefore, under CEQA, the LPA will result in a less-than-significant impact related to operational emissions. Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Overall CO concentrations in year 2015 and 2035 are expected to be lower than existing conditions due to stringent state and federal mandates for lowering vehicle emissions. Although future traffic volumes will be higher, these increases will be offset by cleaner-running vehicles. Year 2015 CO concentrations at the 12 selected intersections are shown in Table 4.12-8. Year 2035 CO concentrations are shown in Table 4.12-9. The state and federal one- and eight-hour CO standards will not be exceeded at worst-case sidewalk receptor locations or the sensitive receptors closest to the roadway intersections; therefore, the LPA will result in less-thansignificant impact related to future CO concentrations. Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions The BAAQMD prioritizes TAC-emitting stationary sources based on the quantity and toxicity of the TAC emissions and the proximity of the facilities to sensitive receptors. The purpose of the proposed project is to improve transit operations along the corridor by constructing right-of-way to allow BRT. The LPA will decrease regional criteria pollutant emissions and has not been linked with any special TAC concerns. In addition, the LPA will not increase regional traffic volumes or substantially change the regional fleet mix; therefore, under CEQA, the LPA will result in a less-than-significant impact related to TAC emissions.
4.12-22
Odor Emissions Land uses and industrial operations that are associated with odor complaints include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants. The LPA does not include any land use or activity that typically generates adverse odors; therefore, under CEQA, the LPA will result in a less-thansignificant impact related to odor emissions. 4.12.3.2 DOSL Impacts The DOSL Alternative will not result in additional impacts than what is proposed for the LPA.
4.12-23
4.13 Noise and Vibration 4.13.1 Introduction to Analysis/Methodology 4.13.1.1 Noise Methodology and Criteria Noise is defined as loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired sound. Human environments are characterized by a generally consistent noise level that varies with each area. This is called ambient noise. The response of individuals to similar noise events is diverse and influenced by the type of noise, perceived importance of the noise, and its appropriateness in the setting, time of day, and type of activity that the noise occurs during; sensitivity of the individual; and change from ambient conditions. Noise Metrics Sound is characterized by several variables including frequency and intensity. Frequency describes the sound’s pitch and is measured in cycles per second, or hertz (Hz), whereas intensity describes the sound’s loudness and is measured in decibels (dB). Decibels are measured using a logarithmic scale. The minimum change in the sound level of individual events that an average human ear can detect is about 3 dB. The average person perceives a change in sound level of about 10 dB as a doubling (or halving) of the sound’s loudness; this relation holds true for sounds of any loudness. The normal human ear can detect sounds that range in frequency from about 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz; however, all sounds in this wide range of frequencies are not heard equally well by the human ear. This frequency dependence can be taken into account by applying a correction to each frequency range to approximate the sensitivity of the human ear within each range. This is called A-weighting and is commonly used in measurements of community environmental noise. The Aweighted sound pressure level (abbreviated as dBA) is the sound level with the A-weighting frequency correction. Community noise levels usually change continuously during the day. The equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level (Leq) is normally used to describe community noise. The Leq is the energy-averaged A-weighted sound level during a measured time interval and is equal to the level of a continuous steady sound containing the same total acoustical energy during the averaging time period as the actual time-varying sound. Another sound measure known as the Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn) is an adjusted average Aweighted sound level for a 24-hour day. It is calculated by adding a 10-dBA adjustment to sound levels during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). This adjustment compensates for the increased sensitivity to noise during the typically quieter nighttime hours. The Ldn and Leq are used by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to evaluate land use compatibility with regard to noise. Table 4.13-1 illustrates typical A-weighted sound pressure levels for various noise sources and noise environments.
Table 4.13-1. Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments
Noise Source (at Given Distance)
Human Judgment of Noise Loudness (Relative to Reference Loudness of 70 Decibels*)
Military Jet Take-off with Afterburner (50 ft)
128 times as loud
Civil Defense Siren (100 ft)
Commercial Jet Take-off (200 ft)
32 times as loud Threshold of Pain
8 times as loud Very Loud
Pile Driver (50 ft)
Rock Music Concert Inside Subway Station (New York)
Ambulance Siren (100 ft) Newspaper Press (5 ft) Gas Lawn Mower (3 ft) Food Blender (3 ft) Propeller Plane Flyover (1,000 ft) Diesel Truck (150 ft)
Boiler Room Printing Press Plant
Garbage Disposal (3 ft)
Higher Limit of Urban Ambient Sound
Reference Loudness Moderately Loud
Passenger Car, 65 mph (25 ft) Living Room Stereo (15 ft) Vacuum Cleaner (10 ft) Normal Conversation (5 ft) Air Conditioning Unit (100 ft)
Data Processing Center Department Store
Light Traffic (100 ft)
Large Business Office Quiet Urban Daytime
Bird Calls (distant)
1/8 as loud Quiet
Soft Whisper (5 ft)
Library and Bedroom at Night Quiet Rural Nighttime
1/32 as loud Just Audible
1/64 as loud
1/128 as loud Threshold of Hearing
Source: Compiled by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
4.13-2
Noise Impact Criteria Noise impact for this project is based on the criteria defined in the FTA guidance manual Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA-VA-90-1003-06. May 2006). FTA noise impact criteria are founded on well-documented research on community reaction to noise and are based on change in noise exposure using a sliding scale. Although more transit noise is allowed in neighborhoods with high levels of existing noise, smaller increases in total noise exposure are allowed with increasing levels of existing noise. Noise sensitive land uses are grouped into three categories, as described in Table 4.13-2. Table 4.13-1. Land Use Categories and Metrics for Transit Noise Impact Criteria Land Use Category
Noise Metric, dBA
Description of Land Use Category
Outdoor Leq(h)*
Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element in their intended purpose. This category includes lands set aside for serenity and quiet and such land uses as outdoor amphitheaters and concert pavilions as well as national historic landmarks with significant outdoor use.
Outdoor Ldn
Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This category includes homes, hospitals, and hotels where a nighttime sensitivity to noise is assumed to be of utmost importance.
Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category includes schools, libraries, and churches where it is important to avoid interference with such activities as speech, meditation, and concentration on reading material. Buildings with interior spaces where quiet is important, such as medical offices, conference rooms, recording studios, and concert halls fall into this category. Places for meditation or study associated with cemeteries, monuments, and museums. Certain historical sites, parks, and recreational facilities also are included.
Source: FTA 2006 Note: * Leq for the noisiest hour of transit-related activity during hours of noise sensitivity.
