Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 07231996 - C10
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �D FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: July 23, 1996 SUBJECT: APPROVETHE ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AIRPORT, IN THE BYRON AREA. Project No.: 4875-6X5338-96 CP#96-46 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)$BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. Recommended Action: APPROVE the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), CP#96-46, (the custodian of which is the Public Works Director and is located at 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez), DIRECT the Director of Community Development to file a Notice of Determination and a Certificate of Fee Exemption: De Minimis Impact Finding with the County Clerk, and DIRECT the Public Works Director to arrange for payment of the $25.00 handling fee to the County Clerk. II. Financiallmpact: Funds for the project will come from FAA Funds (90%) and Airport Funds (10%). III. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: The Addendum to the FEIR for the Proposed East Contra Costa County Airport, identified some changes to the description of the airport. The changes are as follows: 1. The interim access road from Armstrong Road will be located approximately 1,000 ft. to the west of the previously planned road. 2. A culvert will be installed where the access road crosses the roadside ditch along Armstrong Road. Continued on Attachment:X SIGNATURE: 1. _RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON�,.Qw /q?q APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED_OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Contact: Joe Yee, (313-2323) Orig. Div: Public Works(Design Division) cc: H. Wight,Airport 1 tang aes erb s true aie Dance�opy d P. Gavey, Real Property an WIN taken end snared on ms ad nu W tAn V. Germany, Design Baro of 8�ervtnars on un oft shown. Flood Control Engineering at�s�c:� ������c 9� �q q � 9 9 ic o su anecanq►Adm w Accounting Engineering Services County Administrator ILL) AnM'b County Auditor-Controller County Counsel Community Development �!/® ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AIRPORT Page 2 July 23, 1996 The Addendum is consistent with County policies and does not lead directly or indirectly to significant physical changes in the project, nor does it alter the adequacy or the completeness of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures identified in the FEIR. In addition, none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Therefore, an Addendum to the FEIR is appropriate to address some changes or additions to the previously certified FEIR. Upon board approval, the Addendum would be attached to the FEIR for the Proposed East Contra Costa County Airport, in the Byron Area. IV. Consequences of Negative Action: Delay in approving the project and the Addendum to the FEIR will result in delay of construction of the project. VG:mat H AMAT\ARMSTRONNADDEN DUM.BO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACTr�© NOTICE OF DETERMINATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 651 PINE STREET 4TH FLOOR NORTH WING MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-0095 Telephone: (510) 313-2296 Contact Person: Vickie Germany, Public Works Dept. Project Description, Common Name (if any) and Location: ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FIR) EOR THE PROPOSED EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AIRPORT COUNTY FILE #CP 96-46: The Draft and Final EIR for the East Contra Costa County Airport Project evaluated the proposed project which involves the construction and use of a new general aviation airport in the east Contra Costa County area of Byron. The Addendum to the Final EIR identifies some changes to the description of the airport, including the relocation of the interim access road from Armstrong Road approximately 1,000 feet to the west of the previously planned road and the installation of a culvert where the access road crosses the roadside ditch along Armstrong Road. The project was approved on Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act: An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified. The Projectwas encompassed by an Environmental Impact Re rt previously pre ared for the Fact Contra r n . sta pint_ AAirport in Byron County UP #PW 85-po43 j_luna 3 1 9861, A Negative Declaration was issued indicating that preparation of an Environmental Impact Report was not required. Copies of the record of project approval and the Negative Declaration or the final EIR may be examined at the office of the Contra Costa County Community Development Department. The Project will not have a significant environmental effect. 0 The Project will have a significant environmental effect. Mitigation measures were made a condition of approval of the project. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted. Findings were adopted pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Date: By: Community Development Department Representative AFFIDAVIT OF FILING AND POSTING I declare that on I received and posted this notice as required by California Public Resources Code Section 21 152(c). Said notice will remain posted for 30 days from the filing date. Signature Title County Public Works Dept. EIR - $850 Total Due: $ 255 Glacier Drive Neg. Dec. - $1,250 Total Paid: $ Martinez, CA 94553 DeMinimis Findings - $0 Attn: ,.lanet Frattini X County Clerk- $25 Receipt #: cp\96-46add.pw ADDENDUM to the FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) for the PROPOSED EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AIRPORT, BYRON, CALIFORNIA COUNTY FILE #PW 85-43 COUNTY FILE #CP 96-,'6 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #85042304 Prepared by: Maureen Toms, Planner Contra Costa County Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553-4897 June 1996 a Environmental Planner ( ief Planning Official Public Works Department Title: 12" , T (�12t!aw Lead Agency: County of Contra Costa Date: Z R� ADDENDUM to the FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) for the PROPOSED EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AIRPORT, EYRON, CALIFORNIA COUNTY FILE ##PW 85-43 COUNTY FILE ##CP 96--4(o STATE CLEARINGHOUSE ##85042304 Prepared by: Maureen Toms, Planner Contra Costa County Public Works Department 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553-4897 June 1996 0 ' to ADDENDUM to the FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for the PROPOSED EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AIRPORT, BYRON, CALIFORNIA COUNTY FILE #PW 85-43 COUNTY FILE #CP 96-4-& STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #85042304 PREFACE The Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) evaluated the proposed project which involves the construction and use of a new general aviation airport in the east Contra Costa County area of Byron. This document serves as the Addendum to the FEIR for the East Contra Costa Airport Project (County File #PW 85-43). Consequently, the FEIR for the project consists of the DEIR and FEIR, comments received on the DEIR, responses to the comments raised, and the Addendum. The Contra Costa Community Development Department (CDD) is the lead agency for the project, and on June 3, 1986, the Board of Supervisors (Board) approved the project and filed a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. The Board acknowledged that the project would have certain environmental effects and adopted the findings and mitigation measures as expressed in the Planning Commission Resolution No. 27-1986. The Resolution was certified on May 20, 1986. In addition, the Board recognized that the project would have certain impacts such as geology and soils; hydrology; public utilities and services; noise; health and safety; construction activities; and growth-inducement; and adopted the recommended mitigation measures. CEQA PROCESS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) prescribes that an Addendum (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164) to a previously certified environmental impact report (EIR) shall be prepared by either the lead agency or the responsible agency if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 1 15162 have occurred: 1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR . . . due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. No substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which require major revisions of the previous EIR . . . due to the involvement of new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. No new information of substantial importance shows that the project will have one or more significant effects not previously discussed, nor will mitigation measures or project alternatives previously examined be substantially more severe than previously shown. In addition, there is no new information showing that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, and there is no such new information suggesting that new mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(d), the Board shall consider the Addendum along with the FEIR prior to making a decision on the project. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (c) an Addendum does not require circulation for public review but can be included in or attached to the FEIR. As noted in the Preface, the Addendum is attached to the FEIR for the East Contra Costa County Airport Project (County File #IPW 85-43). EXPLANATION OF THE ADDENDUM The Addendum to the FEIR for the East Contra Costa County Airport Proiect identifies some changes to the description of the airport. The changes are as follows: 1. The interim access road from Armstrong Road will be located approximately 1,000 ft. to the west of the previously planned road. 2. A culvert will be installed where the access road crosses the roadside ditch along Armstrong Road, The Addendum is consistent with County policies and does not lead directly or indirectly to significant physical changes in the project, nor does it alter the adequacy or the completeness of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures identified in the FEIR. Therefore, the Addendum to the FEIR is appropriate. 2 ADDITION TO THE FOR This section identifies the language which is added/or changed (bold face type) or deleted (strikeout) to the text and figures of the FEIR: Figure 2: See attached revised Figure 2 showing new interim access road alignment. p. 40, 1st paragraph: The interim access road onto the airport would extend from Armstrong Road, approximately 93 0.5 miles west of Byron Hot Springs Road, around the end of the abandoned Runway 1-2 22, and then along the southwestern side 0 building-area west side of Brushy Creek. Although passing through the Runway 12 el zone, the read would be slightly 'ewer than the runway end and would have adeq clearance beneath the approach surface. Aligning the read in the proposed provides the necessary elearanee past the end of Runway-22-. 3 RESOLUTION of the COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for the EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AIRPORT RESOLUTION NO. 27-1986 The Findings for the East Contra Costa County Airport were made by the County Planning Commission to comply with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines and are incorporated herein by reference. 4 C GD CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ADDENDUM FINDINGS for the FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for the EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AIRPORT The following information is added to the findings prepared for the previous EIR and is presented to comply with Section 15091 and 15164(e) of the CEQA Guidelines for the FEIR for the East Contra Costa County Airport. 1. Environmental Effect: Modifications to the project, including the revised interim access road alignment, are not substantial changes to the project and will not result in any additional environmental effect not previously discussed. Findings: There are no significant environmental impacts associated with the changes or additions to the project description for which the Addendum was prepared. Statement of Facts: a. The project to be developed pursuant to the Addendum to the FEIR for the East Contra Costa County Airport Proiect is substantially similar to the project analyzed in the FEIR. b. The FEIR for the East Contra Costa County Airport Project consists of the DEIR., comments received on the DEIR, responses to the comments raised, and the Addendum. The FEIR was completed in compliance with the CEQA. c. There are no substantial changes, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (a)(1), in the project which require major revisions of the FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The project is substantially similar to the project analyzed in the FEIR. d. There are no substantial changes with respect to the circumstances, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (a)(2), under which the East Contra Costa County Airport project is undertaken which require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Those circumstances remain substantially similar to the circumstances analyzed in the FEIR. e. There is no new information of substantial importance, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (a)(3), which shows that the project will have one or more significant effects not previously discussed, nor will mitigation measures or project alternatives previously examined be substantially more severe than previously shown. In addition, there is no new information showing that mitigation measures 5 or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, and there is no such new information suggesting that new mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. f. None of the conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred (see items 1 c - e above). Therefore, it is appropriate to adopt the Addendum to the FEIR to make some minor changes to the project description (CEQA Guidelines 15164). The Addendum shall be considered along with the FEIR prior to the Board making a decision on the minor changes to the project, and in considering the minor changes, the Board is considering the identical or substantially similar underlying project. The findings are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record and are based on the FEIR for the East Contra Costa County Airport Project which was subject to public review. I In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(d), the County Board of Supervisors shall consider the Addendum along with the FEIR prior to making a decision on the project. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (c) an Addendum does not require circulation for public review but can be included in or attached to the FEIR. As noted in the Preface, the Addendum is attached to the FEIR for the East Contra Costa County Airport Project (County File #PW 85-43). 6 x zt x-<. e-a,:, -'_'1 x x r f F .n c =u,;; '£ rik•n✓wtu£ ar x �',/`f ;At� � Ml. 1. 1`' I �a I j , C�f.t`1w•Y+�-,�.m°` s.a� .e � W .:err ?. e'`t,,a<': kx,>ar' "� 1 .,� ?, �` ++ �sa I m� -ro .�;.. rt' r� a -S'•zzi �a.�aai< s "r`�! r rte.. tr"`,. ,M », r rim ..t � der .�xr:: an+ ,r,»�`5, � � y s c.•zs � � ar+.. Ts' x,���{ aaw_ ...�,,,,�.:,, ' ?�w, r:. c\> � aA �� v� •z .r..a 2 r- ;i�.,z, c > �r 'it�hse.? $1". r F .��-'��»�.s,. -. ,xh,. i'd`�rx'+'§ n 5;" »°^k 3 $ )`� € str4 -@E W f §, ..3e%, N 3. 5W f £✓�.: �' g W+ ! �'d,.�`�' =mss-�.. ,..a:'�w,.�e 3 ,i I '�.,, t r,:� a, r �.;� .f: 's. ;;. .,� ,..: r,a>:• a :r, u a;;.i �' - �« ,fir;•� �':r.: G >u. r=.,<. 1y ... ,..y td a, Z>. x -,.b � ,.`r b•9"n rHr-..>. F>.'G y}a•yr ea,.... c+r .k >.. ,a>„ ,�.t _«-[,.. '.„.��>1'S ,,, > -S..r ,.� ,_,.,>.. ,c :' �, ",ma. ,.,.yb;�, ,v»., , � ,se'..st t. ,_�, u..ti. �.` ,:.�"rF u: - -,>` rs<,. �....... �, ,r '4s3". a,,<_ ..,<:k+x.a..-�z,! r-w. >.- ....,� :. ,> r.: `t;.✓c': ;,%s:; - s. "fir � ,4r- ,€. "�� :. 5, � z.wry,. ,s:-"Y�-e>:�h .'"k,"dc- a.. �i"sFh&,, g ,...ry ,d.a .. '•'a5:5:K`,a,�.�'L ..wa-. ,k ,.. 3",,. .x:�:?ass.. .,rx,... �d. '�.,t�;t�».1;':.,� to;a � >'� d ;A�.e�M1�.et-•' �tsZ..y'°�b",�^>�...A...y�r',. ,P;a ,...n..r. .:z,J,a .�Fs�.��x,> .s�•.. r°°•;r":Ys,,,.,�r�x '��d.�.p?Y�,^,:�,z;�a,^ !' ;pk5e r�sxs!�„'�+�. r';2.�,�.r..-s,,.- S ,>.s'',�rlYtrt a�,r-,..:�^�i5 �t,� � .y z,� " Po azy s r><.,>/ P ..<' .< ., >•, r t -a ;:,.. ,z nz's,:,r.x,. � � �.�, '7:p.. � sn •t� �``�. ,rS*.::'Z W ,a;""rF�, a : � �v .- ,rt v..a-,_� �.-:vim,- e I,;xa •r 5zr- ,. T-.,.,., , ,M.a.;, e.,s, ',. ?<.� Ya.a =:M. u �z ,..",z; �',. :-, °;? :<� a u :.f ' c. �„-... n«< x!,'d> ,,a.R'� ,.r. .,.-x.x,. .-..-s, ,r .. ,..,.fir,tr, � .._ ,,,A� . ,r: t >:a .,, .n..., -. ,v>•„ :„,., '3v,>.. a. ..r .,. ,'� gas:• ks �' �'; �t> +� w�t: ,�• x� PIN= 3'a 'f"r<✓; o4.,s.k,{ f➢d: ,,,,��1'�.''d°` ''7' ',x, t x v h"3 sl•4'� � � t. z€?,;;33 a 1' ... N.,wk. A«s .a, w.,.✓r: z... z' ,.a';, s. ..z'/,�,' y�,.. I .«f sa az t• v TIM, ;? .n Rv 5iv ..m,.. T X: � ::rsM+, ✓ .,d2 .t Y' >�;;'. r N t., .N tet.. x,s /A• "": ,.�. :r3 s„ P=�, v N o.; ,c;3 •re 1-„ 3'.z:'- � r_:, ti ,wt, >. ,.h d•',.i-, 4, s: �• < r T,-: ......,>.5 'xsy �" � .>.r,3 .,s.'ta., tV .:,a "s.fi; 2 wr+ v ' �"i. ,- <,p ,z$. ', �;r> 33.5 �� „ID' E'• r ,A YX..,. _.�' ,<- ...�:-u ay. ><o-., .,...",::>i' < ,.. ,..:r. •I...«. ;a:za � _ •A, h.: ': n: {11EF -� ,'s,. ...s€ � xs n; ',Y t• t .£. tF mor :x "h«„' a sw M ,err T a ;`x� 'r rt ` >✓ S, r:. \ r, �"'.s �' z ,• ,z +", k 3, _t ,s'i• a '•q r'm., ,r, 1.F., �;�..•;-c.. a, , , a. z :sa 1. ,v az r `�. a> k' x,,. "M a r s 6 ,.a: �' •�; .. 11 a.g <. ,a - >�., ,',. <..,„.. .. _,.R...a „a a,:,:•, a.. ., r.x." <-� ,,. _s..,. :$., mss. ' .-:n ...,s, >a<".8' .-. .r z<.,.7;✓�rs «?n.«a >.e �,, .,.r, k YS✓ a b', r7' >a ..ri_ :z � :�, a a« >'fir.s:,�«Y ,.:> P^n ,.,.zs>• , 1n,- "s�. <,�`-_ ,i€', pp rt, J w: <fig�,«'mac•�a h r 3r� �., q R' �'I R:,- 9'..€ �'>.I:�•. v a z.Y .z.�<x" � � n��i. >3 ..:oa.,,,w cg's o'y ?c rrp,.,. a ' •^� �z, sy G •s:"i,`„�"rf x t..�`+r a``'erg�. a 1 � s tea" ..3s X:u� �� �# s �„ .s w�`° G L s r a p r= t �,-. �z' n,�� '�,,:; �"k � v r «�£ €�' `€ :dgg-�' ,k r••>: � � J 1-t f m::;<} s'A"` t,�' .:x r a ,'x a YS b"� ��r,`- s d },l ;¥ .':� s r• 3 l ;i .I, µ `� ,,:� y TnaL „z3 m rr= d �, «s Y •�i�,�rs� a � ;,s. s zr .f a E a:L�� s 'e ,�� a r � 9„rx d ' :,,, 1... nl.f..L: ;'1 e«, t ! x ,, 1 r'•'33,a ,.,rnr¢i k 13 \� �,3::, "n i� 4>>.."'4 t9,. b.,, . _, "_> .:,• :<-- .>.:<'.:>... ^.a ems,€ <z *aa= >< r a,,.f tom.•.: �' tn.,::>..r. ,.. >.fn<. .6�< y.. r.aft: ''tY Wi tu`sit a k z € r z Y'.< N i c:� nz2 +->a+-� '�"«*t m:::> > a r, i e.s' :•r ,z,�'a'x` a sr.„, >i 'S�".,.-.� ra.a .e' x�. ,,,.�a -�:(i�\ `-�- ,a<"_ ��i ' t 1 �; a cn m o S i� N♦ x k w xse '•1 5.-T '�. e�Qi z xat,. §:' 3, w"o: N I'; : � P. � >r t 2 \ � ';Y � •>a��:> 't 1 N x v r F���n ,�z�� Y ;>�' r2 i<,�„N e .,s a'•:,:: _a t x-a„ Ym:` oQ0 f.'y,>£ i „\ y d #.,` .a x 'Y F "'mayR rcA�a' 'Y r..3 i vxim 2S> a` ...