The FTA guidance manual provides three levels of criteria for assessment of noise impact from transit projects: No Impact, Moderate Impact, and Severe Impact. FTA noise impact thresholds, as indicated in Figures 4.13-1 and 4.13-2, are based on the increase of the existing ambient noise level associated with operations of the proposed project or in combination with other new planned projects (i.e., cumulative impact). FTA guidelines specify a particular noise metric to be used depending on the specific land use (e.g., residential). The Ldn is typically used for residential uses. There are two levels of impact included in FTA criteria, as summarized below:
4.13-3
Severe Impact Severe noise impacts are considered “significant” as this term is used in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and implementing regulations. Noise mitigation will normally be specified for severe impact areas unless there is no practical method of mitigating the noise. Impact (Moderate Impact) In this range of noise impact, other project-specific factors must be considered to determine the magnitude of the impact and the need for mitigation. These other factors can include the predicted increase of existing noise levels, the types and number of noise-sensitive land uses affected, existing outdoor-indoor sound insulation, and the cost effectiveness of reducing noise to more acceptable levels. In this environmental document, noise impacts within the impact range of FTA criteria will be referred to as moderate impacts to clearly differentiate them from impacts within the severe range. Figure 4.13-1 shows that the criterion for impact allows a noise exposure increase of 10 dBA if the existing noise exposure is 42 dBA or less but only a 1 dBA increase when the existing noise exposure is 70 dBA. As the existing level of ambient noise increases, the allowable absolute level of project noise increases, but the total allowable increase in community noise exposure is reduced. Thresholds for increases in cumulative noise levels are illustrated in Figure 4.13-2.
4.13-4
Source: FTA 2006
Figure 4.13-1. FTA Noise Impact Criteria for Transit Projects
4.13-5
Figure 4.13-2. Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed by FTA Criteria 4.13.1.2 Vibration Methodology and Criteria Vibration is defined as any oscillatory motion induced in a structure or mechanical device as a direct result of some type of applied force or displacement. Sources of earthborne vibrations include natural phenomena (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides, etc.) or manmade (explosions, machinery, traffic, construction equipment, etc.). Displacement, in the case of a vibrating floor, is simply the distance that a point on the floor moves away from its static position. The velocity represents the instantaneous speed of the floor movement and acceleration is the rate of change of the speed. The response of humans, buildings, and equipment to vibration is normally described using velocity or acceleration. FTA uses the abbreviation “VdB” for vibration decibels to reduce the potential for confusion with sound decibel. Figure 4.13-3 illustrates common vibration sources and the human and structural responses to ground-borne vibration. As illustrated, the threshold of perception for human response is approximately 65 dB; however, human response to vibration is not usually significant unless the vibration exceeds 70 dB. Vibration tolerance limits for sensitive instruments such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or electron microscopes could be much lower than the human vibration perception threshold.
4.13-6
Figure 4.13-3.Typical Levels of Groundborne Vibration Vibration Impact Criteria Table 4.13-3 presents FTA vibration impact criteria for various land use categories. The criteria are based in part on the frequency of events and related to groundborne vibration that can cause human annoyance or interference with the use of vibration-sensitive equipment. The criteria for acceptable ground-borne vibration are expressed in terms of root mean square (RMS) velocity levels in VdB and are based on the maximum levels for a single event (Lmax).
4.13-7
Sensitive receptors along the project corridor include single-family and multi-family residences, hotels, schools, and parks. These fall under Category 2, places where people normally sleep and Category 3, institutional land uses with primarily daytime use. Table 4.13-3. FTA Ground-borne Vibration Criteria for General Assessment Land Use Category
80 VdB
83 VdB
Notes: 1. "Frequent Events" is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most rapid transit projects fall into this category. 2. “Occasional Events” is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. Most commuter trunk lines have this many operations. 3. "Infrequent Events" is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind per day. This category includes most commuter rail branch lines. 4. This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building often requires special design of the Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems and stiffened floors. 5. Vibration-sensitive equipment is generally not sensitive to ground-borne noise. VdB re 1 micro-inch/second Source: FTA 2006
FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006) provides a procedure to determine whether or not a transit project requires a vibration analysis. Transit projects that involve rubber tire vehicles rarely show potential for vibration impacts and do not require vibration analysis. Three factors are checked to determine if there is potential for vibration impacts from bus projects: 1. Will there be expansion joints, speed bumps, or other design features that result in unevenness in the road surface near vibration-sensitive buildings? Such irregularities can result in perceptible ground-borne vibration at distances up to 75 feet away. 2. Will buses, trucks, or other heavy vehicles be operating close to a sensitive building? Research using electron microscopes and manufacturing of computer chips are examples of vibration sensitive activities. 3. Does the project include operation of vehicles inside or directly underneath buildings that are vibration-sensitive? Special considerations are often required for shared use facilities such as bus stations located inside an office building complex. Projects that do not include any of those three conditions are exempt from vibration analysis. Projects that do include one of the factors are then screened for distances from vibrationAC Transit East Bay BRT Project Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report
4.13-8
sensitive land uses. For bus projects, the vibration source must be a minimum of 100 feet from Category 1 land uses and 50 feet from Category 2 land uses. No distances are specified for Category 3.
4.13.2 Affected Environment 4.13.2.1 Existing Noise Noise-sensitive receptors are land uses associated with indoor and/or outdoor activities that may be subject to stress and/or significant interference from noise, such as residential dwellings, transient lodging (hotels/motels), dormitories, hospitals, educational facilities, and libraries. Industrial and commercial land uses are generally not considered sensitive to noise. Different categories of land uses are located along the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and the shorter Downtown Oakland-San Leandro (DOSL) Alternative. In general, the northern segment of the proposed project, which includes downtown Berkeley and the University of California, Berkeley, has a higher concentration of school zones. The central segment consisting of downtown Oakland is more commercial. The southern segment from downtown Oakland to San Leandro contains stretches of commercial and residential areas and school zones. These land uses are located approximately 50 to 300 feet from the centerline of the alignment. The existing sound level at any given location depends on the distance to a roadway, proximity to commercial and neighborhood noise sources, and intervening structures and topography. An ambient noise level survey was conducted in March 2010 and May 2010 to estimate the existing noise environment within the vicinity of the proposed improvements. Measurement locations were selected to represent the various noise-sensitive land uses in the study area and included single-family residential, multifamily residential, and educational land uses. Five unattended long-term (24-hour) noise measurements and 14 attended short-term (20-minute) measurements were conducted near exterior noise-sensitive areas. The long-term measurement locations are designated as LTA – LTE, and are depicted on the Noise Analysis Figures located in Appendix D. The short-term measurements were taken during the daytime period (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.). The short-term measurements are designated as STA – STP, and are depicted on Noise Analysis Figures located within Appendix D. The results of these measurements are summarized in Tables 4.13-4 and 4.13-5 The existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed project correspond to an urban area with vehicular traffic on the adjacent roads. It should be noted that LTA and LTB as identified in the table are located within the LPA only; and LTC, LTD, and LTE are located within both the LPA and DOSL Alternative.
4.13-9
Table 4.13-4. Long-Term Noise Measurements (dBA) LTA
Duplex Residence 5802/5804 Telegraph Avenue, Oakland
First Baptist Church 534 22nd Street, Oakland
Bancroft House 2330 Durant Avenue, Oakland
Allen Temple Arms 8135 International Boulevard, Oakland
Single-Family Residence 408 East 14th Street San Leandro
2/16/2010 – 2/17/2010
2/17/2010 – 2/18/2010
5/4/2010 – 5/5/2010
4.13-10
Average Leq =
Ldn =
Note: Measurements at LTA and LTE were prematurely stopped due to equipment malfunction. The long-term measurement locations are depicted as LTA – LTE on Figures located within Appendix D
4.13-11
Table 4.13-5. Short-Term Roadway Noise Measurements (dBA) Measurement Location
St. Mark Building (MFR)
02/16/10 16:15 16:35 64.7
534 22nd Street
02/17/10 08:20 08:40 69.8
5802/5804 Telegraph Avenue
02/17/10 09:20 09:40 68.4
2401 Bancroft Way
02/17/10 10:25 10:45 64.9
02/17/10 15:55 16:15 65.2
5462 International Boulevard
02/18/10 09:15 09:35 68.5
2555 International Boulevard
Hismen Hin-Nu Terrace (MFR)
02/18/10 10:15 10:35 68.9
318 International Boulevard
02/18/10 11:55 12:15 65.5
2330 Durant Avenue
Bancroft House (Institutional)
02/18/10 13:00 13:20 63.9
05/04/10 10:05 10:25 68.1
6599 International Boulevard
Lockwood Gardens Community
05/04/10 11:15 11:35 67.9
East Bay Gospel Mission Church
05/04/10 12:25 12:45 72.0
05/04/10 15:35 15:55 66.9
02/16/10 15:10 15:30 64.5
4.13-12
Telegraph Avenue STM
4401 Telegraph Avenue
Residential over Office Oakland
05/04/10 16:20 16:40 66.3
1400 37th Avenue
05/05/10 09:20 09:40 69.2
408 East 14th Street
05/04/10 10:10 10:30 66.3
3143/3145 Telegraph Avenue
05/05/10 11:20 11:40 67.8
The short-term measurement locations are depicted as STA – STP on Figures located in Appendix D.
4.13.2.2 Existing Vibration The proposed project was screened for potential vibration impacts in accordance with the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. There will not be expansion joints, speed bumps, or other design features that result in unevenness in the road surface near vibration-sensitive buildings. There are no known vibration sensitive manufacturing or research land uses close to BRT buses operating in the dedicated transit lanes (approximately 76% of the LPA alignment and 82% of the DOSL alignment) or in mixed-flow traffic lanes. Dedicated transit lanes are proposed for reconstruction to provide a smooth, stable and sturdy pavement surface. Improvements will also be made to mixed-flow traffic lanes used by BRT buses where appropriate to remove substandard pavement and provide a smooth and sturdy pavement surface. The proposed BRT bus for the project will be similar to buses that operate along the project alignment currently. Approximately 60-foot long, articulated, three-axle buses provide service today. During the peak, nine buses per hour currently operate in each direction. They will be replaced by similarly sized buses when the project opens for revenue service in or around 2016. (Note: The BRT prototype bus will include several new features such as hybrid propulsion and doors on both the left and right side of the vehicle; but continue to be articulated with three axles, one providing propulsion.) During the peak, up to 12 buses per hour will operate in each direction. Buses will not operate inside or directly underneath buildings that are vibration sensitive. Buses have rubber tires and suspension systems that isolate vibrations from the ground. A screening evaluation was performed, incorporating the environmental factors and characteristics of bus operations described above, to determine whether BRT buses might generate vibrations affecting land uses adjacent to the proposed project alignment. The screening procedure did not identify any areas AC Transit East Bay BRT Project Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report
4.13-13
where operational vibration impacts have the possibility to create a significant impact. Therefore, a more detailed assessment of impacts is not warranted per FTA guidance (FTA 2006).
4.13.3 Environmental Consequences 4.13.3.1 Noise Impacts An analysis was conducted of the effect of the LPA on traffic noise conditions. Future build traffic noise levels were compared with existing No-Build traffic noise levels. The 2015 NoBuild traffic volumes were used as the existing condition. The 2015 LPA traffic volumes were used as the future condition. The p.m. volumes were generally greater than a.m. volumes; therefore, p.m. peak-hour turning movements were used for the analysis. Implementation of the LPA also will result in the redistribution of some non-bus vehicular traffic from the proposed project alignment roadway to intersecting and/or parallel roadways. The NoBuild and LPA p.m. peak-hour traffic volumes along off-alignment segments affected by the proposed project were compared. Segments predicted to experience a vehicle increase of less than 50 percent were considered acoustically insignificant and omitted from the analysis. Segments predicted to experience a vehicle increase of 50 percent or more were analyzed at the level of detail applied to on-alignment segments. BRT noise levels were projected based on field measurements of the Van Hool buses currently used by AC Transit (Parson 2006). The operating times, headways, and other aspects of bus rapid transit (BRT) and local bus operations are based on the operating plan described in Section 2.3.2, Locally Preferred Alternative. Table 4.13-6 shows traffic noise levels, with and without the LPA, respectively. Note that all noise levels are rounded to the nearest decibel. The 2015 No-Build noise level dictates FTA criteria for Moderate and Severe impacts; these criteria, and the distances from the outer lanes to these thresholds, also are shown in the table. Distances of less than 10 feet were assumed to include only roadway and sidewalk and were not reported. Distances to Moderate or Severe impact criteria of less than 25 feet were assumed to result in no impacts because this area typically includes only parking, right-of-way, and sidewalks; no noise-sensitive areas are located within 25 feet of the center of the outer lanes. Generally, the project will reduce noise levels along the alignment because future traffic volumes with the project are lower than future traffic volumes without the project (See Section 3.2, Vehicular Traffic). As shown in Table 3.14-6, there are no Category 1, 2, or 3 impacts; therefore, no significant impact will occur as a result of the project. The DOSL Alternative consists of the southern portion of the LPA, truncated at the 20th Street station in Oakland. In other respects, the DOSL Alternative is identical to the LPA. Because no impacts will occur as a result of the LPA and because the DOSL Alternative does not include any features or improvements that would result in higher noise emissions than the LPA, it is concluded that no impacts would occur as a result of the DOSL Alternative.