+�:€ 'Y„ ➢4•a>'s-.,. �4» r vr3°•-.i w s #a AEiY P w y ,.>.. It a ,'ia'? 3>{ § •p .�: ..i-. \ �x2� o ,-.xe'as i e � g`' T s'!�`. y x'.,Y>s .:�t,-, `�;'� �'3 uaw>.�s z��". ,�Fj v -gym"�x ��` - �, �: r:. s 'C'� v d::- � Z:' t <.*\ ..�." �'\ s'� 1 C '�:• \ :':z, SY k'<,,�YZ' , kF :?d u,.-, `d'• x, a� v^,�:A.r,yy i� � ,r, y.II r•.;'. N ''+.>•s,g �yT�:! 2 a„g+'ta'�;� '£E. � � Y >»� x< w.�". �z:aa; e sta- -s -.�'•: -:-r�-� a'x'r`- „w :�%.� rc�-,. a # "4€; ;ia M r�� �:: x¢JJ 4 jc`g'y. :.ur �' :. r gra. ,r � Fi � v- ,�s�� t•< � xar�s ap � : \ s r« ,& y , •.:-• >,rt ,,,r„ \ s w a,i, ,P .::..> > :.� ".c .�'. 9t^` a=ct �.- >. o \,V, � s>°s, >„ ar.. g a^<a: .✓? "-. * r sax sem.a<,, #z ?x'.. � a'•w.. '� .'b , ^x: .� 1 >. ., ,�,y�<-,r-�3 �1` a 5s N � �„'� a'g° - ..,Pu �, �tze „�>,• ';�-*"'a, ,.,�, x ;v,,. \ �r ..{^e'� .3 a •;u a�a >,.N <gra a w:w�:� ri: s< :/ '"a &. � �'.r- -�,a�,..,,,_, . 1"I' °'<�` _.. n: . "..7..a•. ,.,*a3 tom,.... ;3pr..z= , ';' '- ,.- "�Fi r�:: £ ,r Srz<z ,,....,"'4•. .._,.R` a.,< ,�. x7 Ent _<, T r �l .,_ ..r o a.».r..,. ,�, )'> ., s:_. s£,:-::^ :..9.,a,•-sV. „. {?.- _.f - 'd.... r:.. r rr<a n•�,/' „ :@ ' ...., w.g �e„--:. ;:Wr-, \ ;x'o^. ah. r ,....r .",s>a>;'H� r?i,?i - <0-.s l .- d.. "b:•re :-s,...t. � ., .�dp ,xs;z. ,: .O iv - .3 .sx.< r .._. \ t6 -Y` ., >,. _ f$:-.>.,.v @ �'•,..rx' ?i ,,..3y k ,''a r°' „ r t /„�arN>, 9 �nF� i,LM fi:.. r'.'. ,, ..F`i, 1d &:. ,4: :,/{4 ,'i�•_ Y a F w a y m p,.. s,"= O w x�":•i,f l,p 1�;. ���,'+•„, w;.• 5 >:< ,x � a'c-:. %,,, ,.: 7 a' ^ low r'.' ,rr>a'"'.s .rxr t3>r..: :":.>e. 'a ,« \ �,.t:.> •<,:, ,5, � ;s,,.. i, t>,.... .it A:> ,:. t .,., ,.,.r... : •���:w„� 3 rc!'<: :t .fix`.::-:e'A.,�,. ,a a � �,: x, \r #r: an •ra 04 k ,.>IY 4, >a.i'xa"m ,:a;,. :.,lo', >. .� <�, ♦ ;:4 Ax«� sz� kt �.: ,.t 'z N ..Mr' x, .\, � a§'a;> g .n. ,.�..a.,« �\:.. x ar-,.„• rr � ' ":',,..<. _:r ". i'< �<.�:i � :.Ak Tit`s ..•> •> > u;. >, ,r. �,r, yew.fi.mk '��'.G r. •:`, €r',a.- �o � -- se< \.{r;, .,.�`r$i,`a Psoa, x •;:'a'.+ a, r�..t. ,.:.�s ---�' v"as' ;:/r s r � r ,T>;. \ 4` v« .._ s d• ` \ ,r 'd ,+ yx sr:. o >M" �y r- ..ir' �' zY > oS YF ,i r8za aFn '-yT4'. ``i* ;r€ r„ 3x' ,-m ,o i,. t U. v / r.: t a a !"n , a �;.. .� :; -:'Ihs 'a.z„ r /i°:x �':: ,.'`>>«i 2•. ds " A...:> k>:.. Y P:'. Tfi.,x> <.fra :«:`� ., \.. ...,.,s• 'x.r_ >z., d'T.>a,. . n k 3':. t •u - _a<e ,.r a; 0.•'mss cu.=rs T"� -< ,r-. '•ac,., � :�.5 ,- `eA-,,„lw:t„�.,: �- :� „� .r?: -,/.♦-,•< <z aS,n::Kid.-..��,?:.-,�`c.. �amrA;��. `?i..o.m�.=�:x°+.ve`�roa...a.,,„r,.'�.-,a P` �r�•x i b "rl € v as A; ', 4 t d I z: i .n',. 5r t � a 5 °4 �� • '� <- e�x"'at'� z-,�'° v�? re a;,,i x'. I t � • t x � '�y r I S > Y � i T `�`� ,�3 R,NL")w' � '♦ �� r..a.- C-,3 -� � r¢ � :zaa, : y;�a^d aor+Nf"r'. r�`<E a'r s'a X ,�i,vb,..�z+ � ,.ts� � "'1r n g ':::r m S T• zcM.:,>.?.:.'.�:t,'4�3��,+"c.:h.i}-;:,!�,>.,.p.,a<�a,.?.,g,>�,aadv:::x�'.z�.-I.xz?;'::'',:-^:Y' � .,.r7 za='s,.'��'�a',j.a°.,e.3 z'zr� ,�3''.a,;>:>w 'a:«�Ft `�xg-,'x':4>. �`,�4£ °,,,Ps'�.i>."'�i�'aur.�xs.•f>3r:'- P T �"�,a x any'v"•e Wa�a"'«n,'.Y,�'rk a ,>3o'ryfia .Sc�.\sE:;,,fI.,Y s5 k-s���•5,0�o>-,0.a x �YzS3V ,••"t-"e 4 ri �s a�a«�' r � t. «`, 4. t-_°c- a a♦\ ter.i, `a vY., a: �: ,3�,". +rr t s�;S �y�d ya ' a... .q- ass'£ `; �o° �ot»t ,ah,, z a n w - x ♦ Y a ; ., ,::»` �'}� ,:�I �' 7 ;,r «`i ,.� �: € �3 -�< , tiayr �'g.- • <.s "y a� '�' t%, a�' r '�• ..�,r ��- f�9t � �=�,A�� :`R3$.:.." Van a, i`.k � 'm€< r tr�" o�. .m� ''` 1 -� s b rty,:. ��s.: .^♦J €q: �'-5� k.r" •o°'�„x yfi d'��-�-`?i ""���d�"'��.:^ '`,r :i ff' o• ++ m ti° s'a I ♦, &, :att, 0,:-�$t s `^ ,fs '.* t }„a � .��Y„�, -T` � �` O'♦ F"s:'. ,,,V n° ♦ k '<� $+ ,� oy k x g; k g<�`�::, r �yY� s.€4T.:� � el v � '.;N.. d `.o. � a a <, ,°9.,r 'viCr oo`�O� ti♦ � t,'C�„;y t � its >.k«_"• �a7 illicit A., . =,: �.,'. -.I:O d _s i' 3. •w.::; �E�C `�� ` a !TIT{ ,r v^rv., -h,.,.r,r r,�A /'a �R� s e • r° -p e ..^.,vt -_+"i �' x as f �' 4 pw*5'S„ _ART 51 ,zF, 3z F ,.y }, .r •k ' .i S s3 <- "'�:. v - y q, r.;:._xwt h.. ".. g §a r F c: m .. r a ,i x "^-7 -y { g 7 % i :T eta« 3 ,,, ua ✓z.a,-;,c a - '' ,:,z s r>''sr Y`� x ''4d "k a at „ra._ > ,• ,.t;g ',:w «a > ya,s a;r tIR RrS a.:J a s?s? P k I>;?? ,t" ,; >'o"Not .<, 5 r?•.' .v a,ax..a: ` r • _ t § mY- xaw': ...ss.l«y*..f,t.d>o a,:o_'s'=oo:�.::<<.rn§v,#{r t,/*«,�;>':..:�,-�s�kwK oxm R`I o s§xyr wr»,bi„•,."ar'Q,.«f. aas.3s x F-x,rY:e,r1::,>:rz+t x+),p sb,t;,�:.1. Cr§ a->,c>s`."�t$$Y«r1'av'a br;�rv$s.'''sd:r A11111014111,t r t <o af, r: f>r,.s-"'R>4 r`zy,:nr".,s+�"Y•',,�+sai„,'r".»:,3' zxz E. .....«c s ,,_,c•- .. c, t» a saa :a 3g - 'gzk^ S=.a;., ". r i. ..; 4s m. a,..,x y« •-:3:> �- �': 8t: f Ya.,r.. /, a,:. ,a a 3':t, ,€'>a--:',� -„ -s ; 'r. .L• .,a „/<.,. �. ,... -m'a;w.>v'x t' ,�> a: Tar +aE + i &x <;= .. , e / .pr,F. , ,g o .. ¢ ': e§"i Ps"{ i xs� aA. ��•«w,.; -7 'r n > I-,-!'; e� §i{;r Y 3r" Y4 'm;,` .e >' //.,, .z�'�>"u :n^�a�, t � �' '� E:fir' ,ee .x7�- $(r wa"Ra • E. a M4 :k b,` 3, ,,a ar",Z •siw •.r ".s: g. `r e m> ;;,� ^r",y°, z rs a � tP'. a a x ...:?. t3 d `L�<..�r x•.++„;: > nr \+ �r�, � ;o � �' v.w, ,fip xi,r <a sz �. ;�s•:s. +4 t -srxc �•u: �a�r ;ice Y� % i� q "x ,Y `4� m� � a ,,�» � �q �, t•- ac, a <:>� r > � .T i; ;. ,�'.s"x t a „ - ' 'Y n. "�:.•.-: k .<:'a, / „., ,«a z a., < •,.'s .,, - ,« e.: N ,a° -.,. ,a. -;<. 9, .,. ."l x :•ta. ap... sk E,f .. ,z,,. ,... ,y. � v�:' �� .<>:`1 _.� <,,,., rr. „ , ,'� '"a"::x :�• .a ;% / 0: � a s} >'>:4 xre o t•„: 3 � 3!., ,3,,;r..3'.� �' �r t a.:a '�' .,y � <>"v!�< � I�!' /d. � r � � t «�' ..,,, r"c _.; >A• .,_ :, ff. �C=.. a,: e:•f `\ a"_;,.. " .a, tr,,.t, w ¢ ;#... r .,zr «,s x Ks 4 ..,;.- >. o. - ..=s3a "`-•'cr J 7..; x r:: 4 rr .^4��'.�r«t rt zr P- z r-9 - r r?a, »._ ,^r. s- ,.; -s`.wo? a _ .. .. ,;. ,;.c r ,ar .;¢ ♦ �� `� ',1 "� �- a � >=oxo .�:;r a U-- Q, =/o �„•: �,Y H; X,,�-.;ns � x:re ✓ �` {' $"i -� ixa s `SFr€lu ,,.�a+ti,.4 .✓p�4 s •�ba �' ♦ o�,; R P.-o� ,s oim.,P E 'a.,. s s, z s �� ire :;_ ..,.. <-.. >�.. ,"a • �.... ,;,. -.:...: p }„ _. .«: > ,:: .'S� ..:- .° .�,� --,£. '. ..z," ° ;:t a..«,� 3tsF w lea z:. n4 n. ':;P s -, ,:r^:.�.lL ,'.'•'„u-. .. >, e ,...,< .r.,.r.._ ., - «s. ,i«. a.. >.a,«Ing "y +..:§ .,.. ., s•.: °.. ,..,x sr. o. kr al. ,err. e . ... e,,li"....,. ,. �,.: x % .,,•. ._..,., ;,:'e.,�`c•... <r - tc.,*a > -r:,a.. ' . ap.:, s t ...A r d wa•, � ¢xx°is.�a Y»><r >C� r• c at s. C, .���'r;'a' � >;� ,.N>� :a.v;. �t1:Y:�a �5 � d �: 13! ✓ ,'} i�, P♦, .:k t �:/ /, .{y, ,.'O^ o s a;:� % „m.0 x3.:,,,.,... .'i!t a„a e' 3' r Y �•3' �:... Nai q.�,.g � q :Ix3",.s.. $.:�r ,7�;� �u3Y3,> Sx".:,�. • 1... 7 b >, "'Trt ;? F r a.: ..,2 { ! -, rt•.fJYj '�r:7.1}Y `�' o s ;i s< mr rr Y �.ti, .fi.x- ,i♦ -,<x,• 3 s'os'^� a ra x R n -:r I 1. 'r 10 rx,, ^`,d:.v'. Q 3 ye.. u>5' z 1 ,• ° <.k P �`5 >,? :t 3' F E- i n.... --.d.•vPo Y >, --§::. -'hw '• ,,,fiE'y ...": ,;"' <.. ",n> :,M,f :,y ,vi,N ,qa , >" �«r,",<" z..s s ' .-. a z&.: >: .. ._. wr,_a.,z•,-.a .<or n..u.. 5. .,,.,.h t _; .w,.. .::- • �.., �: ,<,.�:� ,u .�. .. :,p •r. 7,sd '.x :t t ,.g r? - t, �.u• e �.a,.. ;5 z«• F O ,41 fi:fr a ,x- A, .+0»' xP a? `<a„ .at^ ^kr.�- . \a ✓ 5/,. ?, < r �.:: 1 "5 z"'w g m :a r`. s ::fid"•; rn 1- :.a « '.R s,-t ,-FS."•. -Way � Ar n>/ :.e Tx, ;{, k Y3 I u§ � 9r � t t sn rJz 5rfi�r>•,f �5 �.. dz? °Y� zz M sln } 3 r a p's ,.i. SS Z,:.,x: ::..< ✓, ..'?.. €/ �x ..:'3,.' , :w.= c ,9 s:. y.rrY+•',4 Lj e^.$: ,s-: f.. f' ..✓, r:Y% „d ,,::$ u r„, 4»• o .u. � OWN «fi< s .r t d t ,;-�.,..' I ,y. .'xi';''`y s:" .. -"'v fp z <F x ' �.. x. a :,•�`<. f. <t• f; yf,,ffes�.pf,a.ra.. i > z :i a x \ z F as 'k ,K'>: 3•i '' �` .::C C 5n 3 1 N ,'P I l .'.. •, A"' t ,P Bog, , -..rt"` .,... a€ xv r': ,: '�. a A �, `r `r" •r :s. a ,�, r. .€ z'r3 + ;G a s :Y .z,. ?,t` ? ,, _,+.. Z f `,t x:'.. n .✓`�'s: �a„3 a :.., c� •.or :, .+`,d, "as.'F::' r ra r«sw„€. g,s, 3e<° t 5 x` ..ar ..a° „c:` ra % -- zr' g.., O w �'. e<.xr t k s a -yi r k' a x' s'z i, Emu r €1 ::`'=3,`' a t't./♦a r's'%.x kk A:a., . ,' {s > >^xs z Aa, •,ae s -«^.' g M, mmm b ^s i<. otr as o.or' rrk w ea, €;. 3 d :,L ,� \ 5 .:o ;: .:fir x x ..:., ,r•,xr'' N ,z s • a .p:3> o ,.% .. .r x.. Tamm" 's fi.F. .sem" v's•d ,:dx Nx'.zp ,.->_..?3.. •;; _ :« ..., s. .o,m:.... �. :d.. '..,,a � s a ,.... i ,,,..,.:,«sor>.,,, o •:,:,r, a F "r<- e, �•,,;a .«`z :_�.�' -s:,.�„� ,.< "A>•<i t•?"¢Y } e a „9;� .m .?sx t 5 s::�3 x 5 ° 5r:. w, fi h.: 1.:.:,� :z y ♦ ;�f y,7;b '/,nk. ,qi„ e't^; r is o ti s E:. W. T q 't 3 S 4 n A Y,.F _M 4.' P ,o,_-' a �-'�: ,a:s sfi e:-, �+ £,. NMI ,. n -a. � ....a p 2 , ->. ;•,_ „., z..., <�-.<.. 4.»,.-,- ,y.>, a«a.. a,�l. .� :.;,•a:^. _..4<,: .� & < ,.zt,, r•� .t.i:. >� �'i, � a a i,. �:.. <v,, "{;.•.: .:. »� "s ,,.. .r... ':, s.,tb ,> s,,.. .:.. . =, , .>, t` .°k.. a. - .< ';. , ..•Y .xrz r :..r ,ti a c- , 3... •,€, ;zA :,r °tet t x e �,., NIR? r, z T a r o ;,�• r; '€ s.::• a,t >f u a g u> ..,.a... Kt � t � =w<: r x r ,3 §°• 4 5 O n` ..w xa w, t > ,::o, y,, t p 3 ♦4 S r>" ,r ,r,: ,>E> ,�:. ,.t t.,;„, - €;ry++;xP si:' s> s 'r.:.:_ ,a x j an;,_ + .,sr, .,� .a. 't .ra F.,. d �<::: <" .. `„ ,.. 3 3,{ .'"+? n N z. :. _.. -k x $ T".., :xa 7` S z;.. tt r „ •a'., „'F'..,. ,�_.s'P �,. .,� ,._•� !! r-..,,r"x ,s..... « € �Ep.;;,. r: ��:< ...,rw..�,,...e..r� ?� 1 .< ,« ..•.<.,>,v ,t ,,-gin v,, .._:tea- 'x ..,,... 3« <.. x :, r ., JJ::, r-s:'.E., z. M. .a, i•. ,..i.>,.^3 J,._ : >, .,Ft' 4 k.§ >•e- ,., 1.,,€s 3."z: ,> �,r .M.,. ,• ^sY ,4 , �c-..,.e 'z ... Via.:.. „ .•�.''."," +:' 3'! ,... , ,., •� --s k ,., ;;s^. s:i ,'w,bz t;�`-.a.. `�,,, •^=x" z:r, :� x.. a «_�, a �'';- ! a. .r 'Yzt� x �-i^,.St ,t�,r : n. t -s, <:rs" .'M ,G 'c 3- '•s't{3" :,.� ,�'' -=ra 3°'6�'.-. 'x"', d a :. ., >.oL4.. .o, .!, F'> •a ,•:,. f M n u > x, us ..,,, t .,-.'r /.,, ,� �¢, .-. .m,.. i >.Ft,. .. :. Y ,»3" �. ,,," ,y, .. 4. 4W ✓y, .a...,? r +r7+'." .'�'� .>ry�l '"b7�..ryi�,�a»,T. r a2'J. ".'. �a, -:a: <e ,.^ _<..r. >,;::. �;. •.,•�. a.�t ,� >.>.< ,<ott .,r't„,r `:^i ,a+.-..x ,. ,.s v, :Y".. � r,d ;,. ,t. ., d„ �� ,� - `�•. ':t,'• `�" '� «. .....1 ..a... ,.�. 4 „ -, x�r..,. ..,+s„a:,�`�? .,z. j^, .,;. .a� =">rr'�.«,,.a✓�.. �' -✓.. � r s E,,, f_ ,4,r• 1 .& ,,�� ��n � .rpt� �." Y' 'g �< S .Iasi �Y? <,'a ;.s4 � t. �':�.�1 .- ,r1` ,.�, d�A a rr. x�d• .{; .��✓ «r/.. ;,"�' 3 r>'n,+,4 tsusY�¢ : - «.� t ?... r. 'fit ,n s ,;=a;,<. ..•,... , .�.. >-:.< ' '" �`r s,ter :� <.. ,�. .,yx; ,. „.> , ,- •:., a'a �,.'.R z v ...::.,, �,. .,s;�.r Y..P..ti,:,,; r B,.,,, z h ,>..za a� -„ C � Y .Au ���,.: ., ��x�> �,m � � � x'«„sr :.�: �'• `,.,�da' r.r.� fl ✓;2t5 ,s" 2 � ,s�P-i.,, r P,zs ..�,.'�b i ,lTx.- 4 �,k;".�/" > N > .. -� In MIS- n v MIN: - O ° D w :orw W m z 'o � a "w-' `n y a y o o y m ' O no.rn e.o�e wey m i° o R o > MIME C O o a WIN .v ° o y n r o < i m m � o _ z < F y m ,>. Z 2 r o i m o " < m r. a T y c o a ' '^ '^ -' > a < 5 v O a m w _ z z m c z m w06: 11 " o v m L7 n � w T r N � � �� � o - _ �_ y a � a - w v v } m m m a i a w z r Z z m n v i a s ARM a : ^ v i c w ^ > ° _ < m m m ° ~ 'o m m o -zi C7 Z Q _ o Sly; z r z o o = 9 0 0 ; D C) Qr m MO n 'y^ C) O _ � z 4a v m H9 ° o w R n y Z O D 2 ; m ° m o T ° i o z z z z z 2 D X m w D DD F ~ Z m ~ r O i v m 5 T n o m O o j m 8 0 H o ° Z a C O m ° r o y < < r n _ZC o 71 0 o = • H 1 / IE . ll im D p � m ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROPOSED ' EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AIRPORT BYRON, CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE +85042304;. '. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY FILE *PW 85:t43-.`'"' Prepared for County of Contra Costa, California Prepared by HODGES & SHUTT Santa Rosa, California ' August 1986 ' This environmental assessment becomes a Federal document ' when evaluated and signed-by the responsible FAA official. ' Responsible FAA Official Date ' - TABLE OF CONTENTS tI INTRODUCTION age Report Scope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . 1 Status of Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Report Organization 2 ' II SUMMARY Project Purpose and Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ' Significant Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . : . . . : : . 6 Other Issues. 13 III PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Regional Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Aviation Activity 18 The Site. 19 men Stages of Developt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 ' Design Constraints: � _. 22 Land Requirements 26 Runway and Taxiway System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Building Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 ' Roads and Utilities 39 Costs 41 ' IV PLANNING AND POLICY FRAMEWORK County of Contra Costa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. _ . . . . . 43 Other Local Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 ' Federal and State Aviation Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 V ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES ' Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Geology and Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 ' Hydrology 52 Vegetation and Wildlife 53 Archaeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Land Use. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 ' Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Socioeconomics and Housing. 77 Airspace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Road System and Traffic Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 ' Public Utilities and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 ' i Eage Health and Safety . . . . . . . . . . . _ 103 Energy Consumption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Air Qual i ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Recreation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 . . . . Visual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : .- . . . . . . . . 116 ' Construction Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 VI OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ' Significant Irreversible Changes Which Would Be Involved , in the Proposed Action Should It Be Implemented . . . . . . . 123 Growth-Inducing Impact of the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . 123 Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of ' Long-Term Productivity. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 125 VII PROTECT ALTERNATIVES ' Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 No Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 ' Alternative Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Alternative Layouts . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 129 VIII REPORT RESOURCES - References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 ' Individuals Contacted . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . 135 Report Authors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 APPENDICES A Notice of Preparation and Responses Received ' B Plant and Animal Species Identified on the Site C Noise Impact Calculations Inputs D Responses to Comments on Draft EIR ' E Notice of Public Hearing F Public Hearing Transcript G Written Comments Received on Draft EIR H Written Comments Received on Final EIR I Notice of Determination j � L' ll 1 ' LISTING OF FIGURES AND TABLES E1ggrgs Page 1 Site Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 Airport Layout Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ff 16 ' 3 Approach Protection Plan and Airport Data Sheet : : . : . . . . ff 16 4 Approach and Clear Zone Plan. • -- . ff 16 5 Project Area Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ff 16 ' 6 Aircraft Owners Distribution. . : : . : . . : . : . . . . .. . ff 18 7 East County Area General Plan ., ..,� . 44 8 Project Area Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 ' 9 Habitat Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : . . ff 58 10 Required Restrictions on Wind Farm Development. ff 76 11 Ground Access Time. Proposed Airport Site. . . . . . . . . . . ff 90 12 Noise Impacts - 1990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 ' 13 Noise Impacts - 2005. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 14 Alternative Sites • • . ff 128 15 Site Plan Concept: Site C (East Oakley) . . . . .. . . . . . . .ff 128 16 Site Plan Concept: Site H (Southeast Brentwood) . . . . . . . . ff 128 17 Site Plan Concept: Site J (Hillside) . ff 128 18 Alternative Layout Concept 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 19 Alternative Layout Concept 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Tables ' 1 Proposed Property Acquisition . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . 27 2 Estimated Development Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 3 Airport-Related Pollutants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 ff = figure following ' iii I.- INTRODUCTION REPORT SCOPE This report addresses the environmental impacts associated with tne-construc- tion and use of a new general aviation airport to serve the people-of eastern Contra Costa County, California. The project site is located. in the south- eastern corner of the county, approximately three miles south of the town of Byron (Figure 1) . The plans that have been prepared for tnis project are designed to meet the aviation needs of the area over- the next 20 years and to have a potential for expansion to meet even longer term needs. The County of ' Contra Costa is the lead agency for the project since it proposes to own _and operate the airport. Federal Aviation Administration criteria for environmental assessment reports, as established in FAA Order 1050.1C, "Policies and Procedures for Considering ' Environmental Impacts, " Appendix 6, and in FAA Order 5050.4, ."Airport Environ- mental nviron- mental Handbook, " have been followed in the preparation of this document. ' Guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amendea, have also been followed. ' Except for revisions to the Introduction chapter, this Environmental Assess- ment is the same document as the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared in ' accordance with State of California requirements. The Final EIR is comprised of the Draft EIR (dated September 1985) and the Responses to Comments , (dateo ' January 1986) . A public hearing on the Draft EIR was held by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on November 26, 1985, and the Commission certified ' the Final EIR on May 27, 1986. At the outset of the environmental review process, an Initial Stuay of Envi- ronmental Impacts was prepared and circulated through the State Office of Planning and Research together with a Notice of Preparation of this environ- mental document. The project has been assigned Clearinghouse number 85042304. ' 1 A formal scoping meeting open to the public was held on May 2, 1985. Thirteen ' people attended. In addition, 12 items of correspondence were received, most— ly from publ is agenci es. ' STATUS OF PRW ECT ' This environmental document is the second of three reports prepared for -the ' East Contra Costa County Airport Site Study. The first volume is titled Pn ase 1.: Site Identification andEvaluation and dated October 1984. The third doc— ument is the East Contra Costa County Airport Master Plan e ort dated May 1986. The master plan was adopted by the County Board of Supervisors on June 3, 1986. ' The study is sponsored by the County of Contra. Costa. Funding support nas been provided by an airport planning grant from the Federal Aviation Admini— stration as provided under Section 505 of the Airport and Airway Improve,nent ' Act of 1982. The principala1 acen i es that must review and approve the overall, project pro- ' posal before it can be implemented include: o County of Contra Costa. o Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Conunission. , o California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics. o Federal Aviation Administration. , REPORT ORGANIZATION ' The content of this report is organized in accordance with federal, state, and ' county guidelines. o A required summary of the proposed project and its impacts is presented in ' Chapter II. 2 - ' 1 1 ' 5 :5 5 0 50 r A r 80: :: :We = r Fa rfi r101 ails .