Table 4.13-6.Summary of Noise Impacts for Project Roadways 2015 Categories Distance from Distance from 2015 Category 3 No1 and 2 Outer Lane to Outer Lane to Degree Build Criteria: Build Criteria: Noise Impact Noise Impact Noise (M)oderate/ of Contours (feet) Contours (feet) Noise (M)oderate/ Impact Level (S)evere Level (S)evere (dBA) (dBA) Moderate Severe Moderate Severe (dBA) (dBA)
Bancroft Way Durant Avenue
Shattuck Avenue - Fulton Street
Fulton Street Telegraph Avenue
Shattuck Avenue - Oxford Street
Oxford Street Ellsworth Avenue
Ellsworth Avenue - Dana Street
Dana Street Telegraph Avenue
Shattuck Avenue - Telegraph Avenue
2015 Categories Distance from Distance from 2015 Category 3 No1 and 2 Outer Lane to Outer Lane to Degree Build Criteria: Build Criteria: Noise Impact Noise Impact Noise (M)oderate/ of Contours (feet) Contours (feet) Noise (M)oderate/ Impact Level (S)evere Level (S)evere (dBA) (dBA) Moderate Severe Moderate Severe (dBA) (dBA)
Durant Avenue Haste Street
Haste Street Dwight Way
Dwight Way Blake Street
Blake Street Derby Street
Derby Street Russell Street
Russell Street Ashby Avenue
Ashby Avenue Webster Street
Webster Street -
Woolsey Street Alcatraz Avenue
Alcatraz Avenue Aileen Street
Aileen Street 56th Street
56th Street - 55th Street
55th Street - 52nd Street
52nd Street - 51st Street
51st Street - 50th Street
50th Street - 48th Street
48th Street - 47th Street
47th Street - 46th Street
46th Street - 45th Street
45th Street - 42nd Street
42nd Street - 40th Street
40th Street - W. MacArthur Boulevard
W. MacArthur Boulevard Hawthorne Avenue
Hawthorne Avenue - 29th Street
29th Street - 27th Street
4.13-18
27th Street - W Grand Avenue
W Grand Avenue - 20th Street
20th Street - 14th Street
14th Street - 12th Street
12th Street - 11th Street
Broadway - Oak Street
2nd Avenue - 4th Avenue
4th Avenue - 5th Avenue
5th Avenue - 8th
8th Avenue - 14th Avenue (West)
14th Avenue (West) - Fruitvale Avenue
1st Avenue - 2nd
2nd - 4th Avenue
5th Avenue - 7th Avenue
7th Avenue - 8th Avenue
International 8th Avenue - 10th Boulevard
10th - 13th Avenue
13th Avenue 14th Avenue (East)
14th Avenue (East) - 19th Avenue
19th Avenue 22nd Avenue
22nd Avenue 23rd Avenue
23rd Avenue 29th Avenue
29th Avenue Fruitvale Avenue
Fruitvale Avenue - 34th Avenue
34th Avenue 35th Avenue
35th Avenue 36th Avenue
4.13-21
36th Avenue 38th Avenue
38th Avenue 42nd Avenue
42nd Avenue High Street
International High Street - 46th Boulevard Avenue
International 46th Avenue Boulevard Seminary Avenue
International Seminary Avenue Boulevard - 66th Avenue
66th Avenue Hegenberger Expressway
International Hegenberger Boulevard Expressway - 81st Avenue International Boulevard
81st Avenue 82nd Avenue
4.13-22
82nd Avenue 85th Avenue
85th Avenue 90th Avenue
90th Avenue 98th Avenue
98th Avenue 105th Avenue
Durant Broadmoor
Dutton Avenue Haas Avenue
Haas Avenue Hays Street
Hays Street Davis Street
Davis Street Estudillo Avenue
Estudillo Avenue - San Leandro
4.13-23
E 12th Street International Boulevard
70/73 -
4.13-24
4.13.3.2 Vibration Impacts The proposed project was screened for vibration impacts in accordance with FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. See Section 4.13.2.2 (Existing Vibration) for additional background on screening justification/analysis. Because buses have rubber tires and suspension systems that isolate vibrations from the ground, vibration impact assessment was not warranted (FTA, 2006).
4.13.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures 4.13.4.1 Noise There are no moderate or severe impacts for category 1, 2 or 3 land uses associated with the LPA or DOSL Alternative; therefore, no avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. The Draft EIS/ EIR identified one area along that alignment that would be affected by noise levels at the moderate level. This area was identified as Durant Avenue between Shattuck Avenue and Telegraph Avenue. BRT service in dedicated lanes is no longer part of the LPA in this area; therefore, the impacts no longer apply. 4.13.4.2 Vibration No vibration impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project; therefore, no avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are proposed.
4.13-25
4.14 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.14.1 Introduction to Analysis/Methodology This section summarizes the anticipated change in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with operation of the East Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project. GHGs have the potential to affect the environment because these emissions are believed to cumulatively contribute to global climate change. While there is uncertainty about the localized climate impacts of anthropogenic GHG emissions1, the approach taken for this project compares the anticipated corridor GHG emissions that would be generated under the No-Build and the Build Alternatives, including the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and the Downtown Oakland-San Leandro (DOSL) Alternative. In accordance with the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines Section 15064.4(b)(3), this analysis focuses on whether the each alternative’s GHG emissions will have a “cumulatively considerable” impact on global climate change.
4.14.2 Legal and Regulatory Context California Assembly Bill 1493 (Pavley) enacted on July 22, 2002, required the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop and adopt regulations that reduce GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. On September 24, 2009, CARB adopted amendments to the “Pavley” regulations that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in new passenger vehicles from 2009 through 2016. These amendments are part of California’s commitment to meet federal standards that will reduce new passenger vehicle GHGs from 2012 through 2016. The amendments also will prepare California to harmonize its rules with the federal rules for passenger vehicles. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted California the authority to implement GHG emission reduction standards for new passenger cars, pickup trucks, and sport utility vehicles on June 30, 2009. On April 1, 2010, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and EPA issued new fuel economy standards under NHTSA's Corporate Average Fuel Economy program and GHG standards under the Clean Air Act for 2012 through 2016 model-year vehicles. NHTSA established fuel economy standards that strengthen each year reaching an estimated 34.1 mpg for the combined industry-wide passenger car and light duty truck fleet for model year 2016. The EPA standards, which include credits for air conditioning improvements, require that by the 2016 model-year manufacturers must achieve a combined average vehicle emission level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile (equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon [mpg]). 2
4.14.3 Methodology For the purposes of this analysis, all emission outputs are presented in metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2). Total GHG emissions from on-road mobile sources are roughly 95 percent CO2 with methane, nitrous oxide, and HFCs3 making up the remaining five percent. These other 1
Anthropogenic GHG emissions refers to greenhouse gas emissions derived from human activity. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Light Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule. http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/CAFE-GHG_MY_2012-2016_Final_Rule_FR.pdf 3 HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons), are organic compounds used as refrigerants in auto air-conditioning systems. 2
greenhouse gases are not included explicitly in the analysis results. CARB’s EMFAC2007 model was used to calculate CO2 emission factors for motor vehicles by average operating speed for use in estimating total corridor on-road transportation CO2 emissions associated with the East Bay BRT Project. EMFAC2007 (version 2.30) is the latest emission inventory model that calculates emission inventories for motor vehicles operating on roads in California. This model reflects CARB current understanding of how vehicles travel and how much they pollute. Since EMFAC2007 does not consider the recently implemented Pavley I clean car standards or the Low Carbon Fuel Standard in California, adjustments were made to account for these standards after the EMFAC runs were completed. CARB has created a postprocessor for EMFAC that adjusts for these new standards, but it does not accept emission factors by speed. The emission factors were applied to total corridor vehicle miles traveled across all vehicle types under each alternative. Average weekday VMT and speeds were provided by the travel demand model. GHG analyses were performed for opening year 2015 and for 2035. CO2 emissions were calculated for transit vehicles separately. Annual bus VMT and fuel efficiency for the LPA, DOSL, and No-Build Alternatives were obtained from the AC Transit corridor operations plan.4,5 Annual vehicle miles for the DOSL Alternative include the No-Build operating assumption in 2015 and 2035 for Route 1 and 1R form downtown Oakland to downtown Berkeley BART. The specific values used for this analysis are presented in Table 4.14-1 and explained below. Table 4.14-1. Transit Operating and Fuel Economy Assumptions No-Build and Build Operating Assumptions Annual Vehicle Miles Fuel Economy (miles/gallon diesel)