-�':•• .•..•.•..•............... . ::.:.;:.: :•• .......... :;*; a 5• r 4 •Concord An Richmond Brentwood :TOCIK r :: . 24 a ut Craak %�: ::::.:::::::::: ::-:. -:-::•:..... i�/4KLAND CONTRA COSTA CO. .... 680 �. �tl. A P. .r R : 580 • �=:1`••:• .. jiwi' voinio� :•: •. 17R:�7! �:• 280 :••: 8 7• :t ;.• .; r M Q::•: F::•:: 101 ..5: r 6& ir ::::: iiii:; :: :. os A6 r -- r0 10 20 30 MILES AV IA.TION PLANNING SERVICES lIIII`I! f(( SITE LOCATION MAP nI� rlooces s sMUTT F I g U f@ 1 r3 o Chapter III provides background setting and historical" information regard- , ing the project. It also sets forth the plan drawings and a description of the project and the proposed stages of its implementation. o Chapter V contains the environmental impact analysis. The setting, im- pacts and mitigation measures are described with regard to eadf-maj-or category of environmental impact. , o Other environmental issues required to be considered, including the issue of growth inducement, are assessed in Chapter VI . ' o Project alternatives are discussed in Chapter VII . Reference is made to the Phase One report for a more complete evaluation of alternative sites. This report is hereby incorporated by reference . o Report references and individuals contacted during the environmental study are listed in Chapter VIII along with the report authors. ' o Miscellaneous detailed information pertinent to the project is located in ^ � Appendices A, B, and C. o Appendices D through I contain materials associated with the comments and , responses regarding the Draft EIR. ' 4 ' II - SUMMARY PROJECT PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION 1 The proposed project is the development of a new full-service general ay.iation ' airport at a site adjacent to the existing Byron Airpark located.,1P south- eastern Contra Costa County. The new airport would be owned and operated by the County. The Byron site was selected for further evaluation by the County Board of Supervisors at the conclusion of the site identification and eval- uation phase of the present study. No further commitment has been made to the Byron site or the proposed plan beyond the effort associated with the site planning and environmental assessment. A master plan, including a set of plan drawings, has been prepared for the pro- posed airport. These drawings are presented in Chapter III. Implementation of the plan is proposed to take place in stages over the next 20 years as the need ' arises for additional facilities to serve the East County. The potential for expansion of the airport beyond the projected 20-year needs is accommodated in the plan. The airport boundaries would encompass some 1,270 acres to be acquired in fee. rThis property would include the Byron Airpark (2 parcels) plus all or part of 10 other parcels. The development portion of the site would cover only some 230 acres of the total. The remainder would include runway clear zones, nature preserve areas (to protect vernal pools situated on the site), and excess lands ' acquired to minimize the splitting of parcels. ' Because of wind conditions, two new runways would be required on the site. The longer one would be 4,350-feet long and oriented northwest - southeast; it would have an instrument approach from the southeast. The secondary runway, 3,750-feet long, is proposed to be aligned east-northeast - west-southwest. Both runways would be lighted for nighttime use. 5 Aircraft parking and related building area facilities (e.g. , airport -terminal building and fixed base operations facilities) are proposed to be located in the center of the "V1t formed by the two runways. Space to accommodate some 170 , based aircraft would be provided initially. The planned capacity is approx- imately 540 based aircraft. About 4070 of the total spaces would be hangar units. The planned capacity would provide more than the projected 20-year needs; a maximum demand of 400-based aircraft is forecasted for 2005. In addition to the airport site proper, easements would be obtained on ad- , joining land to protect against the development of land uses incompatible with airport activities. Conservation easements, encompassing some 1,720 acres located primarily within the runway approach zones, would preclude additional ' residential development and also contain other provisions regarding noise im- pacts, the acceptable height of structures, etc. The latter provisions would ' constitute the basis of avigation easements proposed to be obtained on other property within about two miles of the airport boundaries. The avigatior. , easements are considered comparatively low priority and generally would be sought only in conjunction with proposed subdivision or development of the , properties involved. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS A major objective of the site planning process was to minimize the adverse environmental impacts of the project. Certain impacts would nevertheless be unavoidable if the project is to be implemented. Measures intended to mitigate ' these impacts are incorporated into the project to the extent practical. The most significant impacts would potentially occur with regard to the following ' environmental categories listed below. Additional recommended mitigation measures are noted. Geology and Soils Impacts. Full development of the airport over a 20-year time span would entail moving some 500,000 cubic yards of dirt. The initial phase of construction ' would involve nearly half-of the total, including lowering of the hill in the 6 ' ' center of the site b as much as 25 feet. The engineering design of the Y 9 9 9 project is expected to balance the cut and fill volumes. An unknown potential ' for liquefaction resulting from seismic shaking exists at the site. Mitigation: ' o All fill areas would be compacted as required by federal , state, and local standards to prevent slippage and erosion. ' .o Because of the clayey nature of the soils on much of the site, special ' design measures may be required to avoid shrink-swell damage to the , pavement. The engineer should work with a soils and materials expert when designing the project. Hydrology Impacts: Construction of the project would necessitate changes to both the ' natural and man-made hydrological features on the site. By shifting the major development area of the airport southeastward from the present Byron Airpark ' site, the project minimizes the disruption to Brushy Creek and the vernal pools. The tradeoff to this layout is the requirement that some 2,800 feet of the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District 45 Canal be placed in an underground pipe ' beneath the runways. The project will result in increased runoff of rain water. Mitigation: ' o Construction work should be coordinated with the Irrigation District to avoid impairment of the canal' s function or capacity. o Establishment of on-site ponds to hold excess runoff water should be con- sidered. o Final project designs should be submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers for review to assure that any concerns it may have regarding Brushy Creek are satisfied. ' 7 Vegetation and Wildlife Impacts: Four clusters of vernalP ools located on the site were a major con- ' cern in the project design. The California Department of Fish and Game con- siders these pools to be unique ecological habitats. About 35 of the 200 acres of vernal pool habitat on the site would be eliminated by the project. ' The area affected was noted to have significantly less diversity of,..p_Jant species ' than other pool clusters. These remaining vernal pool acres are proposed to be set aside in perpetuity as nature preserves. Alternative layouts would have a ' greater impact on the vernal pools. Most of the land that would be covered by the airport facilities is grassland. Approximately 175 acres of open pasture and 20 acres of irrigated pasture would ' be eliminated. Much of the remaining grassland within the proposed airport boundaries would continue to be available for mowing or grazing. , No rare or endangered species of plants or animals were determined to exist on the site during a field reconnaissance conducted by a professional biologist in , April 1985. Mitigation: o The possibility that former vernal pools could be reestablished. on nonavi- ' ation portions of the site by removing manmade levees should be examined. ' o The possibility of irrigating nonaviation currently dry pasture areas of the site should be investigated. o An additional survey of the actual construction areas is recommended to be done before construction work begins to assure that no species of concern are present. ' Land Use Impacts: Implementation of the._.project would permanently change the land use of the site. A small privately-owned general aviation airport plus nearly —, 1,000 acres of adjacent land would be converted into a full-service, public 8 i ' airport. Two barns plus one major structure on the Byron Airpark would need to be removed. The only residence within the proposed airport boundaries is on the present Byron Airpark property; the project would not require this house to be removed. The house and surrounding land plus other land excess to aviation needs could be leased or sold with appropriate easements attached. ' The project would affect nearby land uses in three ways: ' o The proposed conservation and avigation easements would prohibit certain types of land uses. Most significantly, portions of two wind farms pro- posed for property adjacent to the airport site could not be approved ' because of conflicts with long-term requirements for airport airspace. Additionally, new residential development would be precluded in some iareas. o The project has the potential to induce growth in the area. This issue is discussed later in this Summary. o Development of an airport in this quiet, rural area could affect the ' quality of life that the area' s residents enjoy. The airport would in- creasingly, over time, bring more activity, more "hustle and bustle" to the area. The extent to which this change would disturb people would vary from individual to individual . Some impacts would be unavoidable. Mitigation: ' o Reduction in the fee simple acquisition area of the project by splitting parcels should be considered where such measures would be beneficial to both the airport and the landowner. 1 o As further means of avoiding incompatible land use development in the air- port environs, the following measures should be considered by the appro- priate entities: i9 . — Adopt an Airport Vicinity Height Limit Zoning Ordinance (County) . — Modify land use zoning (County) . — Implement a Byron Awareness Program (County) . — Adopt an Airport Land Use Commission Plan (ALUC) . Natural Resources Impacts Other than the consumption of fuel and materials for construction of the proposed facilities, the only natural resource that the project would ' significantly affect is wind energy. About one—fourth to one—third of the wind turbines currently proposed for installation in two wind farms -- one west and one southeast of the airport site -- would be precluded because of the airport ' project. Alternative layouts of the Byron site would affect a significantly higher percentage of wind turbines. e Mitigation: o This impact is unavoidable; no mitigation measures are suggested. s Road System and Traffic Circulation Impacts:- The amount of traffic that the airport would generate -- an estimated 10 trips per peak hour in 1990 and 300 in 2005 -- would not significantly af— fect the major roads in the area. Improvements to local roads, including widening of portions of Byron Hot Springs and Armstrong Roads, is proposed as ' part of the project, however. Inadequacies of the railroad grade crossing on Byron Hot Springs Road at the Byron Highway intersection may become a signif— icant problem s airport traffic increases., Mitigation• o As a long—term solution to the grade crossing problem, construction of a new access road along the west side of Byron Hot Springs property should be considered. 10 ' Public Utilities and Services ' Impacts: Adequate systems for water supply and wastewater disposal are cur- rently not available on or close to the site. The project proposes that water be obtained from the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District canal and treated on site. Wastewater also is proposed to be treated on site. Fire protection at ' the airport would be within the jurisdiction of the Byron Fire Protection District. ' Mitigation: o When warranted by airport activity levels, establishment of an airport- operated fire station on the airport should be considered. Noise Impacts No existing residences are located within the 55-dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contour projected for either 1990 or 2005. This, how- ever, does not imply that the airport would have no noise impacts even though 55-CNEL is quite conservative as a noise compatibility standard. If the air- port is built, aircraft would overfly many of the approximately 20 residences located within a mile of the site. How often these events would occur and how ' loud they would be would vary from place to place. Also, the extent to which people are annoyed by these noise events would vary from individual to indiv- idual . By means of the proposed conservation and avigation easements, the project seeks to keep particularly noise-sensitive land uses and people from locating in the area in the future. Mitigation: o Implementation of the land use compatibility measures listed above should be considered. 11 Health and Safety Impacts: Potential hazards to aircraft in flight were carefully considered in the planning of the proposed airport. Specific concerns are the high terrain and major transmission lines west of the site. An analysis conducted as part of the present study indicates that these obstacles are. located far enough from the airport that they would not constitute major hazards, but that installation , of obstruction lights may be required. Also, the need to eliminate some of the wind turbines proposed for land adjoining the airport site arises because of , the airspace hazards they would constitute. The airport would pose insignificant hazards to people on the ground in the , area. No development presently exists in the most critical areas, the runway approach zones. The extensive property acquisition plus the proposed conser- vation easements would preclude future development in these areas. Mitigation- o Consideration should be given to implementation of the compatibility measures listed in the land use section above. Construction Activities Impacts: In addition to the above long-term impacts of the proposed project, short-term impacts would occur while construction is in progress. These , impacts potentially include: erosion, blowing dust, noise, safety hazards, traffic disruption, and effects on the irrigation canal service. Mitigation• ' o Construction should be undertaken during the dry season. o All cut and fill areas should be compacted according to applicable standards. ' 12 o Vegetation should promptly be reestablished on areas of exposed soil . ' o Exposed soil areas should frequently be moistened during construction. ' o To the extent feasible, work should be done during daytime on weekdays. ' o Coordination should be established with the operators of pipej.-ines.across the site so that the pipe locations can be adequately marked. o Flagmen should be stationed at critical points on haul routes. 9 o Temporary closure of the existing airport runways should be clearly marked with Xis. 9THER ISSUES t ' Crowth-Inducing Impacts The proposed airport has the potential for becoming a focal point that would attract unwanted development in the surrounding area. This growth-inducing tendency is expected to be small and can be held in check by: o Acquisition of conservation easements on nearby land. o Not allowing nonaviation uses on the site that would in turn attract other ' development nearby. . o Providing water and wastewater system capacity for aviation-related uses only. ' o Adherence to or strengthening of present land use development controls. ' o Adoption of an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan by the ALUC. 13 Walnut Creek, Orinda, and San Ramon among others; and the eastern part extend- ing from the Mount Diablo Range to the San Joaquin Delta country including the f communities of Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, and Byron. Although most of the ; d county' s population is currently concentrated in the western and central sec- tors, the eastern section comprises nearly half of the county' s land area. The east county comprises the study area for the present project (Figure.5) . Elevations in the eastern portion of the county range from 3,849-feet atop Mount Diablo to as much as 20-feet below sea level on same of the delta islands protected by levees. The highest point in the southeastern area is approximately 1,300-feet MSL just under 5 miles southwest of the airport site. Land Use Although heavy industry has long been established in the Pittsburg-Antioch area along the San Joaquin River, most of the rest of eastern Contra Costa County has historically been agricultural in character. Intensively farmed cropland covers the flat delta area while open grazing land prevails among the hills farther along the county' s eastern edge and south. Changes are occur- ring, however. Although agriculture continues to cover a wide area, urbaniza- tion is rapidly moving eastward from Concord, along the Highway 4 corridor on the county' s northern edge to Antioch, Oakley, and Brentwood. In time, most of the northeastern portion of the county north of Brentwood (except- flood- prone exceptflood-prone areas) is expected to be urban. The southeastern corner of the county likely will remain mostly rural for the foreseeable future. Currently the major land use trend in this area is the ' development of numerous wind-turbine farms among the hills along the southern county boundary. Two potential future developments also could greatly affect the entire southeast county: extension of the freeway portion of Highway 4 along a new alignment from Antioch to the Byron Highway intersection southeast of Brentwood (a distinct possibility, but probably not until the end of the century) ; and construction of a major reservoir -- Los Vaqueros -- and related facilities in the hills along Vasco Road (still a much debated subject) . 