Year No-Build LPA 2015 1,563,094 1,848,521 2035 1,563,094 1,904,371 2015 4.22 4.22 2035 4.56 4.56
DOSL Alternative 1,687,574 1,732,988 4.22 4.56
The GHG analysis requires assumptions about the type of BRT vehicle to be operated and the fuel economy it will achieve. According to AC Transit maintenance staff, the fuel economy of a the existing Van Hool articulated bus running on the 1/1R routes varies from 2.95 mpg to 3.54 mpg. AC Transit is currently planning to procure new diesel-electric hybrid buses by year 2015. Although the exact make and model to be operated is still to be determined, AC Transit will be providing a 60-foot articulated diesel-electric hybrid buses with doors on both sides for this new East Bay BRT service. A similar type of bus achieved 4.22 mpg in a test run in the Cleveland, Ohio area. 6 This would be a 19 percent improvement over the high end of the fuel economy of 4
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Prepared for AC Transit. East Bay Bus Rapid Transit Project: Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimating Methodology and Results Report. September 2010 (Rev 2.0). 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. prepared for AC Transit. East Bay Bus Rapid Transit Project: Operations and Maintenance Cost Estimating Methodology and Results Report –Oakland to San Leandro BART Alternative. November 2010 (Rev. 10). 6 New Flyer Model DE 60 LFA GCRTA Fuel Range Test, January 2007. Conducted by the Pennsylvania Transportation Institute and the Bus Testing and Research Center. AC Transit East Bay BRT Project Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report
4.14-2
the current diesel articulated buses, which is consistent with a 14 to 25 percent improvement reported in a recent assessment of hybrid-electric transit bus technologies.7 BRT buses should achieve a fuel economy on the higher end of the range compared to existing articulated bus service as stops and starts are more limited and travel speeds are more uniform. The analysis for both the No-Build and Build Alternatives in 2015 assumes the same average fuel economy (Route 1R already operates as a limited stop service, hybrid buses would be acquired in either case, and there is no specific justification for an alternate fuel economy estimate). The 2035 scenario assumes improved fuel economy for the buses based on the Department of Energy’s Annual Energy Outlook 2011 forecast of heavy-duty vehicle fuel efficiency improvements of 8 percent between 2009 and 2035. This 8 percent improvement is applied to the 4.22 mpg used for 2015 to estimate a fuel economy of 4.56 mpg in 2035. The transit vehicle fuel economies are converted to CO2 emission factors using a standard carbon content of diesel fuel (10.15 kg CO2/gallon). The annual VMT is multiplied by the emission factors to calculate total CO2 emissions from buses.
4.14.4 Affected Environment Direct CO2 emissions from the No-Build Alternative are tied to the existing operating characteristics of AC Transit Route 1 and Route 1R and the VMT and speed forecasts for the corridor from the travel demand model in 2015. Total bus vehicle miles include bus revenue miles and deadheading. Total annual CO2 emissions are calculated based on the assumptions detailed in the preceding section. Table 4.14-2 presents the 2015 No-Build conditions and emission results. Table 4.14-2. 2015 No-Build VMT and CO2 Emissions
2015 No-Build General traffic Buses 1
Annual VMT (1000s) 1,486,312 1,563
Average Speed 29.9 N/A1
CO2 Emissions Factor (g/mile) 444.6 2,405.2
Annual CO2 Emissions (metric tons) 660,774 3,760
Bus emissions factor assumes a constant 4.22 mpg fuel economy per information on a comparable diesel-electric hybrid currently operating in Cleveland.
In 2015, with implementation of either the LPA or DOSL Alternative compared to the No-Build, CO2 emissions from general traffic decrease as a result of change in corridor VMT; however, 73 percent of the CO2 reduction from general traffic is offset by new articulated bus emissions within the project corridor. For the DOSL Alternative, only 35 percent of the CO2 reduction 7
Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 132: Assessment of Hybrid-Electric Transit Bus Technology (2009). AC Transit East Bay BRT Project Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report
4.14-3
from general traffic is offset by new articulate bus emissions within the project corridor. Table 4.14-3 presents the CO2 emissions impact by alternative in 2015. Table 4.14-3. 2015 No-Build and Build CO2 Emissions Annual VMT (1000s) 2015 No-Build General traffic Buses 2015 LPA General traffic Buses 2015 DOSL Alternative General traffic Buses
CO2 Emissions Factor (g/mile)
Annual CO2 Emissions (metric tons)
1,486,312 1,563
29.9 N/A1
444.6 2,405.2
660,774 3,760
1,482,918 1,849
29.8 N/A2
445.0 2,405.2
659,830 4,446
1,483,900 1,688
29.9 N/A2
659,913 4,059
Based on the operating plan, the average speed of BRT buses in the 2015 p.m. peak is projected to be 13.3 miles an hour. For comparison, the average speed of Route 1R is estimated at 11.7 mph and Route 1 is estimated at 9.6 mph over the same distances and time period. The end result of this change in average speed on bus fuel economy is dependent on dwell time at stops and operating performance in mixed traffic portion of the corridor in Berkeley. For this analysis it is assumed that the overall fuel economy of the 1 and 1R buses in the No-Build Alternative versus the Build Alternatives is negligible.
In 2035, implementation of the Build Alternatives results in VMT reductions and associated CO2 emissions reductions that continue to outweigh the increase in total corridor bus transit CO2 emissions. Table 4.14-4 presents the change in 2035 between the No-Build and LPA or DOSL Alternative.
4.14-4
Table 4.14-4. 2035 No-Build and Build CO2 Emissions Annual VMT (1000s) 2035 No-Build General traffic Buses 2035 LPA General traffic Buses 2035 DOSL Alternative General traffic Buses 1
1,734,464 1,563
27.4 N/A1
340.1 2,227.0
589,954 3,481
1,721,810 1,904
340.3 2,227.0
585,976 4,241
1,725,997 1,733
340.2 2,227.0
587,154 3,859
Bus emissions factor assumes a constant 4.22 mpg fuel economy per information on a comparable diesel-electric hybrid currently operating in Cleveland
CO2 emission factors for passenger cars and light duty trucks operating in the corridor are estimated to decrease by 24 percent from 2015 to 2035. Corridor VMT in the No-Build Alternative increases 17 percent from 2015 to 2035. Even without BRT project implementation, the general traffic CO2 emissions are forecast to decrease 10.7 percent between 2015 and 2035, compared to an 11.2 percent decrease with the LPA, and 11.0 percent with the DOSL Alternative. Over the same timeframe, transit vehicle CO2 emission factors are projected to decrease 8 percent. The combined improvement in emission rates and minor VMT growth for buses results in a 5 percent decrease in CO2 emissions for the Build Alternatives in 2035 compared to 2015. Tables 4.14-5 and 4.14-6 summarize the results of this analysis. In 2015, implementation of either the LPA or DOSL Alternative results in a marginal reduction in corridor CO2 emissions (less than 0.1 percent). This is a result of increased transit emissions offsetting the small emissions reduction from decreases in general traffic VMT. In 2035, the decrease in corridor VMT for the Build Alternative (compared to the No-Build) is more substantial, although the relative change in CO 2 is less due to anticipated improvement in fuel economy. In 2035, the implementation of the LPA results in a net decrease in corridor CO2 emissions of roughly 0.5 percent, while implementation of the DOSL Alternative would yield a decrease of 0.4 percent.