16 A - � A? AA�' � A- A• A �• A � A A A � � r r ' h 1 a; i Y :. �J.::�v-Z .r. �i;},,�3� `�S � y.. � �a� ��'' lxr<," d »�' ,1» '���,,,ya. �''•b� ,\�,- z xn �f.F',$Y�3.Sd„at�aP�; .�r t,:, - ,�;rw,,, . -., .- .a=°., � a�a'.�£ ��.A- a,�,..,,�;,•�s � '+�essc�� r»g ��� r � :�'x �, . t, '✓,. 3 .P:� k ':� ,,,�., .s<t ',.�yvx7?' �. mid. �r'�s' 'i:� ,fit', ,� a•; ,���,". cx' '� '� ^�< lr 't����,_ Mt,>� ^-w nro >��°'?"� +��� g ,��"�rr... ��3� »� 'v',», �_�}�; � �^� ¢ s A »,a.'3 x»��,; �r � �+ ?.P�"» � 3 3•z�, rel \ :e�,�;�;�` s prw �" � •" $z .�;°y �a 3-Caa' ' Y� �`��r� .;axr ��C�h � �..sN, 3 �' �^ r � w Im Rum trn r m 10 t,� .v �,�8-::�� c✓�.�t� �:rd�, �`..�.. :�D:, �r�°:F ,.,�;°:. ,.� 2 �'.'� %.i,\: > ��a",v� r *� '�!• �;fix;-:, �' ',�, � .F'w <°'::��,� � c�'=+.,_ ; re :,1.r`�,�&^y `� �'.,"e t:, f -_�� :�•�s; ,'�.";"Q ��� �'' �.�� ',�z �' ., <�,.,/-'��t �' yd:xP'>�.,.,. ,,fi�F ,'. .a'`fid, a}. 3�s>� §,a, ','3' �,.�':�. .f'�FK; ,,».e. w,,, ,.�� ,t. .,� ,•k'� .�v i ismWTZ .2ftl t h ,s--'•, a "',1 a A'^a. r Nryx Fyr -:-3 rasa :; ' eti.v? �j• :z 'g 3"es:;s^��r- t "='»��a:: b�', 6�::. tid ,'gay;. ��" a'",a' :b a "r•��` ���. w�..,�,�,�.� rn.F3`.T%a,.��,�y✓ ? a,£M;' ��� ��-'ger� �z i�� �� � a,u '", .0 �y....-,�z,.ti���s,:r_. at�c,d� s�.vea- � 1 C�A►i!t,��Q.YOE11<0�+1,, r zA�-,, s e "''3s tt5. ` ,+": » '� ,�: ev»� � ;;>r on Ka;;.res■ � y��r � R '�vc �,..,:. � c',x• �, �a�rr�� � .z + �, -':��' r sK rw B�z"�`�y�� .t..� da' ��,' x.`.,�,r��� . ���.n'"�~;� ,� ":5 ,zk,:.yro-a .. € :.m r..l +.+., .. ,� �..�_xc�y '�' ;>.�:� �..,'t � F.a&;.i? f •� � t$-, � ,.e: i � spa x�+� et ;ti•a �� 2''' �e r� �x� �3'z - <` >' i> "���fi��' a,4tb�'r � o or a a'.,.� �iY�'.,��.���kf���� . �` " :3; �,, q�t�a"�Y r �e�✓� � / z �'�, vwYwa �'FE �"�+,�r.r'x € � ' �' ��,r-"k "',� r- ,§�M� w�11, Zp b 1 ,re7e. n II t r m 0 > o sm m p C m y m 0 m y o m m r O A • \/ O ,� � �OOO O m � T> ti M m 9 rl W 2 O �il 20 %O m v 0 z 2 2 O North Brun.WerD = T g D C O a T > D m C O 0 O m � [ r O - > z O p 55 O O > Z a m i > Z z * i m g ti i y a v z o m s m~ a m } >> r > m K j > v a m m x z r 2 Q D m O )t a m > m Z m < C O m a < O O O O m G p B • s m _ O < 8 > p C a x y p y T. m A O m m ; ' 'r t m m = ` w O O 111 _ a ¢ m > m r r < L < < O T m O r 0 ti O O i O Z r z r r = r T '� m i y O O O O o [ Q� o j/� i n i m m a i D 2 ~m T [1 m m O O y C m m y �tt O\J y i ~ y Z m m O i L C m K / P ) j ti p N 0 ti m ; z z z z z O f5 a m '� x••' D T C D G) D as m w m z a m c a '^ o O '11 OJ= 0 ` o a o m m o R m RI _ m o Y m o s P d c ZZ r m 0 r of i �`..,.. K. t, `•✓�,,..!l� �. r 1 t✓,l �M 1O J' / \':. ,.,,, `: r 0i �"`/ / r l�J ow «,-... _v. •/�,. ) L. ^•-•�,.` ��i .a.` ! t}f -`.*r'"-k�:���._ Ly`'�•.A' �i..,�:fir'.�, .-'�... •�'.tt � v�L I �"� ! 'rr / \ ]j',{ ti'`�%1i1�) t:��`Jr �^�,?) _\ ✓ y v �l/ ) ` I , ti I`� )�I ` \ /!>'•. t �i'r/ /. �`-,^��r; lir.���-a,�'�,.i1' v�"t�-.-i,':� o.'--•lc.4g. �.�' , ''{�t'_�-^4"I•- !r, .v?''--/�'?/j�l^�i tt\i'�,:it r ✓ � /�t1 �`\ l��r r, i,/,/� ,.-��\ 1 ;t 'R '�x,r-: a =1 Ct�r a!`• _-` if , `�i�l-•`"ti�'r ��i'�' r% I�:.f� r�i/ ), i 'Lr'- ;1/ f �Ga:'' •) ? �}v •ir ::: , \`} zoo.r , yf`�r `.%W .\`�'��-_"Jf`v�1.1//-„ �-'. r. c� .�� ,�h r ✓• r�; ` ..�'^�,a "'•0/S'•r .V.--�n^I .”✓.?s'-i ,��� -,- �`•��;a$--��,!.;�.,., �`=�t��,'` �� �r1-v^�-,i�`'atti�_"'".�..ao'_�.�f�j 1 J ';,�' �, 1. .."n,..- 'l i�� \`-,.y-- f�lr(i'+.� `�� '� .11. `=:a-ti;v `^ 't:•""`r-� ::%" i. � •./ -.��`...i+'viG-� /.r;�,l f,r )l.:_ � N• / rv. /1 -"---r r( •',"�`'-.'`.c.t 1 / /j.. `"1 r' �f•r=r"`='���'�i'� .��i'Y i�S-�� '� � *�,,1 ,:. '--�,`:�.: ! cwr14•�xe xr�e=r crroxz .l j. :�,r�:.. � r I' ,p,°� '� ;� �;_;_��-,� � , ,rte ,,r--. c^:�..-- . r ��.+. �}�,. } ' r , �;. � �� � : f y •. �� � --•�. %-�`1 7)i � '\f -'o c` I o y l: J:/ � r,f�>'-�r�j o '•}\ � - � ? f�pw. ., ��J ! o ,},:'\1`��@/` '.\1\ ���i ��\ i. °"_'_ � `� ' fllJf�\•�,..1 ,\ `i r � ''r r _`o.% /(}R � t r v / N4i t{ht �'!i ,`` / 1 "",: o ♦ M RO / : i .',�� ter (, \�{,1 : � 1 � _ ,�,1 � ♦\�`'\\ J t 19 71 -, p d eC'3'- J(�� � �w,t1A, �•^�..�•' i �;} ,l� ��l�I 'Itl�� �Iy9.a� .I•'. j-- YRON�N07Ig •6:ya ? n• t 4yy fp Ilk 60 t. AVE,•_� _. � —..�C9d. '.1t) /�9���' � : � - f./�1�3 ... .. �; t. ... ... � t • \ E \ 37 V/ N o • Ln CL f ..•. f� r ... _.... r/ rn r ! �,• aiC y > e Cvs � � ' :°• :i' •mix '+• :i ; ..° • . ii �; O p O w if y O i = •` • `� • Z r � � n 9 -a Z • a °Z •i - _� _� •- Z 30 " i CCN ° P1 • _ � ''E y m gya P m o "' = xeE 1 w ° ' • � � � � r rn # � F « � L P ' w o 9 r 'O y r o � : g 4 � • 0 4> Z Z w o W ,. : : � • S:�G P g g i 3 e • =� b > N =Z\! �• e,pa s Y x S o t s r • i 7 � ' > Ao 0 - 0 •`±a • r Z 1 < ri i Z �� P 7f C.[ 0 r o- • « s i i: r ; e w : • c # i ^ i : l i _ .. s P - 7S•-4 Q"{r71 A • G m N > m e w•` s s a v, >MQn • . m P ° m N0 xz x.R o € M. = q , Mv < . - , A � 4 p ��-'� V ), - ) r'r 1 ] .F,+, f-���Y r `l'�/ 1 --•�•`��\ j,a`�,S♦f`e, �1 J t �Jl .l, ..{ :I� �r .J' -�{ i.•- � ,�/� a� -. ,l�J ull lU' �.l'f� �.�. '�I.,/� �JI ��/ �E/JI `�� I� Lf `'e y,�,✓��� c �y'� I ��, _�� �n r �� .. e \ „ �� .•-- �� �' �_• (/tt �"`�� ! :,,' ' ail I �� �� �� S /, I i/ ;`� � y f m � l' � f .,. � :,���� \�t. "1�f IRI.-•o _ \; JC��I�r �l f� ,� %l� '+�;�� Oil c"1�X.,i r/ ,,r � a �: ,z: "-, , ":.? Sb � = C Ur �.c o `�i(/ ' 'fir'' !.� `t-,1� `� � ,. /. /�,•,. �,,,,i� . � '��- L7� 'Q�1��\ �r���.✓!>�z h ;t l ,• � .tib �� -�•'••.J4�� l�� � a. � 1 t .�� r'/�i'". :JI fo I °^ � � ��"Y. ',r' {�l"�� ,tea, �, —r �.... /., ,� ����\.�• �`-� ���sr� •.i'_ � -�� -- L,� / ; li i I �i•�'Y''�- i7 r /• � \rp,��+� y'\���+.` i h�:�K~ ��� � r �s _ / '� � .tr....... !� as !-�y a�, y5 ', .•; ±*`\� p ( � �1 , �' ♦ R- »e. Q � r R��,� l _� � V'• it ��a.^S) � �.i'• �"%I•= tl x. .� _i. � ♦ ✓ �,'� �-s.0 �`` �i 'r' � a a �yCt' �� ' � �!�X71 �f s� v� "'� GS. 't c-+'J. ,.. *J �rsfi,�'1` J�:; „yf'gr M !�T I�f.._-6� �`if i" i i"^ : r'•�w _�+h.� ��u }�,,,��fj ;rte. - /�� \ .. . r .. .......i ♦ ` / /_• ,� /9 ,• 3•.` _,�` yN t///��7 *,J`_.' \ I;p'� 1 .�qo 'd e a i! �N �ilr:• cr U *y Q' a• •SII//./ \�... � s�Y.l' • 'r D \ �� P r r>• ""1�-' tom' � '` .° ` \•.i ��E � •J�' +' .�\I` O �`_a__ `1 .f�\C,�1..1, •. 1.:.!• V.... .,?�// /�,SL P�: iI...11rrH111r1111...1.'.•vrly.... ..�� ------------ f4- ........................' .... to i, pp • = I € >' :e • - , fJ =• r c z > � t1 ct vl ' n 'o r- i, - < �•� r N•orl,ro , I r � - i°n°•nor h 01 i Q' o • 1 1' It isn w •+cam 1 ` ` f * I Al.C ; °°yr w r O• •O - 3 � 0 P m D `' Z z p n i- n y G QOcn °- e h • / o' C , m .•1 m 'i1 ° ° D 00 S _ f s "- �O ♦ •YROM MWY PROrr= / � r •. � � �7 'OIO o D z ° .�• Imo„ - :: L, r i t D _ i i0. i !' .. . il .: � .NTN... , ago— on its Its In J . . , a . .. .LITS 'j' .. ■M. ...! !y - ■ `� �! � = ••!: ■ "AM, Pq me fogies� iQQi . . fpr i onjimmLY.:Y.NV I:.:::N f A.M■t.l JI /MY.1 • / .� .Nr.Y. :.�I• .■ 11::U" • .� .�.■. ■.■■ .." 1.. . .rt\ .YI tN/NN.N . /. ■MNN► ../.O. • N.M. .NI1./... ■■Nt■ i ..M D.Mom• SIMM.. NSI ■...SISI/ 7 ■ ■■M...a w f.. ■■/. w/ .N vv*.':NN �r' .•/ M:i�.rt.M amp ..Yy.■•..M • •i:�■ii •: 11■ A 11.■M:t.��V(.... A.N. N. quo .0 N■■/� e MNNo i .■.N • ■ N.so _ iii • 200 see ■...._.. ..se ... .N■. N1 ■�, ./ .! %t... saffil or Now • ,.. .M■. ... . . •; Mr, SISI ..r' li::i NM. W c N.■.M■. p.11 LTV ■■.t. on �► INu■ ` 18.11■ u. • /■■ . ER 18.11 �a: ■ I::i ■ N.' 14 1110- S00– f N: ■ . 1 a It. SISI M! ■■ - _ I1 .� / SISI►'„-!� � I a Z EQRU ati on The estimated population of Contra Costa County as of January 1, 1985, was ' 703,400 (DOF-1985). The proportion in the eastern section has been gradually increasing and as of 1980 had surpassed 175%. The majority of this population resides in the incorporated cities of Antioch and Pittsburg on the county's north side. Other population centers include the city of Brentwood, and_ the unincorporated communities of Oakley and Discovery Bay. The eastern section will grow more rapidly than other parts of the county ' according to Association of Bay Area Governments forecasts. The data indi- cates that 247a of the population -- 203,700 people -- will reside east of Mount Diablo by the year 2000. Antioch and Pittsburg are projected to have a combined population of 136,400 by then. The city of Brentwood with 23,600 people (compared to only 5,200 in 1985) and the unincorporated east county ' with 43,700 account for the remainder. ima e ' The climate of eastern Contra Costa County consists of summers that are typi- cally hot and dry, and winters that are mild with occasional rain. The south- eastern area is generally hotter and drier than the other areas. July and -' August are the hottest months with a mea-n-maximum temperature of 95(o H. around Byron. Freezing temperatures in winter are infrequent. Rainfall var- ies from area to area and is estimated to average about 11-inches annually in the project site vicinity. Summer stratus and winter fog are common phenomena, although the occurrence is somewhat less in the southeast than in the northeast. The southeastern area is noted for strong winds spilling over from the Altamont Pass (see Chapter IV ' for further discussion). 17 AVIATION ACTIVITY —i'Historical t Contra Costa County airports, as with airports throughout the Bay Area, have ' historically followed a pattern of continuous growth. Twenty years ago, .the county' s two principal airports, privately-owned Antioch Airport...4kd gpunty- ' cwned Buchanan Field, were home for about 40 and 220 aircraft, respectively. ' Today the f igures are about 75 and .620; some 75 more aircraft are based at Byron Airpark and the smaller landing strips in the east county. As might be expected, the predominance of Buchanan Field is reflected in the distribution of aircraft owners (Figure 6) . Most people owning an aircraft based in the county, reside or work in th,e central county. Antioch and Byron airports draw their users most heavily from Antioch and Pittsburg. Only some 39 of Buchanan' s airport owners come fran the east county. Projected e The population of the area an airport serves is a principal indicator of the -� number of aircraft likely to be based there. Other factors include the canmu- nity's remoteness, the nature of its economy, and the facilities and services available at the airport compared to other nearby airports. For all of Contra Costa County, there currently are about 1.07 based aircraft per ,1,000 people. Counting only east county airports and population, the ratio is estimated to be a bit less, about 1.01. By comparison, the ratio in the nine-county Bay Area region was 1.25 in 1980 (California Division of Aeronautics - 1981). Division of Aeronautics (1981) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (1984) forecasts anticipate the regional ratios to increase to about 1.7 to 1.9 by the year 2000. Applying these ratios to the projected eastern Contra Costa County population indicates that in excess of 3 50 aircraft could be , based in the area if facilities are provided. Maintenance of the current ownership ratio would result .in about 210 based aircraft. In either case, a few of these aircraft:would probably renai n.at private strips. 18 ! • m . G` v_ w I,•,,,•,,• C 1 ;• • ff,Ifffl,, o O •,,,,,,�� to .. : o • • it Ills* 41 Its ;................ :.. ................ .T' d� ,............�'" cnco � V o d • 0 1. } ..................... 1 ft •••,•-•��♦ 0 C _ A •,• W ro '1 Z ..... A '� ' CO .a v •, O m m PM "N" \v\ V Q � o v o• n 0 � O O CD O O r � O v N m w O 0- O c -I A O -I A m A i n aQ { 0 r- 0 c -� = Z r = T. w m 2 0 0 m v m r A m z D I I ° y c0i O m � z � A n m m — m � A y m -n 0 A O A Z. O -i m A Z -n A A A N y � D Z n r Z Z "� N m C) 0 In w CD m Z D r - O K m o m -0 D < O M O y M o m O Z v Z O r N 0 O o a w O „-iC A m -1 Z A m `m^ Z O w ' v' - Z cn n m a a m - y .. _ - A A o .� 0 D z m :0 < 0 0• CD n w z c O —i Z CO O a y �' o O n `- z CD O = 0 m O 7p n• A o C. o cn A A rr- 0 A) :3m A f7 � r, > > a n rn A (o ,,{ m O O n V<O _ is m N 7c O N O -�- > C 1 _ 2) O N N co N -+ O W N W .O. O 0 £ ?R .� co 7 y cD O N Ca O N O O N O O Z For the near-term development needs, it is more realistic to consider the num-ber of aircraft that would need to be accommodated if all the planes from Antioch and Byron airports plus a few from Buchanan and private strips were to be based at the new facility. This assumption equates to about 150 aircraft, including some increment of nearterm growth. ' Although these based aircraft forecasts provide the starting point for design of the airport, their .accuracy over the long run is not particularly impor- tant. It can be assumed that, even if the forecasted activity levels are not reached in the year stated, they would be at some later date, For the purposes of environmental impact assessment, the highest reasonably likely activity levels are used. These high-forecast based aircraft numbers and the corresponding aircraft operations projections are as follows: 1990 2005 Based Aircraft 150 400 Aircraft Operations 45,000 160,000 E SITE The site for the proposed airport is located in the southeastern corner of Contra Costa County, 3 .0 miles south of the town of Byron and 2.5 miles north of the Alameda County line. The nearest major road, the Byron Highway (County Route J4) passes 1.0 mile northeast. Byron Hot Springs Road runs through the site on a north-south alignment and Armstrong Road skirts the northern and western edges. The existing small, privately-cwned Byron Airpark occupies the site' s northwest corner. Most of the area is open grassland. Some 20 rural residences are spread around the perimeter of the site. Other significant development in the imme- diate mme-diate vicinity includes: a major irrigation canal flowing northward across 19 r the eastern part of the site; high-pressure gas and petroleum pipelines run- ning diagonally through the middle of the site; several high-voltage transmis- sion lines within 3 .0 miles east, west, and south; Clifton Court Forebay, the beginning point of the California State Water Project, 2.0 miles east; and a r' railroad line running parallel to the Byron Highway. Also of major signifi- cance to the area are numerous wind turbines situated among the hills as close as 1 mile south of the site. Proposals for development of addi titnal-Wind turbines within 1 mile to the southeast and .west have been important consider- ations in planning of the airport layout. . .i Lying on the eastern edge of the Diablo Range, the site' s topography consists , of low rol l ing hills, level ing out into flat, irrigated pastures on the east side. Elevations range from 40 feet to 140 feet above mean sea level, aver- , aging about 50 feet. The hills, 2.5 miles to the west, range from 400 feet to above 900 feet elevation. One of the transmission lines runs along the top of , the ridge at about this distance f ran the site. STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT ' e The project as described and analyzed herein covers the development of the airport that is anticipated to take place over the next 20 years. Development would occur in staces throughout this time period. The initial construction period is considered to extend over approximately five years. Certain ele- ments of the airport' s potential ultimate expansion, beyond the 20-year time frame, are indicated on the proposed plan, but the impacts of this expansion are not assessed in this report. Initially and throughout the 20-year planning period, the airport would be a general utility facility. It would be used predominantly by light, single- engine, propeller-driven airplanes, with some twin-engine aircraft plus occa- sional use by small business jets. The ultimate development potential out- ' lined on the plan would place the airport at the lower end of the transport class. This expansion would enable the airport to be used by somewhat larger busi ness j ets, but sti 11 woul d not be suf f ici ent for 1 arge, ai rl ine-type j et rcraft. -, 20 r r � Short Term r The first phase of work would involve construction of the northwestern three- quarters hree- quarters of the primary runway (12-30), parking for up to 170 aircraft (in- cluding the existing individual hangars and some FBO area spaces), and an access road. Space for a fixed base operation leasehold would be established. The existing northeast - southwest runway (4-22) at the Byron Ai r=pa-rk-woul d remain in use during this initial development period. The existing northwest - southeast runway (14-32) would serve as an interim taxiway connecting to the new facilities. r Intermediate r During the next stage of development extending roughly from 1990 to 1995, a new northeast - southwest runway (5-23), initially 2,750 feet in length, would be constructed. The actual orientation of this runway could vary slightly from that shown on the plan, depending upon the outcome of wind studies to be conducted prior to this phase of construction. With opening of the new sec- ondary runway, the existing Runway 4-22 would be abandoned. Other work antic- ipated during this time period would include extension of the access road and construction of additional based aircraft tiedowns and T-hangars, . the first ' increment of transient aircraft parking apron, and perhaps a terminal build- ing. ui1d- ing. Additional fixed base operations facilities might be developed•. at this time as well. Lorig Terrn ... Over the long term, between 10 and 20 years in the future or extending to at rleast 2005, the airport could reach the full development shown on the Master Plan. During this period, it is anticipated that the primary runway would be ' extended to 4,350 feet and a nonprecision, or a precision, instrument approach would be established f ran the southeast. The secondary runway would be 1 lengthened to 3 ,750 feet. Parking could be provided for over 500 based air- craft and up to 60 transient aircraft. If found.to be feasible with regard r 21 r to land uses north of the airport, a new access road, entering the airport along the alignment of existing Runway 14-32, could be built. , Ultimate The potential ultimate development of the airport is depicted on the plan in less detail than other development. The major change would be the--extension of the primary runway to 6000 feet in length and establishment of a precision instrument approach. Parking for as many as 600 based aircraft could be pro- vided. ro- vided. DESIGN CONSTRAINTS g Despite the fact that the site is located in enerally open land, a variety of , P ., P Y physical features in the