4.14-5
Table 4.14-5. 2015 Annual CO2 Emission Summary (metric tons) Absolute Change Mode General Traffic Buses All
3,760 664,534
4,446 664,276
DOSL Alternative LPA DOSL 659,913 (944) (861) 4,059 663,972
18.2% -0.0%
8.0% -0.1%
Table 4.14-6. 2035 Annual CO2 Emission Summary (metric tons) Absolute Change Mode No-Build General Traffic 589,954 Buses (Scenario 1) 3,481 All (Scenario 1) 593,435
LPA 585,976
DOSL Alternative
Percent Change LPA
4,241 590,217
4.14.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The results of this analysis indicate that GHG emissions likely to be generated by implementation of either the LPA or DOSL Alternative will not have a “cumulatively considerable” impact on global climate change. No mitigation measures are proposed.
4.14-6
4.15 Energy 4.15.1 Introduction to Analysis/Methodology This section compares energy use under the No-Build, Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), and Downtown Oakland-San Leandro (DOSL) Alternatives to determine the potential effect on energy consumption as a result of anticipated changes in travel patterns and bus operations within the project corridor. The focus is on direct energy use—the energy consumed in the operation of vehicles including autos, buses, and trucks. Energy is commonly measured in terms of British Thermal Units (BTU) or the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit. This unit of measurement provides a comparison of energy consumption for energy produced from different sources, such as petroleum, coal, nuclear, and wind power. For this analysis, BTUs are also converted to gallons of gasoline, to further demonstrate the energy impacts of each alternative (138,690 BTU/gallon of diesel and 124,238 BTU/gallon of gasoline). Annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) provides key input to the calculation of energy impacts for each alternative.
4.15.2 Environmental Consequences Direct energy impacts of the No-Build, the LPA, and the DOSL Alternative were estimated in terms of anticipated changes to auto and bus VMT and fuel economy under 2015 and 2035 conditions. Tables 4.15-1 and 4.15-2 compare energy consumption in 2015 and 2035, respectively. The scenarios presented in Table 4.15-2 are the same as those assumed for the greenhouse gas analysis, as defined previously in Section 4.14.3. Table 4.15-1. Estimated Energy Usage for Project Corridor – 2015 No-Build and Build Alternatives
Alternative No-Build LPA DOSL Alternative
Corridor Annual VMT (millions)
Corridor Annual Bus VMT (millions) 1.56 1.85 1.69
1,486.31 1,482.92 1,483.90
Total BTUs (trillions)
Equivalent in Gallons of Gasoline (millions)
9.319 9.315 9.311
75.009 74.978 74.944
Table 4.15-2. Estimated Energy Usage for Project Corridor – 2035 No-Build and Build Alternatives
Alternative No-Build LPA DOSL
Corridor Annual Bus VMT (millions)
1,734.46 1,721.81 1,726.00
1.56 1.90 1.73
8.326 8.281 8.292
67.016 66.651 66.742
The energy impacts of the LPA and DOSL Alternatives as compared to the No-Build Alternative are insignificant. Total energy consumption under the No-Build and the LPA and DOSL Alternatives would be similar, about 8.3 trillion BTUs, which translates to between 66 and 67 million gallons of gasoline.
4.15.3 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures Because energy consumption would be comparable under the No-Build, LPA and DOSL Alternatives, the proposed project is anticipated to have no adverse effect on direct energy use. No mitigation of impacts is warranted.
4.16 Biological Environment The biological environment includes wetlands and surface waters; plant and animal species; threatened and endangered species; and invasive species. Each sensitive biological resource is described in the sections below. To determine whether sensitive biological resources could be affected by the proposed project, a Biological Study Area (BSA) was defined to incorporate areas that could be adversely affected by proposed project improvements. As shown in Figures 4.16-1 through 4.16-4, the BSA encompasses the area where proposed project improvements could have potential direct (e.g., ground disturbance for station or transit lane construction) or indirect (e.g., construction noise) impacts to biological resources. For the purpose of this analysis, the proposed project action area was assumed to extend 50 feet laterally from the edge of pavement where project construction activities are proposed. The BSA does not include areas where BRT vehicles will operate in mixed-flow conditions or where no street, station, or other ground disturbing activities will occur. It is presumed that no project-related impacts to biological resources will occur within these locations.
4.16-2
4.16-3
4.16-5
4.16.1 Wetlands and Other Waters 4.16.1.1 Introduction to Analysis/Methodology At the federal level, the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S. Code [USC] 1344) is the primary law regulating activities that could adversely affect wetlands and surface water resources. Section 404 of the CWA establishes a regulatory program that prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into Waters of the United States including wetlands. Waters of the United States include navigable waters, interstate waters, territorial seas, and other waters that may be used in interstate or foreign commerce. The Section 404 permit program is managed by the US Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) with oversight by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). At the state level, Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code enables the State to regulate impacts to water resources protected by Section 404 of the CWA. Although similar, there are some differences in the jurisdiction of California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the ACOE regarding the same resources. CDFG jurisdictional limits are usually defined by the tops of the stream or lake banks, or the outer edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is wider. Accordingly, applicants are required to obtain separate authorizations from both the ACOE and the CDFG. To define wetlands for the purpose of determining jurisdiction under the CWA, a threeparameter approach is used. To meet wetland criteria established by ACOE, wetlands must include hydrophytic vegetation (e.g., species that thrive in wet conditions), wetland hydrology, and hydric soils (soils that are subject to saturation/inundation). The ACOE and CDFG review all wetland delineation findings to determine which resources are under federal and/or state jurisdiction (i.e., waters of the U.S. and waters of the State, respectively). For purposes of this evaluation, all drainages, creeks, and lakes within the BSA were assumed to be under federal or state (or both) jurisdiction. Because none would be directly affected by project improvements, a formal wetland delineation was not performed. To identify biological resources occurring within the BSA, a field reconnaissance was performed on September, 30, 2010. The field reconnaissance included pedestrian transects and a windshield review throughout the BSA which focused on gathering information necessary to define potential water channels and wetlands. Drainages within the BSA were identified and evaluated for jurisdictional potential. 4.16.1.2 Affected Environment The proposed project is located within an urbanized area containing roads, curb, gutter, sidewalk, light poles, buildings, parking lots, and other urban features. The primary land cover within the BSA is developed (i.e., hardscaped and compacted areas) and landscaped. Water resources within the general area where proposed project improvements will occur (but not within the BSA) include named creeks and a freshwater lake. These areas are potentially jurisdictional under Section 404 of CWA as well as under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code referenced above. The BSA is within the San Francisco Bay watershed. The natural drainage historically consisted of small- to medium-sized creeks that flowed westerly from the hills in the east to San Francisco Bay. As the population grew in the early 1900s, the floodplains of most of
4.16-6
these creeks were paved and the creeks channelized and covered. Within the City of Oakland, the proposed project crosses 14th Avenue Creek, Sausal Creek, Peralta Creek, Seminary Avenue Drain, Arroyo Viejo Creek, and Elmhurst Creek. The 14th Avenue, Sausal, Peralta, Seminary Avenue Drain, and Elmhurst Creeks are located within the BSA. The south segment of the project, within the City of San Leandro, crosses San Leandro Creek. A portion of Arroyo Viejo Creek is also located within the BSA. This stream flows in a westerly direction towards the San Francisco Bay. The watersheds for these creeks include an upper (eastern) portion located in relatively hilly terrain and a lower (western) portion located in flatter alluvial valleys. The proposed project is located in the alluvial valley portion of the watersheds in areas that are fully urbanized with residential and commercial uses. Many portions of the BSA are drained by municipal storm drain systems. Arroyo Viejo Creek flows westerly along 77th Avenue in an open, concrete lined channel to SR 185 where it is intercepted and routed through a underground culvert that is aligned along the east side of SR 185 from 77th Avenue northerly to 74th Avenue. At 74th Avenue the culvert crosses the road, outletting on the south side into an open, concrete lined channel (See Figures 4.16-1 to 4.16-4). 4.16.1.3 Environmental Consequences Implementation of the LPA or DOSL Alternative will not result in the deposition of dredge or fill material to any potentially jurisdictional wetland or water features, nor will it modify any existing culvert, outlet, or water channel. If the proposed project cumulatively disturbs more than one acre, it will require coverage under the California State Water Board Construction General Permit (2009-0009-DWQ) to minimize potential impacts to surface water resources adjacent to improvement areas. Pollution control Best Management Practices (BMP’s) will be documented in a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be prepared for the proposed project. Multiple SWPPP’s may be required depending on whether simultaneous construction occurs within different segments of the corridor. Additional BMPs addressing waste management and pollution control, non-storm water control, wind erosion and tracking will also be included in the SWPPP. Implementation of BMPs would minimize the potential for the violation of water quality standards during construction. 4.16.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures No work is proposed to occur within the creeks that may be considered jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State; accordingly, there will be no temporary or permanent impacts to aquatic habitat associated with the LPA or DOSL Alternative. As such, no compensatory mitigation is recommended. No measures beyond those required by existing regulations will be necessary to minimize or avoid impacts to surface water from stormwater runoff.