area constrain the ways in which the airport facili- ties can be layed out. Among these constraints are the following: ' Terrain ' -Two hills occupy the center of the site, extending -30 to 50 feet above the ' site's base _level. To minimize the expense of earthwork, the proposed plan avoids the taller hill altogether and requires removal of less than 20 feet , from the highest point of the lower hill. Other hills on all but the east and northeast sides of the site lie along the potential approach paths and limit the choices for positioning of the..runway. Federal Aviation Regulations (Part 77) establish imaginary surfaces in the ' airspace around an airport which are used as the basis for assessing potential hazards to flight. If terrain or other obstacles penetrate any of these sur- ' faces, the Federal Aviation Administration conducts a careful analysis to determine whether a hazardous condition exists and, if so, what mitigation ' measures should be taken. The proposed plan posi tions.the runways in a manner that, at least initially, would not result in terrain penetrations of the approach surfaces. Long-term 22 extension of the secondary runway would require lowering of a hill located in the southwest part of the site. Also, if the primary runway is ultimately extended to 6,000 feet, a hill in the southeast corner of the site and possi- bly two on the northern edge would have to be lowered. Beyond these close—in obstacles, the runway approaches would be free of terrain penetrations. The terrain to the southwest, however, does rise rapidly beyond the end of the approach surface. (a mile from the end of the runway) , resulting .irk penetra- tions of the horizontal surface. Wind The wind conditions at Byron have been a significant concern in both the selection and the planning of the site. The speed and the direction of the wind have both been issues. Recent analyses of the wind energy potential on lands to the west and south have provided a source of data about the wind in the area. The usefulness of this data is somewhat limited, however, both because the measurements were not gathered on the actual airport site and rbecause the data format was not set up for aeronautical study purposes. Wind data will need to be gathered on the site. By all accounts, the location i s windy, although probably not any more so than ' at San Francisco International Airport or Travis Air Force Base. The annual average is estimated to be about 11 miles per hour. The strongest wj nds occur in the late spring and summer and peak at an estimated average of about 25 to 30 mph during the middle of the night. Mid-day winds average about 10 to 15 mph at this time of year. The winds are strongest in the hills west and southwest of the site and tend to become milder as the terrain flattens out. There is sane indication that the wind continues to blow more strongly aoove the site and is only milder near ground level ; this condition could lead to the occurrence of wind shear. Calm or light winds (below 6 mph) are estimated to occur during about 4070 of the annual hours. ' With regard to wind direction, the available data indicates that strong winds (above 12 mph) blow most frequently from the southwest or west-southwest. It 23 appears, however, that the 1 ighter winds most commonly come from the north- west. Overall, the occurrence of northwest and southwest winds seems to be roughly equal . Winds from other directions are comparatively infrequent and mostly light. Given these wind conditions, it is clear that the airport w it 1 require two ? runways. There might be some advantage in orienting the prirnary.,X-4nw y in a ' northeast - southwest direction; however, the high terrain to the southwest precludes this alignment. The proposed plan therefore maintains the primary , runway alignment in a northwest - southeast direction similar to that of the longer existing runway at the Byron Airpark. The secondary runway would be rotated to more of a east-northeast - west-southwest direction than currently exists at Byron Airpark. , Land lyses Existing development on and near the site has influenced the layout of the proposed facilities. ' Existing Airport Facilities: The existing Byron Airpark consists of: approx- imately 300 acres of land; two paved runways, 2,800 feet and 2,100 feet long; two large, nearly new maintenance hangars; and 23 individual T-hangar units, each on its own concrete slab. The facilities are considered to have primar- ily short-term value. Over the long term, they would represent only a small fraction of the total investment in airport development. The Master Plan therefore proposes that some be phased out in favor of an ultimately more efficient layout. Similarly, the boundaries of the existing airport property ' contain land that would be of marginal value to the long range development of the new airport and, although initial acquisition of this land is expected to ' be necessary, it possibly could later be sold or leased for compatible nonavi- ation uses. , Existincj_Residences and Other- Structures: In the development and evaluation of alternative airport layouts, plans that would avoid the necessity of ac- quiring existing dwellings were considered to have an advantage. The proposed 24 , r r � plan would require no residential acquisition other than one house located on rthe existing Byron Airpark property. Removal of only two nonaviation struc- tures (two barns) would be necessary. The proposed plan also reflects an effort to locate the flight paths so as to minimize the number of dwellings that would be overflown at low altitude. ' Kind Turbine Proposals: Although there are no existing wind turbanes_cl*ose enough to the site to be a factor in the layout plan, two proposed wind farms, one to the southeast and one to the west have been a significant concern. These developments would lie along the approach paths to some of the possi of e runway alignments and could penetrate the approach surfaces. This conflict would either constrain the ultimate development potential of the airport or preclude construction of some of the wind turbines. The proposed airport plan minimizes the conflict as much as practical . ggads: Armstrong Road on the north side of the site and Byron Hot Springs ' Road on the east were not deemed absolute boundaries for potential airport facility development. Any severed road would have to be replaced, however, and the impacts and added cost were considered in evaluation of the layout alternatives. The proposed plan would require severing of Byron Hot Springs Road south of Holey Road. A replacement road would be constructed farther to rthe east. Irrigation Canal : The Byron-Bethany Irrigation District 45 Canal was treated In a manner similar to the roads near the site. The added cost of a layout that would necessitate crossing or relocation of the canal was considered as a disadvantace to be weighed against the greater overall efficiency and other advantages that could be attained. The proposed plan requires undergrounding some 2,800 feet of the canal . Hig_tr-Pressure Plp6l Ines: Any pavement above these underground gas and oil lines would be subject to being torn up with little or no advance notice if rnecessary for emergency repair of the pipes. Also, alignment of a runway adjacent to the pipelines could require closure of the runway to allow work to be done on the pipes. Relocation of the lines is judged to be impractical. 25 r The proposed airport plan minimizes the amount of pavement over the pipelines and aligns the primary runway some distance away. ' High-Voltage Porerjransmission nes: These powerl ines, the towers for which are as much as 175 feet tall, constrain the possible runway locations by potentially penetrating the approach surfaces. Relocation or undergrounding of the lines would be prohibitively expensive. In the proposed Oa.n,_•as much distance as possible is maintained between the powerlines and the runway ends. The powerline west of the site would penetrate the proposed airport's conical surface and may need to be obstruction lighted. This could represent a signi- ficant expense as usable power is not readily available along the corridor. , Environmental 1 y Sensi li ve Areas Several parts of the site were found to contain habitat types that are unusual land/or particularly sensitive to disruption. Of greatest concern is a series , of vernal pools that are spread diagonally across the site. Also considered significant is the wetland environs of the stream, Brushy Creek, that tra- verses the area. Although mitigation for minor disruption of these habitats would be reasonable, a major degree of impact was deemed to be a substantial ' disadvantage for any associated layout alternative. The proposed plan places development where it avoids the most environmentally sensitive areas. LAND REQUIREMENTS The land acquisition requirements for the proposed airport include not.. only the area where the runways and other facilities would be developed, but also the areas beneath the runway approaches where incompatible land uses could pose future problems. It is proposed that property for the airport be ac- quired both in fee simple and in the form of easements. Table 1 lists the parcels involved. ' 26 1 I Table 1 ' PROPOSED PROPERTY ACQUISTION c e ge -EArceLN4� _�w_nec In Parcel c e-d �2dsti na-,an_d Use U�E-51MPLE CCIU I SISI QN 001-011-009 Souza, A 158 158 Dry pastup.e 001-011-011 Caldera, F 24 14 Irrigated pasture* ' 001-011-013 Souza, A 101 101 Dry pasture 001-011-014 Riggio, B 160 80 Dry pasture 001-011-015 River Purchasing 126 126 Airfield 8 Holding Co. 001-011-016 River Purchasing 178 178 Airfield/residence/vacant 8 Holding Co. 001-011-025 Hernak, M 30 30 Dry pasture ' 001-011-026 Hernak, M 50 50 Dry pasture 001-031-013 Hannum, J 151 151 Dry pasture/vacant 001-031-014 Souza, J 157 157 Irrigated pasture 001-031-016 Schlies, E 131 100 Irrigated pasture* 002-200-001 Coelho, M 240 _1�Q Dry pasture ' 1,265 Road R.O.W. __ 5 Total Fee Simple 1,270 *Residence and farm buildings on portion not to be acquired . ' N �,QN�ERVATI ON��,SEN�I5 1 001-011-005 Lopez, D 158 158 Dry pasture/residences -001-011-014 Riggio, B 160 80 Dry pasture 001-011-021 Hernak, M 80 80 Dry pasture 001-021-002 Lopez, D 158 158 Dry pasture 001-021-003 Steward, S 320 320 Dry pasture 001-021-004 Gray, 13 13 Dry past ure/resi dence ' 001-031-004 Hannum, J 136 136 Irrigated pasture 001-031-016 Schlies, E 131 31 Irrigated pasture/ residence/farm bl dgs . 001-031-018 Ralph, W 147 147 Dry pasture/proposed wind farm 001-031-019 Ralph, W 59 59 Dry pasture/proposed wind farm 002-200-001 Coelho, M 240 120 Dry pasture 003-160-002 Coelho, F 207 207 Dry pasture 003-160-004 Coelho, F 211 211 Dry pasture Total Conservation Easements 1,720 ' 27 Fee Simple Acquisition The proposed Airport Master Plan would entail fee simple, i.e. outright, acquisition of some 1,270 acres of land including 5 acres of county road right-of-way. This acquisition would include land for the airfield, aircraft parking and building area facilities, and the runway clear zones. -Sufficient land would be obtained for future expansion; specifically, to enc,npass the clear zones associated with instrument approaches to the ultimate potential primary runway length of 6,000 feet. , The illustrated acquisition lines generally follow existing parcel lines or , fractional section lines. This results in proposed acquisition of some prop- erty not needed for aviation purposes. Much of the half section of land on , which the existing Byron Airpark is located falls into this classification. Such land could either be leased out by the county for agricultural or other compatible uses or possibly be resold with attached conditions restricting the ' type of land use. Also, some of the land contained within the proposed air- port boundaries would be designated as nature reserves to protect the sensi- tive habitats located there. Easements To protect the runway approach paths from incompatible development,...acquisi- , tion of two forms of easements, conservation easements and avigation easements are proposed. Easements are a form of less-than-fee interest in real proper- , ty. They would convey to the county certain rights limiting the prospective use of the underlying property. The easements would run with the land; that , is, they would apply to subsequent as well as current owners of the land. The Master Plan calls for approximately 1,720 acres of conservation easements affecting 13 parcels plus an indefinite area of avigation easements to be ' obtained. 28 Conservation Easements In addition to the rights associated with avigation easements as outlined ' below, this form of easement involves the purchase of development rights on the subject property. Conservation easements would preclude residential or other land uses incompatible with airport operations, but would leave the land owner the right to use the land for agricultural or other open space -activi- 1 ties specified in the easement agreement. Other property rights including the rights to keep others off the land, to sell or lease the property, etc. would be retained by the landowner. The conservation easements would be used in locations where the noise or safety impacts of airport activity would be a concern. Primarily, these are areas along the runway approach and departure corridors. If the cost of a ' conservation easement on any parcel is found to be more than approximately 25p of the fee simple price, the county would consider fee simple acquisition. ' Within the proposed conservation easement area there are three parcels that presently have a total of five dwellings on them. Although no additional residences would be permitted on these parcels, it is the conclusion of the Master Plan that the impacts would not be severe enough to warrant fee simple ' acquisition of the property. If- the judgment of any of these landowners is that they would prefer to sel 1 their property rather than 1 ive w ith.,the impacts, the county would offer to acquire the property. Consideration also would be given to acquiring other parcels adjoining the airport if the owners choose to sell. Any property so acquired could be resold by the county with conservation easements attached. Avigation Easements Avigation easements firmly establish with the airport owner certain rights pertaining to aircraft overflight. Specifically, these property rights in- clude: 1 29 i o A right-of-way for free and unobstructed passage of aircraft through the airspace over the property at any altitude above a surface specified in , the easement. o A ri aht to subject the property to noise, vibration, fumes, dust, and fuel particle emissions associated with normal airport activity. o A right to prohibit the erection or growth of any structure, tree .or other object that would enter the acquired airspace. o A richt-cf-entry onto the property, with appropriate advance notice, for ' the purpose of removing, marking, or lighting any structure or other ob- ject that enters the acquired airspace. , o A right to prohibit electrical interference, glare, misleading lights, visual impairments, and other hazards to aircraft from being created on the property. In areas proposed for avigation easements, the primary issues are the height of structures and trees and the nuisance impacts of aircraft overflights. ' Avigation easements are suggested for the portions of the airport environs that would regularly be subjected to overflights by aircraft in the traffic pattern. Typically, the height limits that would be specified in the aviga- tion easements would be those specified in Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, "Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. " Depending upon their locations, however, objects can penetrate the Part 77 surfaces without. consti- tuting hazards to flight. Because the Part 77 standards would preclude devel- opment evel opment of wind turbines in areas where they would be aeronautically accept- able, further analysis has been done using instrument approach procedures (as , defined in Terminal Instrument Procedures Standards -- TERPS) and other crite- ria. The proposed avigation easement height limits are indicated on the ' Approach Protection Plan. 30 At many airports avigation easements are obtained as a condition of approval of development In the airport vicinity rather than by direct purchase by the airport owner. It is proposed that this approach be taken to the extent pos-sible with regard to avigation easements in the vicinity of the East Contra Costa County Airport. Unlike the fee simple and conservation easement acqui- sition, avigation easements would thus be obtained over a more extended period of time. Where no new development is occurring, avigation easements would not ' be needed. RUNWAY AND TAXIWAY Included in the airfield portion of the proposed airport are the two future ' runways, interim use of one existing runway, the major taxiways, and the run- way approaches and clear zones. Runray UO th Criteria The required runway length at an airport is dependent upon the elevation of the airport, the mean-maximum temperature of the hottest month, and the type ' of aircraft that will use the runway. The East Contra Costa County Airport would have an elevation of approximately 85 feet h1SL and a mean-maximum hottest-month temperature of 85'F. Initially, the airport would be used almost totally by small, single-engine planes, with a few twin-engine air- craft, and an occasional business jet. Later, the proportion of twins and business jets probably would increase as indicated in the forecasts presented ' in the previous chapter. This usage would place the airport in the Utility category. There are four levels of utility airport, each requiring an in- creasingly longer runway: Basic UtJ111y, Staged: Accommodates about 75% of the single-engine and small, twin-engine airplanes used for personal and business purposes. Re- quires 2,550 feet runway length at East Contra Costa. ' 31 i Basic Util itii;"Stage II: Serves essentially all single-engine airplanes plus some small business and air taxi-type twin-engine planes. Requires 3,200 feet `i of runway at East Contra Costa. ' General* Util ityi..5ta! I: Accommodates all airplanes weighing up to 12,500 pounds, including small business jets. Requires 3,750 feet runway length at East Contra Costa. Genei7ai Utility; 'Sta,'9p 11: Accommodates all of the Stage I airplanes plus larger or heavier planes that have approach speeds below 121 knots, including ' many business jets. Usually is capable of having a precision instrument ap- proach. Requires 4,350 feet of runway at East Contra Costa. ' Looking beyond the 20-year planning time frame, the potential need for the airport to handle a greater variety of business jets, some on relatively long flights, can be anticipated. Transport runway length requirements vary de- pending upon the percentage of the fleet and the percentage of the useful load to be accommodated: 0 750 of fleet, 600 of useful load -- 4,750 feet o 1000 of fleet, 600 of useful load -- 5,650 feet ' 0 750 of fleet, 909 of useful load -- 7,100 feet Alternatively, the runway length can be based upon the requirements-of speci- fic types of aircraft intended to be accommodated. Combining these various considerations, a 6,000-foot runway length should be adequate for the foresee- ' able usage of the East Contra County Airport and accordingly is outlined on the Airport Layout Plan. , Because the airport would not be used by large,, airline-type transport air- craft, use of Transport category setback standards is not considered to be necessary. General Utility, Stage. II, standards are all that would be re- quired. The proposed plan exceeds the latter standards. a 32 _� r Primary R nway For reasons discussed above with regard to wind and terrain conditions, the ' primary runway is proposed to be aligned northwest - southeast; specifically, N410 201 W. It would be numbered Runway 12-30. Given the anticipated nature of use of the airport during the latter part of the planning period, the runway is proposed to be constructed to General Util- ity, Stage II, standards for length, setback distances, etc. Initially, how- ever, only a General Utility, Stage I, length would be provided. Because of ' the frequent strong, gusty winds, a width of 75 feet rather than the standara 60 feet is planned. A setback of 300 feet to the parallel taxiway and 500 feet to the nearest buildings is required. Medium-intensity runway edge. lighting is proposed. The potential for ultimate extension of the primary runway to a 6,000-foot long Transport category is preserved on the proposed Master Plan. This exten- sion is shown as occurring to the southeast. A northwesterly extension would be possible, however, if a long-term new access road as described below is . � constructed. In terms of the efficiency of runway utilization, the northwest- erly extension would be preferable; the disadvantages would be a greater ' amount of required earthwork and the necessity of relocating Armstrong Road. A-final decision between these choices would be a subject of future planning analysis. Until then, preserving both possibilities would be desirable. r , A precision instrument approach to Runway 30 is planned for the long term. Initially, the approach would be visual and a nonprecision approach is a pos- sibility for some intermediate development stage. The Runway 12 approach is planned to be nonprecision in the long term, visual over the short term. Installation of runway-end identifier lights (REIL's) is recommended for the approach end of Runway 30 in conjunction with establishment of a precision approach to that runway. rPart 77 standards call for a clear 20:1 approach surface slope (1-foot verti- cally to 20-feet horizontally) for a visual approach, 34:1 for a nonprecision r33 r approach, and 50:1 for a precision approach. The associated clear zones ex- r tend 1,200 feet, 1,900 feet, and 2,700 feet from the runway end. A precision ' approach can, however, be established with a clear approach surface slope of as little as 34:1. Secondary Runway The available wind data indicates that a secondary runway will be needed to provide adequate wind coverage at the airport. Given the proposed alignrr,ent ' of the primary runway, the secondary runway would mostly be needed for the frequent strong west-southwest winds. As noted above, however, the plan rec- ommends that the precise alignment of this runway not be determined until detailed wind data can be gathered on the site. For basic planning purposes, a runway aligned S 660 301W and numbered 5-23 is depicted on the Master Flan. i The secondary runway need not be as long as the primary runway. The larger, , faster aircraft that would use the airport (business jets, for example), can tolerate more of a crosswind than light, single-engine planes. Under most ' circumstances these bigger planes would be expected to use the primary runway, especially once it has an instrument approach. The secondary runway thus is ' planned to have a General Utility, Stage I length of 3,750 feet with an ini- tial length of approximately 2,750 feet. As with the primary runway,- a width of 75 feet is proposed because of the wind conditions. Also, lighting of this ' runway is expected to be necessary because the west-southwest winds are strongest during the 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. period. ' . s No instrument approaches to this runway are proposed initially; however, the plan indicates a long-term potential for a nonprecision approach to Runway 23 . No improvements to the existing Runway 4-22 are proposed to be made during the interim period when it is in use as the airport' s secondary runway. The run- way was paved relatively recently (about 1980) and, although only 2,100 feet long and 30 feet wide, is in good condition. The access road that now crosses within a few feet of the runway end would- be relocated, however, in order to ' s provide the required approach sl.9Pe clearance. } 34 Taxiway'5ystem Both new runways would have full-length parallel taxiways (no parallel taxiway ' is proposed for Runway 4-22 for the interim period when it is in use) . Also, a major taxi l ane would be established along the runway sides of the building areas, thus in effect providing a dual parallel taxiway system. The runway exit taxiways would continue across the parallel taxiways and prevade-di rect ' access to the aircraft ramps and the fixed base operations area. Runray Capaci A decided advantage of the overall runway configuration depicted in the Master Plan is that it would have a significantly higher operational capacity than other configurations. Although runway capacity is not expected to be an ' important concern during the basic 20-year time frame of the plan, it could be an issue ultimately. With aircraft operations at a level sufficient to have warranted an Air Traffic Control Tower at the airport, the proposed 'Open V' runway configuration would allow simultaneous use of runways 23 and 30 when the winds are calm or blowing lightly from the west or northwest as they often do. The proposed plan has a runway capacity of approximately 350,000 aircraft operations annually. A 'Closed V' or an 'X' configuration, by comparison, would accommodate only about 220,000 annual operations. ' Pavement Desi A Utility category airport is intended primarily to serve aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds and most of the planes that would use the East Contra Costa County Airport would weigh considerably less. The proposed runway pave- ment section therefore is designed for 12,500-pound aircraft. Occasional use by heavier aircraft would not damage the pavement. With consideration for the ' apparent types of soil at the site, the pavement section would consist of 2 35 inches of asphalt over 8 inches of aggregate base rock over 6 inches of com- pacted native soil. If the airport is ultimately upgraded to a Transport -' category, an overlay of the pavement would be required to increase its design strength. Navigational Aids Several navigational aids would be required on the airport in order for the proposed instrument approach procedures to be established. -, A localizes would be needed for either a precision or a straight-in nonpreci- Sion approach to Runway 30. This equipment would be located a short distance beyond the northwest end of the runway. The location of the interim access ' road in this area is such that relocation of the road is proposed to occur before the 1 ocal izer is installed. If the road were to remain, the 1 oval izer would have to be sited in a less than optimum position. ' Establishment of a precision approach to Runway 30 would also require a glide ' slope antenna to be situated adjacent to the runway and approximately 1,000 feet from its southeast end. , A VOR (Very-High-Frequency Omnidirectional Range) established on the airport would enable nonpreci Sion approaches to Runways 12 and 23. An optimum loca- tion for this equipment appears to be south of Runway 5-23. } Except for an outer marker required for a precision approach to Runway. 30, no new off-airport navigational aids appear to be necessary to support the pro-- posed ro-posed and ultimate potential instrument approaches. Existing VOR' s in the area, including ones at Stockton, Sacramento, and Linden, would be utilized. The outer marker would be located along the extended runway centerline about 5 miles southeast of the runway approach end. , 36 ' BUILDING AREA The proposed plan locates the airport' s building. area west of Runway 12-30 in the middle of the 'V' formed by the two runways. Facilities found here would include tiedown and hangar parking for based aircraft, a terminal area includ- ing transient aircraft parking, fixed base operations, and other miscellaneous uses. A total of some 75 acres would be set aside to accommodates-the• bui 1 di ng area and access road needs projected to exist over the next 20 years. An additional area encompassing approximately 40 acres would be reserved for expansion beyond the 20-year planning period. Based-Al ftraft Parking Some 540 based aircraft, well in excess of the maximum projected 20-year demand of 400, could be parked within the building area depicted on the layout plan. Of these, approximately 400 would be accommodated on the north and south ramps and remainder would be parked within the fixed base operations leaseholds and in the existing Bryon Airpark hangar area. About 160 spaces would be provided in conventional T-hangar units and up tc 40 additional rplanes could be housed in the existing T-hangar area. In total, about 35% of the based aircraft would be stored in hangars (the general range for airports in Northern Cal iforni a is between 25/col and 40:0) . Automobile parking lots are proposed to be located conveniently close to each of the tiedown aprons. This arrangement would enable vehicle travel within aircraft parking areas to be reduced or, if eventually necessary, prohibited. Tenni nal Area The terminal area would be centrally located within the building area. Termi- nal area facilities are anticipated to become the focal point for visitor traffic at the airport. A terminal building, planned for construction late in the intermediate phase of airport development, would house airport offices, a pilots' lounge, restrocros, perhaps a coffee shop, and other related uses. Parking areas for up to 70 automobiles and 60 transient aircraft would be 37 located on either side of the terminal building. Additional space would .be ' set aside for expansion of auto parking and the terminal building. If, at j. some future time, an air traffic control tower is required at the airport, it ' tentatively would be located adjacent to the terminal building. Fixed Base Operations , The fixed base operations (FBO) area would constitute the commerc`i'al business part of the airport. FBO's provide such aviation services as aircraft sales, rental, charter, and repair, fuel sales, and flight instruction. A typical , building used by a full-service FBO would be about 80 feet by 100 feet and include an aircraft maintenance hangar and an office area. Buildings used uy special service FBO's (e.g., aircraft painting or upholstery) are usually smaller. A total of some 16 acres, Buff ici ent to meet the demand beyond the ' 20-year planning period, are proposed to be designated for FBO leaseholds. The FBO area would be located around a central taxiway spine, thus giving , flexibility in the size of each leasehold (a typical leasehold for a full- service FBO at this type of airport is 3 to 5 acres in size) and enabling the aircraft access to each plot to be as simple as possible. Road access would be located around the periphery of the area. As noted above, it is antici- pated that up to 100 based aircraft, including rental and charter planes, would eventually be parked within the FBO area. Two large hangars suitable for FBO use are located on the existing Byron Air- ' park property. The building near the existing T-hangar complex could be used for a special-function type of FBO (e. a., aircraft painting) or as an aircraft i storage hangar much as it is now. The hangar adjacent to. Armstrong Road woula ' be within a runway clear and is proposed to be removed. Potentially, the structure could be disassembled and then reconstructed within the new building area. 1 Miscellaneous Used Fuel sales at the airport could be provided either by the county or by the , FBO' s. If provided by FBO's, the storage tanks and pumps could be located 38 -1 1 within the FBO lease area. More 1ikelY P, a sepa fueling area would be ' constructed regardless of who does the fueling. A location near the transient ramp is depicted on the Airport Layout Plan. The storage tanks would be un- derground. Other misceI I aneous faci I iti es at the a rport woul d i ncl ude an a rcraft wash ' rack and possibly a pilots' aircraft maintenance shelter. The latter would be a place where pilots can do oil changes and other minor work on tl~ieir'own ' aircraft. The proposed site for these facilities is on the edge of the nortn ramp. ' ROADS AND UTILITIES Road and utility construction associated with the project would include new facilities needed to serve the airport and modifications to existing systems ' that would be disrupted by the airport. RciAd ' Byron Highway, the nearest major road to the site, would be adequate for the future ground travel -to-the airport. Other improvements would be required, however, including widening of Byron Hot Springs and Armstrong Roads, recon- structing the railroad grade crossing on Byron Hot Springs Road, and construc- ting a new access road onto the site. The widening would bring the roads up to the county standard of 28 feet. No ' additional right-of-way is expected to be necessary. Pavement section- defi- ciencies would also be corrected. The railroad tracks run parallel to and about 50 feet southwest of the highway edge, but are some 5 feet higher than the road level. Byron Hot Springs Road not only humps up and over the tracks, but crosses them at a diagonal . This configuration is less than ideal and would be inadequate for any significant 39 amount of traffic to and from the airport. The plan proposes that Byron Hot s Springs Road south of the crossing be raised; this would reduce the sharpness ' of the hump and improve the line of sight. The interim access road onto the airport would extend from Armstrong Road, , approximately 0.3 mile west of Byron Hot Springs Road, around the end of Runway 12, and then along the southwestern side of the building area. Al- though passing through the Runway 12 clear zone, the road would be slightly lower than the runway end and would have adequate clearance beneath the ap- proach surface. Aligning the road in the proposed manner also provides the necessary clearance past the end of interim Runway 22. ' The one existing road that would be disrupted in order to enable construction of the airport would be Byron Hot Spring=_ Road south of Holey Road. This road ' serves a very low traffic volume; but, because it dead-ends a short distance to the south, replacement access to the severed end would be required. On an ' interim basis, before Runway 12-30 is extended beyond its initial 3 ,270-foot length, a gravel surfaced road is proposed to loop around the southeast end of the runway. In the longer term, a new road, a half mile to the east, extend- ing south from Holey Road then back to Byron Hot Springs Road is proposed, c� This road woul d be gravel surfaced and as 1 ittl e as 24 feet w ide unti 1 such time as traffic warrants a higher standard. liti 1 i ti es The proposed ai rport woul d requi re el ectric, tel ephone, water, and wastewater facilities. The electric and telephone service would be provided frau exist- , ing 1 ines in the area. Water supply is anticipated to be available frau the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District 45 Canal although alternatives are possible. On-site treatment is proposed. Wastewater treatment is also proposed to be handled on the site. ' 40 1 COSTS 1 Table 2 itemizes the estimated development costs for the proposed East Contra Costa County Airport. Property acquisition costs plus the construction costs 1 for each of the three development phases are noted.• 1 Under current federal legislation, the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, 909 of the cost of eligible items can be funded through thie'Kirpbrt Improvement Program. Other funds are available from the California Aid to Airports Program. Land acquisition and most of :the construction are eligible. Major ineligible items include: o T-hangars. ' o Terminal building. o Fixed base operations and other private facilities. ' o Auto parking. o Fuel system. 1 The cost of T-hangars, a terminal building, and private facilities are not included in Table 2. This cost data is provided here primarily as an indication of the magnitude of ' the project. A financial analysis of the project is set forth the Airport Master Plan Report. 1 i 41 Table 2 ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS (in 1985 $) In -` Millions Property Acquisition Fee Simple (1986-1988) $ 2.30 Conservation Easements (1986=1990) 0.60 Administration and Contingencies 0.30 S Total $ 3.20 t Phase I Construction* (1987-1990) Airfield (initial phase Runway 12-30) $ 0.78 i Aircraft Aprons (excluding hangars) 1 .50 Roads (on- and off-site) and Parking 0.28 Irrigation Canal Undergrounding 0.22 Miscellaneous 0.40 ' Engineering and Contingencies 0.80 Total $ 3.98 Phase II Construction* (1990-1995) - ' Airfield (initial phase Runway 5-23) $ 0.86 s Aircraft Aprons 1 .24 Roads and Parking 0.17 Engineering and Contingencies 0.57 , Total $ 2.84 .Phase III Construction* (1995-2005) ' Airfield (runway extensions) $ 0.91 i Aircraft Aprons 0.84 Roads and Parking 0.27 ' Engineering and Contingencies 0.50 Total $ 2.52 1 20-Year Total $12.54 -;a * Earthwork is included in each sub-element 42 r rIV - PLANNING AND POLICY FRAMEWORK r COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA r Plans and Zoning The official land use plan for the area is set forth in the East County Area r General Plan adopted in 1978. The airport site and all of the nearby land except for Byron Hot Springs are shown as Agricultural Residential on the plan ' (Figure 7). The plan does not mention the possibility of locating an airport in the area. Zoning for the area shows the airport site and surrounding land in one of three Agricultural districts (Figure 8) : Symbol itr s i ct s Minimum Sy 1 DLot Size A-2 General Agriculture 5 .0 acres ' A-3 Heavy Agriculture 10.0 acres A-4 Agricultural Preserve 20.0 acres ' Most of the existing parcels in the area exceed the above minimum sizes. Al- though subdivision into smaller lots is technically possible without reason ' ing, approval is discretionary. Factors that are taken into consideration Include road access, slopes, water availability, and wastewater disposal limi- tations. imi- tations. Aviation Policies Aviation policies in Contra Costa County are made by the Board of Supervisors. An Airport Advisory Committee has been established to make recommendations to the Board on aviation matters. The eleven committee members include represen- tatives of the five supervisors, the cities of Concord and Pleasant Hill, Diablo Valley College, the County Airport Land Use Commission, the Buchanan ' 43 1 �i i4ii'Yy/ .