4.16-7
4.16.2 Plant Species 4.16.2.1 Introduction to Analysis/Methodology The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and CDFG share regulatory responsibility for the protection of special status plant species. Special status species are selected for protection because they are rare and/or subject to population and habitat declines. Special status is a general term for species that are afforded varying levels of regulatory protection. The highest level of protection is given to threatened and endangered species—species that are formally listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and/or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Section 4.16.4 addresses threatened and endangered species. This section discusses all the other special status plant species including CDFG fully protected species and species of special concern, USFWS candidate species, and non-listed California Native Plant Society (CNPS) rare and endangered plants. The regulatory requirements for FESA can be found at 16 U.S.C., Section 1531, et. seq. Also see 50 CFR Part 402. The regulatory requirements for CESA can be found at California Fish and Game Code, Section 2050, et. seq. Projects under CDFG jurisdiction also are subject to the Native Plant Protection Act Fish and Game Code, Section 1900-1913 and CEQA Public Resources Code, Sections 2100-21177. To identify biological resources within the BSA, vegetation communities and land uses were mapped on an aerial photograph (approximately 1 inch equals 300 feet scale), during the September 30, 2010 field reconnaissance. The field work also included performing a baseline survey for plants and animals. Focused surveys for rare, threatened, or endangered species were not conducted because there are no sensitive species that potentially occur within the BSA. Plant communities and sub-communities were determined in accordance with the categories set forth in Holland (1986). Vegetation mapping was conducted as part of the habitat assessment for special status plants and animals. The only plant communities found within the BSA were defined as developed and landscaped areas. The potential occurrence of special status plants was evaluated based on a literature review and habitat assessment. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hayward, Oakland East, Oakland West, and San Leandro 7.5-minute quadrangles and the California Native Plant Society’s Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plans of California (CNPSEI) were reviewed to help assess the potential presence of threatened, endangered, candidate, or other sensitive species in the BSA. The probability for special status plants to occur within the BSA was evaluated based on the regional setting and the habitat (vegetation mapping) defined by the reconnaissance survey. In addition, the potential for occurrence was based on the degree of disturbance to a site, proximity to existing development, age of historical records, and the amount of development and disturbance that has occurred subsequent to the latest record. Rare plant surveys were not conducted because there was no suitable habitat for federal or state listed species identified within the proposed project footprint. AC Transit East Bay BRT Project Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report
4.16-8
4.16.2.2 Affected Environment The following analysis is based on the September 30, 2010 field reconnaissance. As discussed above, the BSA consists primarily of developed land, landscaped areas, and channelized creek crossings. Review of CNDDB, USFWS species list for Alameda County, and CNPSEI 2010 identified two sensitive plant species (i.e., western leatherwood [Dirca occidentalis] and Loma Prieta hoita [Hoita strobilina]) that have the potential to occur within proximity to the BSA. The western leatherwood is typically found in habitat types as follows: Broadleaved upland forest Chaparral Cismontane woodland Closed-cone coniferous forest North coast coniferous forest Riparian forest Riparian woodland The Loma Prieta hoita is typically associated with habitat types habitat types as follows: Chaparral Cismontane woodland Riparian woodland Ultramafic rock areas The habitat types described above are not located within the BSA. There is no suitable habitat in the BSA for the western leatherfoot or Loma Prieta hoita. The CNDDB, USFWS species list for Alameda County, and CNPSEI 2011 were reviewed in November 2011 and no new species were recorded. 4.16.2.3 Environmental Consequences Because no work will occur within habitat for sensitive plant species, no impacts to these species will occur. Thus, no adverse impacts will result from the implementation of the LPA or DOSL Alternative. 4.16.2.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are warranted because no sensitive plant species habitat will be impacted by construction of the LPA or DOSL Alternative.