^}•?'f1ir1 tam r '�. � ;�S'1,�/'-+�, �1.i?�.�Ff float•/ •� UG Mi �!•n.,c',!'r• 1.` t' ! �:. r' til. , �> 't:; tit` ',� lA(��•.'J.4J fii'r!•F�j�Y�'1, �lt. r.','�tJtl��.l��},'t•�',/.,,:�v \_ _ <;.1dyf.I.l:, •l'�����,fF;/,r,'it�-r., ;jds,. /_,! '• tr f' f� If '' _ -J/:�rF�%=-.'tj='. v... , <:..•',' E :4� 1•i':r/' j1 J,1 f/ /� / / � '• r, J�-•,,,d,.„:-,:;: tJr,r a r, t�t.f 1 1?r!�t,tJ,t• 1 ( _.^- 3(! y}7�tj�`�'GG...• }Ap j r ( tt r. ,,{7!.V?4r: �_,,,c,p to - _ •�.s:' � f',.• �. 'T���liiv:A,rf�.�lt'(1f',,' /ti�t�` :•i����i'll`' ��,..'?j t})-li, (J`a, / Oro""if / ' ,'Y :�, - _^'�':`�:_ /.•'?(r•}7`=(�-•r�a { -;•,,�.'•r f..y7l,�.�t{1.;, "� I✓ ��f \ .=.ice qtr:�� _X:.; _ - =�'.�'�^•*? _`c.. 4 /.(I � ! ,.-' �'i i� :2� �,�,p ::�-= >�Q:"cam'•tic' .�., lt.tre�'.'t"`L��.// tY f. - 1 G R 4. f 1" •.J,t,y i - E •jJ �T t _ y r'• r F. r _ f _ I .r .J a l/. .J .JS r t / JYF 1 r. Jh' r' '.1'�4•J 1�� -,`'.F.%:: `i=•�''• i 41 '•f. fah f , ,(• :at- _ Tak.>•.-.:..• _ �!'�,?:;OM1»^^ ;t/ rr. •J{ f,1 1 .:�f{/�•.l(yt(/ •�. _ ,*.+_`'.- tiy.._ _ �4,!',-'a• _ �cy-,/. ��f'r,stir. ^''Tl 4'/,{i:.. 7 .f'/r.iJ'•• ,,;s.^ .-r,. '/fi z�--"`._:'�` :t, !i,l�f,�y.!/, .f tS•,, ',7•'J ,J J %7�1-w. .,'(' "!.•f�i• ��� - - - f:r;'/,i,': _'1;��i'�,/�.tjiY., {/ :3ttJ •. �.�j-.. �%i� j.Jty t,! .n...,,Y.'i` �:,'�. 2\^•`- .. qtr N ,// �/f - tom .. ,,trtyt;yt.l<;'- ,,,, s.7;,r3y'-.aY --- - •`^r- •n' -_�!,?. •l � ,rr t/� 1`' �9swh i��!$`A ;•<,To ,' y''IrTJ'•;�a t.t. y.i''',:- -_t_ sr y� ��1�`!�'`NSJ.�lr4- f %// , ' ,� 'i'jY•'f.�3�>�4�'S,�,rr-1� ':i%��'i:�i�r,� •.jr.'J;t„ _ -�- _ '�,•,; f:fs�+1•/xr�(,��f(;� ,�/�f� , ;,. dC/.- )`c• 9•, � ff -J?i`•t'` - t. f,G;in;;r r•;( :f S/)=:,,' _!r f,��'-r.`?t / /�. Irj.: - ^g.aa! ,.t,��. .t�,. � •�`:} �•:.I /,-t•�; :77r,'•,'>'�•J�t5C' cfx;n',:' 'r •x:':i' r•t,:. ,,,' t,� � !. �(v,r "A�+• J � ifl �!:t j``iII', t Ji' -f�a:. :;�•�. ''`i'1t-•4(7(:�:, ( , y' .,TJ�. r A{tf17;T-1 Y,:1' �.G.Vl/Jrt;�/`:��::7:,!:;i�5�w,y:/'.i•� J:ti.J%, - to-i`e', �Si't. .+Yf�� ;jt �-�+T-- ::Y'�1..,�F/��ff��••lfit -,hJrf,,,J�J t. � f l�/ tZ !t J*< '+ 1't•'�'<t:'J tY�,lt- n / f'yf'`- �E Ity 1 n :n! S t t !'', f�<<r �{ ,, �,•�l, . ":, 1',!�{ r:s:s t, ¢ Lw % .jr:{r :F f>� t�?UOr~'`ji t .�`��i •t�'J,r 41 t ff.'r f:t• t;r�i �,e(,'li r'/Jj / /%. ;Itr')d-f,, `1 �.3. �.`�j�:Y , •, ,c 7)(�'t 4i t,, Yrs .a ��� .i.I: Jt F,fV,lf �J � '!ffr r%'7/•;1;f , r �z�' 11� n``h it`!` li � cr /,' 4 r ^rf�`-•-�i^r /:itttf {'�r� e`t-c•i,�r'I,G,;::•rfi�f,.• :i!"�S?J.{�!: f1Y,f f,j�'.if: �"fT z '�t?r%r7f 3:5: '�.,1 >_ri% ts.Ti ,t l'��%'.: t' S•• r tl}'f,J`rj' f tD+a ..{ .I' ! G .fir �J�J JJfbs`'S>.,J_ .,�.:,, r ft('+�'tr .. •>:/•i.t n„�!'s'.• ��f ear••r rev e;,1,•fjlJ�l t.;?�'+ t✓•t.lvy.,•��fr�J :jtt`i•.1','%;�frr,� jt',rL��•r'`' J1b'f'la%%L'S / /��.'. �• fi-1' rsi.”`�J-;.�F;%/�'1%�,:Q,1}.r-4-{"J=,lt' t'!:/r.••it' rrj- !'_•'IfyrtJ;: './, t`: f to t f•. :f71, ..,._.d 'lr:,.{„ >,., i. �4 �' %r, In f .�� � r:• .� �,,r : '!Jr`j('• •SIF:°.s �'.t/il.,���; �f,/, I.'t}t� !... �,'':•':, 1k'�N�.r t,�,Y•'•;. :r;..;t%,•-, 'Ia1ti,:�"uJ�'Tr;�IV.�:.,.;f�f`c�= �.}-`.,y t .{.,rr- � tfi` aki J•r.,,f'>; .`/ ��r (�,. lr t.Ji jft,1JYt/ ,� r�•��,12' �,:+r 1"'�::, '/Cl. ,..),J.;�• 'j - .G,t •/•,,'�'+j5�.�in �"l:.✓. N.;Y,r t.i ;�,:i%!r't�J�l,.,��J .l• 7'.-` 'r �t ,�y,{�r ;lr t I1,.:iA r'j r ��, rlra,Y'r ,,•:.4>:•--'.-t i.,•,•;.• v- r , .i,.;,liyl r�,t 1'i{,• y�`.t.'r iS t;�,•.-_Y''!tf"f tf.,. !�• �.1,. 'J f.• '' ';�v! ��',,,is7�.)^j�:?(-tfsr{iC._�.�=VJ�,,{"v'•�tr.r:�/,:;.'t�'.,C:��t..ljCt,,,*�l�e, �r`i!!p'tGw1l` .•r:t''r:�•� f�/ �:}.t�i, 9�' 'tf)-l }�fr .F' 'I/1%'it/r,f '�ii,.. 1•.t-.' ,• ll%,.J •-t•,6•- t' :�!,�..•t: � /r/ '�/ .,fi.j,lt(�r/`q:?-'<�fJc.•tJ.J."•J i ✓'-Vie:-•/,i;''..�>S i y; /:.r:` ! , ,;,, '' „�•;:.t1< •�rrl "� }",h,�' (,Jr ;i/�i�w�!j,�r (• f. '..f'^. ,,,�C • n �,.::'.,r t f. /! !,/ ;,•,,.:•Jz •(•f S I4_,.%!t.,l• f ��jj`�J•;., i,i.i!".;•:• ��! {i r..••.,.�5:"' �' :1r ,•:SrJf�`�•rhal, �jl�r':�rtv(; yra.jf ti<<�t:C•':.Lj;'•. -ir;! f:{:.{.;...'^%,.,,Y-�5:,1• �f�f %i /�/ ,:;�L,':li5' rf'.t✓(�;j ..}f(,(%5.;4,•';„ ..'P'� l��t�' �, f�.. ( .:•{. �tr;, '�• /, � / ri ,•{,J,rrY:int;. '.L*`-!'/<.•!ti. .A. F,!r' tc.r, !_� ��la.. Fa'.1!• -�,£�Crv:, r•�,r,n-r,::=;i,,,.p.;.,�• r't`• ::Vf i•:%/;.;.:,, f i :l,rt c•1,, ' r L}tr.)c�:'S.'!=J r:1. /,fid. :•1 ;•Ir,ly. �?, :.u;'r :r�°{, rtJ��;r.;. ie:r'` ,r, 'i'"i A f t _ '-t •+ .J��/ j�,✓,,:7 '};rr'.t '. .-, .(yi�� �r f:.1�.,t >�1 yy�.Jt" :'-J,..{..�. .;r. r'! 1'�:^tij::��.h.. !j/jrt.l:'r .,. 'Jt,..,.rS:�. ch�r /"' t�'''^;'+.. C' rl1,, ,i:r• ,•;�• f...-rf-'r,t,,r( :.!/•�1 `,rt {+(''` J i•:::;r�l r 1y .�.� ,r- ti,� �1'�:'' + •I !. / 'ra: ; 't, J L- n f."j•,.h.}.. l�:'• C- ,, f / r ir (' .,. .c{la� :,t• jS,1{n,:r!'t, tlJl.`'{��!•r' i j�;�C� �t•���t�j. •J.I. 'v.•.._., r- J'. l; r'+C;a�f4,, t- / 'S.l 4 ' .� ,'C�• '�`J 1 , � -!!.' It �:,-.r - :.. 1,ff,,.. ''f:ry1..,i'r.2:,5.c.:�J.. ).;,,Iltr� �" t, H,; '" i,. J %„tt •IG r,'+.�tfii„fi/'! t R. -r t•G !r•.;( f•t�•.••i�'!:iJ.;: rJ"• •r ti9t.f: •{, r.G � s t;:?; ;.iy,JiZ-•i,}liFt:•Ff{i�, :r ,L {:ij) Y;',•'rrt;;s.•. �•� 'S:: -;:3?,•t;l :1 fY •,'; J Z.,,"'i:r..;:s !J .1��.4!�s``o. `"`•' //� ..i.. t, r'rrlJ- :.r`, yv:=4"%` '4i :{iJ'1 �' ' 1 ? <'•i..''v:.y,.'t.'' `;,.,). ) y t � .•r, .1•t, 'lT.5'i�,,ii t t ,. i .i; !•P '• ' , t: I t t d';r' �-''';:;t£;.6 ! S. %f- tf(J�•J r?%;' ' t .r:li:4%'' •'i•,a,r a'•; t �f.;«.,t `c•F;�`t y -�1..,,a,, r!.,,F%.4!yti, t p , 'r,o.'.' �,,.;(Jt d. t ,;��:;�.:'.1• _, oC. .,�:qy�„ .''lrt.! 7,j a'$j:',�}�;, ,,• ,• r ) r / _ l,. ,r �"IJ•"a 6 ( •l"rr.�''(::'rt'` f�' _ •t' t. '.t5ii`�; t tT1,4 .x"77 t`;:'`-.:,:.i' '.l:r, i !i f''.�%it:":.-Si'.• =�-.r_ 1"b'`•5 .91�V ' 4 '0. ::;.1=.r. _;.` ,:n•rt Vr '-`\ .t 1r,?jl� 7 (�< rt,r, a .f Y:��,r(.'J;':I.::.�;.., ...t ,tb'� .$t t-.1'�,?!., �'�1y+}.� it r:J,Y. ('r:.r. .:7, /�y: �}(rf('rr tl ! 9, .'1: :r t. ! f:•' � t J fr'(' i,: t ���}� /•%• t.•jtt..ii ,.;ri:.•(.'., 't',;r/,v, � if �:..(;, .•%/, ''a t�i�:' tp 1,��.' t`:.t.r;f 7';''. 1._. r,: , f �, 315, j�; ��%({xi !(.'+ r:'',�ti f,St!r t U r`(i i,i- Fy'.t ''fs 1/ 1.;:(�:'. (1' •q i.',.11'Ri\r�, „} 't•'�• rl l �!j 'ti i�.:,tt _ </ x'tk� :'jj,'_>t.. ••1..:r,•..,' f.� S'_' � t� ,• J `t`':.�q.(�r,}:'''/Jtr,�: "(•(,.''�•( :pTL�J.. '2 iy:.. i,l;'� _- ,..,..,.; •t.�'�v:rCaf"r.{•. yill}�'r'� ''�:•. 't t rr.'r:7rftj�j,7�f;?:t•-,'�:f` iar'r'.r�' •5.;`.:��7{'r: :J'-:J:� (:'1%'f: 1'f,..�p�y' 1' •�:hi1"All {%'ylX I;i't�;':•�!JY. ®O+f'°• ,i.,i'r"rF,'.;:`:tt 4�};�J;)..,.t�J. te';1:': ! `1��=k�� fia' '�? ',:`F 'a.,, •t.!) GE•Mp tr.d••"'''' •j.,!�s%�i r;t�:�:'i rh(c�'L'�C`4?i/liL)f'I LS��' r'.A� ' If .W"�� � s indu*rrt y_t-)r J, r)' / S ,,lit J!f;.:F"�,n,t `..F•�'` J Alf,,` h K ,rs':! 'S'�t`Y f..•, rr ,J;rt�. Moa"'dd p.ns: �,i••t' �;,�,d 4 i'1_'t;',/.tr.,rrrr.;r(-Inr._ y1�1�' q,,a'.4 K'°'acrrvt ..f`,jlr_•>3::j;;).:.Jr.r�J: ./,ly,'." ':::� t �y'•M s�Y pv,y^+ ps++'n e"':'l irt•°rL � <Y.r%7J�fi',-,: �?,' 'Y.'"' r :;j�`= ®,..caw F� P1r'�eP .'"'°""t• �,,,,.." �.}<i=� :`..,•.'1 yt�: �,.:���::'-: �a►t'd" ,-•-"]Mme"- � _'���'� u�,.t,tr'-"'' ��,,,"" ,., r%;��/tj/:/(,':.�=�k.�''• V A tC'zr}/'t?'jNljyt • �� �� v .(•, r� -.. -il: .'Sir fir!(•'J, f�!!iHH.:,tFtJ7r' "� C /• � b'• t' r J^-,�� l:It fJ('d..1„rJ.!i.,J 1(,,, ` AN 'EAS U e GO°::;�r!,_ ,:.,,1Jt��.;•.,'�,:4,Pub�:.-:mss:• tt'r-'f •°b;Yt:s.'.;= SES VQUID d. •'. 10 P'NNt�G aa,t AT 11111111 IF �'& c�yiUSS 0 €s 44 1 . 1 Hi A 2 A•3 i A•4 A•2 A-2 1 A3 FR . � ft A•3 j ' I A�3 • ' A4 A-2 ' A4 A•2 A-4 A.4 A•4 A•4 2 4 A 2 A 4 � �•\ ►`►yC0 A4 r l C�V�S+ •I t ►L 1 Legend: N L 1 Airport Site 1 1 1 Source: Contra Costa County Community Development Dept. 1 AVIATION PANNING SERVICES ILII IIIc ((� 0 6000PROJECT AREA ZONING MAP !!5-Ki� J6 1 nll HOOGES 8 SHUT? FEET Figure $ 1 45 Field fixed base operators, and homeowners residing In the vicinity of ' Buchanan Field. The Airport Advisory Committee°s responsibility has included regular review of the progress of the East Contra Costa County Airport Study. The need to find an airport site to serve the east county has long been estaD- lished in Contra Costa County policy. Several efforts have been made in the past to select a new airport site. The County Board of Supervisors initiated and participated with the Federal Aviation Administration in funding the pres- ent study. The Site Identification and Evaluation report, Phase I of the study, was reviewed by the board, the committee and the public. Supported by ' the recommendation of the Airport Advisory Committee, the Board of Supervi- sors, at its December 18, 1984, meeting, directed that detailed plans and ' environmental impact analysis be prepared for the Byron site. No other com- mitment to implementation of an airport project at this location has been made. OTHER LOCAL "JURISDICTIONS ' The project site does not fall within the limits or sphere of influence of any city. The site does, however, 1 ie within the boundaries of two special districts that potentially would provide services to the airport: the Byron Fire Pro- tection District and the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District. The Fiee Dis- trict' s responsibility would include providing protection for the airport. Approval of the Irrigation District Board of Directors would be necessary for the airport to use its facilities as a source of water supply. The Local Agency Formation Commission of Contra Costa County (LAFCO) is re- sponsible for approving the spheres of influence and jurisdiction boundaries ' of local governmental bodies and service districts in the county. The project is not anticipated to require any changes to such boundaries. ' The Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has the responsi- bility of assuring compatibility with regard to noise and safety, between 46 - 'f ai rports i n the county and f uture 1 and uses i n the v ici ni ty of such ai rports. The Commission has adopted compatibility plans for Buchanan Field and Antioch airports. A new public-use airport would come within the realm of its juris- diction. uris- diction. Establishment of funding priorities for airport projects is a respon_sibil.ity of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. These priorities serve as recommendations to federal and state agencies that issue grants for airport development. ' FEDERAL AND STATE AVIATION AGENCIES The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) establishes design, operation, and ' safety standards for airports, airspace, and aircraft. The FAA reviews and approves plans for airport development. ) It also provides grants for construc- tion of airport facilities. To be eligible for funding, an existing or pro- posed new airport must have an approved airport layout plan included in the National Airport System Plan WASP). The most recently published NASP (FAA - 1980) lists a new airport for Contra Costa County as a replacement for Antioch and a reliever for Buchanan Field. An updated version of the NASP is sched- uled-to be available early in 1986. ' The California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics has per- mitting authority for airports in the state. The Division has adopted FAA ' standards and regulations and enforces these through permits and annual in- spection of facilities. Although the Division does not have an active role in ' planning airport facilities and does not officially approve airport master plans, the office is interested in reviewing new or updated master plans. 47 r . Y - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES ' OVERVIEI�f This chapter presents the environmental setting, impacts, and mitigation mea- sures pertaining to each major category of environmental impact. .,..-Cross refer- ences are noted where there is an overlap in the discussion and analysis from one section to another The focus of the discussion is on the long-term permanent physical changes that would result from the project's construction and on the impacs that would be generated by use of the new facilities. An assessment of the short-term impacts that would occur during the construction phase of the project is pre- sented in the final section of the chapter. The analysis of the project alternatives described in Chapter VII is compara- tively brief. The emphasis is on the basic ways in which the environmental Impacts of the alternatives would differ from those of the proposed project. GEOLOGY AND SOILS $ettinana Geology ' According to the East County Area General Plan, two major earthquake fault zones bisect the area. The Antioch-Davis fault zone trends northerly through ' the hilly western portion of the area. This fault is considered active. The Midland fault zone, considered by sane geologists to be potentially active, is ' believed to run from the southeasterly corner of Contra Costa County north- northeastward along the eastern county boundary to the Yol o-Sol ano County lines near Winters. ' 49 Neither of these fault lines cross the site itself, although the Midland fault line is less than two miles to the west. A short, unnamed fault that is con- sidered inactive crosses the site roughly beneath Brushy Creek. The site is ' classified by the County Community Development Department as having low to moderate liquefaction potential . , Soils ' U.S. Soil Conservation Service mapping of the project area (1977) indicates ' that the soil types on the site are in the Linne "LbD", Solano "SK", San Ysidro "Sc", Shima "Sh", and Sehorn "Sd" series. Linne soils are limited to the higher hills; the Solano series is contained within the vernal pool areas; ' and the other types mostly cover flat areas within the eastern and southern portions of the site. All are clayey types of soils -- clay loam, silty clay, ' or clayey silt. The Solano soils are strongly alkali. With regard to agri- cultural value, all of these soils are classified as Class IV -- fairly good , land, but with major 1 imitations and only occasional use for cultivation. The clayey nature of the soils makes them impervious to water. This both en- ables the vernal pools to exist and creates drainage problems in flat areas. It also gives the soil relatively poor structural strength. Construction , Bearing Ratio (CBR) values are anticipated to be in the 3 to 7 range. Impacts Development and operation of an airport at the proposed site would be unlikely ' to be affected by the presence of earthquake faults in the area. Paved areas would comprise the bulk of the development. A liquefaction analysis may indi- cate that the site's true liquefaction potential -i s higher or lower than the predicted low-to-moderate classification. At worst, following a major nearby earthquake, it may be necessary to temporarily suspend operation of parts of the airfield until damage due either to ground shaking or liquefaction could ' be repaired. Aircraft hangars and other structures would be designed to with- stand earthquakes in accordance with applicable local building codes. Build- ing codes, however, do not yet recognize liquefaction. 50 ' Initial construction would require an estimated 230,000 cubic yards of earth- work., Earthwork requirements over the 20-year time span of the plan would amount to some 500,000 cubic yards. Major areas of earthwork include. 1 ower- ' ing the hill in the center of the site by as much as 25 feet; lowering the hill at the southwest end of Runway 5-23 by about 25 feet to provide a clear ' runway approach; and general excavation or fill within all development areas as necessary to provide a compact, level base for construction. but material would be used for fill on other parts of the site. An overall balance of cut and fill within the project area is anticipated. Fill slopes would be 1 imited as required by Federal Aviation Administration, as well as Contra Costa Coun- ty, standards. Final grades within paved areas will generally be no greater than 2%. Little hard rock is expected to be found within the areas to be graded. The earthwork should be able to be accomplished by large earthmoving equipment with relative ease. ' Because of the low CBR value of the soil, the structural section of pavement would have to be slightly thicker than often can be used elsewhere. Also, < measures would have to be taken to prevent shrink-swell cracking of the pave- ment as the underlying soil becomes saturated and then dries up. These steps could include excavation of additional native material where the pavement would be placed and replacing it with a subbase and/or same type of• moisture barrier. Alternatives The impacts associated with other layouts of this site would be largely the ' same as those of the proposed project. Development of an alternative site would have significantly different impacts. At the East Oakley site, no grad- ing of hills would be involved, but the below water level of the ground would create construction difficulties as well as require construction of stronger levees. Construction of an airport at the Hillside site would entail substan- tially more earthwork than at Byron. 51 r Mitigation'Measure ' Excavation of the hill and other earthwork on the site would be unavoidable ' elements of the project. Because of the cost of moving dirt, an objective of the engineering design of the facility would be to keep quantities as low as 1 possible. The engineer should work with soils and materials experts during design of the project to assure that liquefaction potential and other geologic and soils , conditions of the site are properly taken into account. . Standard construction techniques would be used to prepare the surfaces to be , filled and to compact the fill material . HYDROLOG Setting Drainage Drainage from the site flows in a generally west to east direction into one of ' three different water courses. The largest of these is Brushy Creek. Extend- ing some seven miles southwest of the site, this stream drains an area of , approximately 6,800 acres and crosses the center of the site in a northeast- erly direction. Along the north edge of the site is an unnamed tributary of Brushy Creek that has a drainage area of some 2,500 acres extending five miles westward. Only the northwestern corner of the site drains into this waterway. ' These two creeks merge near the northwest corner of the site. The southwest- ern part of the site (about 50% of the total area) drains into a small creek , that joins Brushy Creek about a mile to the east. Flow from Brushy Creek ultimately empties into the Italian Slough about two miles downstream of the site. The latter water course is a part of the San Joaquin River delta system , that laces the entire eastern part of Contra Costa county. 