4.16-9
4.16.3 Animal Species 4.16.3.1 Introduction to Analysis/Methodology Many federal and state laws regulate wildlife species. USFWS, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, and CDFG are responsible for implementing these laws. This section discusses potential impacts and permit requirements associated with wildlife not listed or proposed for listing under the state or federal Endangered Species Act. Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered are discussed in Section 4.16.4. All other special status animal species are discussed here including CDFG fully protected species and species of special concern as well as USFWS or NOAA Fisheries candidate species. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. Sections 703-711) implements an international treaty for the conservation and management of bird species that may migrate through more than one country. In the United States, the MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 CFR Part 10, including feathers or other parts; nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulation (50 CFR Part 21). These laws are enforced by the USFWS. Also prohibited under the MBTA is disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (e.g., killing or abandonment of eggs or young). Such action may be considered a “take” and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. In 1972, the MBTA was amended to include protection for migratory birds of prey (raptors). In addition to federal and state laws regulating impacts to wildlife, there are often local regulations (e.g., county or city) that need to be considered when developing projects. The potential occurrence of special status animals was evaluated through a literature review and habitat assessment. The CNDDB for the USGS Hayward, Oakland East, Oakland West, and San Leandro 7.5-minute quadrangles were reviewed to help assess the potential presence of threatened, endangered, candidate, or other sensitive animal species in the BSA. The probability for special status animals to occur within the BSA was evaluated based on the regional setting and the habitat defined from the reconnaissance survey. For the purpose of this discussion, a sensitive animal species was considered to potentially occur in the vicinity of the BSA if its known geographical distribution encompassed part of the area where proposed project improvements would occur or if its distribution was near the project area and general habitat requirements of the species were present (e.g., the presence of roosting, nesting, or foraging habitat or a permanent water source). Focused surveys for rare, threatened, or endangered species were not conducted because there were no sensitive species identified that potentially occur within the BSA. 4.16.3.2 Affected Environment After a review of CNDDB and USFWS species lists for Alameda County as well as an assessment of the various habitat types within the BSA, it was determined that seven sensitive wildlife species have the potential to occur within the four USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps (i.e., Hayward, Oakland East, Oakland West, and San Leandro) encompassing the BSA. These species are as follows:
4.16-10
Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii) Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri) White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) According to CNDDB, the seven species listed above are typically associated with one or more of the following habitat types: Cismontane woodland Riparian forest Riparian woodland Upper montane coniferous forest Lower montane coniferous forest Marsh and swamp Valley and foothill grassland Wetland Riparian scrub Aquatic Chaparral Coastal scrub Klamath/North coast flowing waters Lower montane coniferous forest Meadow and seep Sacramento/San Joaquin flowing waters Artificial flowing waters Artificial standing waters Freshwater Sacramento/San Joaquin standing waters The BSA consists of developed and landscaped areas. The habitat types described above are not located within the BSA. 4.16.3.3 Environmental Consequences Neither construction nor operation of the LPA or DOSL Alternative will occur within habitat for sensitive animal species; accordingly, no impacts to these species will occur. As described in Section 4.6, Visual/Aesthetics, construction will require the removal of 35 landscape trees from the International Boulevard median in Oakland. Depending on the method of construction, additional trees may be removed including 20 in Oakland and four in San Leandro. Generally, these trees range from five to 27 inches in diameter and are surrounded by road, sidewalks and buildings. Thus, they do not provide prime nesting habitat for most AC Transit East Bay BRT Project Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report
4.16-11
migratory birds. However, some bird species protected under the MBTA may use these trees for nesting; and therefore, a potential impact could result if they are removed 4.16.3.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures The following avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are proposed to comply with the MBTA: AS-1 If feasible, all potential nest tree removal activities shall be conducted during the nonbreeding season (i.e., September through February) to avoid direct impacts to other migratory nesting birds. If such work is scheduled during the breeding season (i.e., March through August), a qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey of the work area to determine if any birds are nesting in or in the vicinity of vegetation to be removed. The preconstruction survey shall be conducted within 15 days prior to the start of work from March through May (since there is higher potential for birds to initiate nesting during this period) and within 30 days prior to the start of work from June through August. If active nests of migratory bird species are found in the work area, the biologist shall determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest where no work will be allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer shall be determined by the biologist in consultation with CDFG and will be based on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance at the nest. AS-2 Mature trees will not be removed during the breeding season (March through August). Any trees impacted by the project will be replaced in accordance with local tree protection ordinances. Mature trees will be removed during daylight hours when roosting is not anticipated.
4.16.4 Threatened and Endangered Species 4.16.4.1 Introduction to Analysis/Methodology The primary federal law protecting threatened and endangered species is FESA 16 USC, Section 1531, et seq. Also see 50 CFR Part 402. As summarized above in Section 4.16.2, the ESA and subsequent amendments provide for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems that they depend upon. Under Section 7 of this act, federal agencies, such as FTA, are required to consult with USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) to ensure that they are not undertaking, funding, permitting, or authorizing actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Critical habitat is necessary for the existence of a threatened or endangered species. The outcome of consultation under Section 7 is a biological opinion (BO) or an incidental take permit. Section 3 of FESA defines take as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or any attempt at such conduct.” California has enacted a similar law at the state level, the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), California Fish and Game Code, Section 2050, et seq. CESA emphasizes early consultation to avoid potential impacts to rare, endangered, and threatened species and to AC Transit East Bay BRT Project Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report
4.16-12
develop appropriate planning to offset project caused losses of listed species populations and their essential habitats. CDFG is the agency responsible for implementing CESA. Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code prohibits "take" of any species determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species. Take is defined in Section 86 of the Fish and Game Code as "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill." CESA allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful development projects; for these actions an incidental take permit is issued by CDFG. For projects requiring a BO under Section 7 of the FESA, CDFG may also authorize impacts to CESA species by issuing a consistency determination under Section 2080.1 of the Fish and Game Code. As discussed above, the potential occurrence of special status plants and animals were evaluated through a literature review and habitat assessment. CNDDB for USGS Hayward, Oakland East, Oakland West and San Leandro 7.5-minute quadrangles were reviewed to help assess the potential presence of threatened, endangered, or candidate animal species in the BSA. A threatened or endangered species was considered to potentially occur within or in proximity to the BSA if its general habitat requirements were present (e.g., roosting, nesting, or foraging habitat) or its known distribution area would be affected by proposed project improvements. 4.16.4.2 Affected Environment The literature review (i.e., CNDDB and USFWS species lists for Alameda County) and habitat assessment was completed in November 2011 (see Appendix G) to identify threatened and/or endangered species that may be present in the BSA and to assess the suitability of habitat within the BSA to support these species. The literature review identified one federally listed wildlife species (i.e., the California red-legged frog [CRLF], rana draytonii), that has the potential to occur within the vicinity of the BSA. CRLF occur in and along freshwater marshes, streams, ponds, and other semi-permanent water sources for breeding habitat and have been observed to disperse into upland habitat, such as valley and foothill grasslands. The proposed project’s BSA includes developed and landscaped ground cover. The field reconnaissance did not identify suitable breeding or dispersal habitat for this species. None of the occurrences listed in CNDDB are located within two miles of the area proposed to accommodate proposed project improvements. The CNDDB, USFWS species list for Alameda County, and CNPSEI 2011 were reviewed in November 2011 and no new species were recorded. 4.16.4.3 Environmental Consequences Because the BSA does not contain suitable breeding or dispersal habitat for CRLF, no impacts to this species are anticipated. 4.16.4.4 Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures The LPA or DOSL Alternative are not expected to result in impacts to CRLF; and therefore, no avoidance or minimization measures are required.
4.16-13
4.16.5 Invasive Species 4.16.5.1 Introduction to Analysis/Methodology On February 3, 1999, President Clinton signed EO 13112 requiring federal agencies to combat the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States. The order defines invasive species as “any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health." 4.16.5.2 Affected Environment The BSA consists of developed land and landscaped areas. Weedy species are found within and adjacent to these areas. The presence and density of the weeds are attributed to the absence of native plant communities and intense and frequent disturbance by human activities. 4.16.5.3 Environmental Consequences As discussed, the BSA for both the LPA and DOSL Alternatives has been directly or indirectly disturbed by development. Because invasive species are already widespread, and the proposed improvements are focused within developed or disturbed areas, it is unlikely that construction of the proposed project will result in the introduction of new invasive plants or facilitate the growth of existing invasive species into portions of the BSA where invasive species do not already occur. Even so, measures to avoid and minimize the potential for introduction of new invasive plants or the spread of existing invasive plants will be implemented during construction of the LPA or DOSL Alternative. 4.16.5.4 Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measure The following avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measure is proposed: IS-1 In compliance with EO 13112, areas disturbed by project construction will be re-vegetated with species not on the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) noxious weed list or California Invasive Plant Control (Cal-IPC) List A-1.
4.16-14