52 1 ' The average flow volumes* in these water courses are relatively small, but ' exhibit significant peak flows during rain storms. Brushy Creek, for example, has an average annual flow of 3 cfs (cubic feet per second), but peaks at around 2,600 cfs. According to U. S. Geological Survey topological maps, both Brushy Creek and its northern tributary are perennial streams (flowing all year around) upstream of the site, but become intermittent (flowing_only..sea- sonally or during storms) as they cross the site. The southern tributary is completely intermittent. 1 The natural courses of these waterways have been extensively altered both on ' the site and downstream from it. These changes were done at various points in time and for various reasons. Examination of old aerial photographs reveals that very little alteration had been done prior to 1950. Early work on the original airstrip in the 1960's resulted in rerouting of the northerly tribu- tary of Brushy Creek around the northwest end of Runway 14-32. Other work was ' done on the west side of the airfield including construction of drainage ditches and moving of dirt to slightly raise the runway elevation. More ex tensive work, especially the realignment of Brushy Creek, was done in the last few years when Runway 14-32 was paved and extended to the southeast. Down- stream of .the site, much channel modification has occurred within the last 10 years. In the area between Byron Hot Springs Road and Byron Highway, Brushy Creek and both of its tributaries have been realigned and channelized to allow creation of irrigated fields. ' Flooding ' Flooding is a problem in the area, al though no flood control plan has been adopted. A strip of land averaging about 600 feet wide along Brushy Creek is indicated as a flood hazard zone on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban De- velopment 1976 Flood Hazard maps as well as on associated county maps. Most of the existing airfield is also within this flood zone. Significant problems ' have occurred along the north tributary of Brushy Creek where it parallels and then crosses under Armstrong Road. Flooding in this area has blocked the road in recent years. The County Public Works Department has directed the current owners of the airfield property to remedy this situation. Flooding problems ' 53 also occur slightly downstream of this area where Brushy Creek, joined by its northerly tributary, pass under the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District canal. At peak flow periods, water will back- up behind the canal or overflow into it. i The Irrigation District has not rectified this situation in large part because of the expense that would be involved. , Vernal Pools ' Relatively rare hydrological features, vernal pools, exist on the site. These pools occur in locations where the topography and the nature of the under- lying soil are such that rainwater collects in them during storms and is un- able to drain out. Instead, the water slowly evaporates during the spring. The result is a very specialized habitat for certain species of plants. -This topic is discussed thoroughly in the Vegetation and Wildlife section. Irrigation Canal A final hydrological feature in the area, mentioned above, is the irrigation canal, the 45 Canal, operated by the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District. ' Roughly following the 45-foot contour 1 ine, the canal flows northward frau the .,, California Aqueduct about one mile south of the site. The canal is an open ' channel having a minimum flow of 100 cfs. For about 2,800 feet south of Arm- strong Road it is concrete lined, trapezoidal in cross section with a width of 22 feet across the top; the next section to the south, about one mile in length, has only earthen embankments. The canal primarily serves adjacent ; agricultural lands, but is under consideration as a source of water for the town of Byron. jmPacts Drainage Construction of the project would necessitate changes to both the natural and man-made hydrological features on the site. Tradeoffs between impacts on Brushy'-Creek and the vernal pool system on one hand and the irrigation canal _ s 54 i on the other hand were considered in the P design of the proposed airport. Com- pared ' pared to other layout alternatives, the proposed design has minimal effect on the natural hydrology. rAlterations to Brushy Creek and its northern tributary would mostly be limited to overcrossings and improvements to correct flooding problems. The overcros- sings, for taxiways and an access road, would be accomplished by.,installation of culverts to accommodate the water flow. Such culverts probably would not exceed 100 feet in length. Aircraft parking and building areas avoid the ex- isting creek beds. The natural drainage of most of the area proposed for airport facility devel- opment is to the southeast into the southern tributary of Brush Creek. Based upon a preliminary engineering evaluation, it is anticipated that this direc- tion of flow would be maintained for most of the paved areas of the airport. Removal of most of the 86-foot hill on the eastern edge of Brushy Creek could have some impact of drainage flow into the creek and adjacent vernal pools. Depending upon the final engineering design of the facilities, the flow possi- bly could either increase or decrease, but in either case the change is expec- "' ted .to be small. Provisions would be made both on site and, if necessary, off 1 site to accommodate any additional flow into the southern tributary. Atten- tion would be given in engineering design of the facilities to avoid any sig- nificant changes in the drainage into the large vernal pool located.. in the southeast corner of the site. Water Quality Water flowing from paved areas of the site would contain minor amounts of rubber, oil, debris, etc. Such deposits would be comparable to those coming from paved roads and, although representing an increase frau current condi- tions, are not expected to have any significant impact on water quality.. Run- roff from any central fueling facilities on the airport would be run through a clarifier to eliminate the water contamination that might occur from activi- ties ctivi- ties in these areas. Vegetation would be reestablished in cut and fill areas j to minimize any erosion that might occur. ' 55 Existing water supply wells in the area are generally shallow (less than 40- feet deep). Care would need to be taken in the design of an on-site waste- water treatment facility airport to avoid groundwater contamination. Flooding Construction of the airport can be regarded as an opportunity to,,,reduce or eliminate some of the existing flooding problems in the area, particularly along Armstrong Road. Measures that would be taken could include earthwork to modify existing dikes, enlargement of culverts, and creation of retention ponds. Irrigation Canal Impacts on the 45 Canal would be extensive, but, with proper design, should not affect its operation. Up to 2,800 feet of the canal in the vicinity of where it now crosses Byron Hot Springs Road would ultimately need to be placed in a covered pipe. The pipe would be designed to assure that it does not con- strain the capacity of the canal . New connections to serve the irrigated pas- tures east of this section of the canal may be necessary. Mitigation Measures Measures to mitigate the hydrological impacts of the proposed project would , mostly be incorporated into the engineering design of the facilities. These include: o Designing drainage from construction areas to avoid significant changes in flow into the vernal pools. r o Assuring that existing drainage courses are adequate to handle the addi- tional flow from the airport. If necessary, improvements would be made to , any man-made channels. Establishment of on-site ponds to hold excess run- off should be considered. 56 o Installing a clarifier through which all drainage from around any central ' fueling facilities would run. o Reestablishing vegetation in cut and f ill areas to minimize erosion. r o Designing changes to the 45 Canal so as to avoid impairment of -its utili- ty. .� Any unanticipated impacts that might arise after construction of the faciii- P g ties would be dealt with as necessary. Coordination with other involved agencies has been established as a principal means of avoiding problems. This coordination should be maintained during the engineering and construction phases of the project. The Army Corps of Engi- neers is one such agency. Projects having significant affects on wetlands or certain streams requi re that a permit be obtained f rcm the Corps. Correspon- dence from the Corps concludes that neither Brushy Creek nor the vernal pools constitute areas of concern to that Agency. Nonetheless, the Corps should be notified regarding the final designs before construction commences. Another agency with which coordination would continue to be essential is the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District. Initial contact with the District indi- cates that the proposed changes to the 45 Canal should be possible. A formal ' request and approval would be necessary during the engi.neering design, how- ever. The timing of the project construction to avoid disruption of irriga- tion water service is expected to be important. Coordination should be main- tained with the adjacent landowners whose f iel d irrigation may be affected by the project. ' 57 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE, ' a 'etti n9 1, Introducti on 1' Information rega rdi ng the exi sti ng vegetati on and w it dl if on th,%-_si tie was obtained from several sources. Most significantly, the site was surveyed by a ' professional biologist familiar with the types of habitats occurring there. The objective of this field reconnaissance was to identify the species of ' plants and animals established on the site and especially to search for cer- tain rare and endangered species thought possibly to inhabit the area. Her- barium specimens of the plant species of concern were examined to aid in the on-site identification process. The field survey was conducted in early April , 2985; this is considered an ideal time to find the local plants in bloom, par- ticularly those of special concern. Other information sources included a lit- erature iterature search and a computerized check of the California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base. Both provide data regarding where dif- ferent plant and animal species have previously been identified. Also exam- ined were current and historical aerial photographs of the site. Five generalized habitat types are found on the site: vernal pools, fresh water wetland, introduced annual grassland, cultivated land, and disturbed areas. These are each described below, followed by a discussion of the vege- tation and wildlife of special concern. The locations of each habitat type are depicted in Figure 9. Habitat Types ' Yernal Pools: The rarest of the habitat types found at the site are vernal pools. Vernal pools are small depressions found in certain grassland areas. Filling with water during winter rains, they slowly evaporate during the ' spring and in the process they support a unique variety of plant life. 58 /' D O m Cl)� D �n/ ---, Z I C� I m ii x II O z 0 rD- m /i' mp • �/// N D m/j Z z Z Z�/ r c m > CD m z tt z 0 r i co a i m z m c Z i 9 0 O L /i 0 D p .........�_— -- O cci c m r r W r- > p D D Z Z p D O — a_j DISTURBED AREA m z D r 0 x O v r,O c V Cl) r c Cl) m �� D < m O D v cy z 0 Z 0a c c g my z p� a r p r d�aa :........:...:... z C) N . m D r N Z r p D I` p ................. t -- --.—J 0 1 r D m x D r D m D to z O z rn c v v r D c D z r m o o 0 S b R7 m H D T1 V m n i I Their existence is dependent upon a particular combination of soil, topo-- graphical, and hydrological conditions. The floor of vernal pools is usually composed of an alkaline, hardpan, impervious type of soil that prevents drain- age. The topography consists of shallow basins (sometimes called hog wallows) rsurrounded by distinct hummocks (mima mounds) . Hydrologically, the basins must have same inflow of water, but not so much that they lose the opportunity ' to dry out. The springtime evaporation of water from the pools concentrates ions in the remaining water and in the soil, creating the alkaline conditions and intensifying the hardpan effect. The vegetation of vernal pools is unique. Plant species have evolved very narrowly to the specific conditions of the pools and most are not found in other types of habitats. Different species have adapted to the varying amounts of inundation associated with the pools. Thus as the water level recedes in the spring, the plants coming into flower often appear in concer- tric rings of different species and colors around the drying pool margins. Microcl imate differences between even adjacent pools is common. Variations in ' drainage, soil moisture, salinity, seed availability and other factors can result in each pool having a different composition of species than its neigh- bors. Even within a given pool, the species apparent may vary from year to year depending upon the amount and temporal pattern of rainfall received. Vernal pools once were much more widespread than they are today. Before Euro- pean settlement of California, vernal pools are believed to have been rela- tively ela- tively common throughout the central valley in low-lying, poorly drained soils. Most have been eliminated by agricultural expansion, water control projects, and urban development. The California Department of Fish and Game classifies vernal pools as rare or endangered habitats. Few vernal pools occur outside of California. The project site contains four fairly distinct clusters of vernal pools stretching for about 1.5 miles along a northwest - southeast axis (for pur- poses of discussion, these clusters are labeled Pools A, B, C, and D) . These ' clusters vary in size from about 28 to 100 acres. Altogether, some 16% of the r59 site consists of vernalYP ool type of habitat. Because of differences in natu- ral ral conditions as well as man-made changes caused by creek channel ization and the construction of levees, the existing airfield runways, and the pipelines, , the quality and diversity of the pools vary. The field survey revealed the northwestern most of the pool clusters -- Pool Area A, located west of the intersection of the existing airfieldTrunw-ays -- to have a substantial diversity of species and a high wildlife habitat value despite obvious man-made alterations to its original state. There is evidence of earth removal and grading of the area. Nonetheless, the underlying hardpan remains and the native vegetation has reestablished itself even though the shape of the pools has undoubtedly been changed. The flora of this area (par- ticularly Suaeda fruticosa and Allenrolfia occidentalis) indicates that these pools are more alkaline than the others. The larger pools in Area A also may support two uncommon grasses (Orcuttia and N�ostapfia) that grow only on the dried bottoms of large vernal pools and vernal lakes; these, however, could not be identified during the April field survey in that the larger pools still e contained standing water at the time. The great diversity of wildlife in this area is due in part to the prolonged presence of standing water and probably also partly to the exclusion of cattle because of the proximity of the exist- ing airfield runways. Birds identified during the April visit included red- winged blackbird, black-necked stilt, black-shouldered kite, mallard, gull, savannah sparrow, long-billed curlew, and marsh hawk. Also noted were coyote , and rabbit or hare tracks around the muddy margins of the pools. The smaller t pool s, al though not used by wil dl if to the same extent as the 1 arger pool s, contain an unusual and highly specialized animal population that incl.u.des amphibian 1 arvae, fairy shrimp, and other small crustaceans. The pools in Area B, situated at the southeast end of the existing Runway 14-32, are comparatively undisturbed. The most significant modifications have , been to the drainage patterns along the northern and eastern edges as a result of the runway construction, realignment of Brushy Creek, and construction of , the pipelines. Also, the vegetation has been somewhat trampled by cattle. 60 A Overall, the diversity of plant species in Area B, particularly in the undis- turbed western side, was found to be greater than in either Area A or C. The pools in this area appeared to be the least alkaline. Area C, in the southeastern portion of Section 22, was noted to have less diversity of plant species than the preceding areas. In contrast to the other pool areas where each pool is largely unique in its floral composition, those in Area C are more homogeneous. Heavier cattle grazing may contr-ibute signi- ficantly to this condition. The largest pool cluster is Area D, nearly 100 acres in size, situated east of ' Byron Hot Springs Road and south of the 45 Canal. This area was not surveyed during the April reconnaissance. It is known, however, to be one of the best ' examples of vernal pools in the vicinity of the project. FreshwAt6t'Jlptlands: This habitat type occurs in small patches along Brushy tCreek west of the existing airfield and the tributary creek to the north. It also includes man-made ponds situated immediately north of the present air— field ir-field buildings. In total, wetlands comprise less than 1% of the site. These areas differ from the vernal pools in that the water flow is deeper and more constant. Emergent vegetation consequently is more permanent and includes perennial plants such as cattails, tule, and bulrushes. The wetlands provide 1 a water supply, a rich food resource, and a varied source of cover that to- gether give it a high wildlife habitat value. Moreover, the presence of the wetlands increases the habitat value of the adjacent vernal pools and grass- land areas. Introduced Annual Grassland: Grasslands occupy the bulk of the site (over 607o) and are the most common habitat type in the area. The vegetation in- cludes a high proportion of introduced annual grasses together with a mixture of native and nonnative spring wildflowers. Except near the existing runways, ' the grasslands on the site have been heavily grazed by cattle. Grasslands have important habitat value for raptorial birds and other animals that hunt by sight. Their prey includes insects and small birds and mammals. The smal- ler mal-1er species feed on seeds and other parts of the plants. Wildlife identified during the field survey included golden eagle, march hawk, turkey vulture, 61 black-shouldered kite, horned lark, meadowlark, and savannah sparrow; plus pocket gopher, black-tailed jackrabbit (scat), and coyote (tracks). Qultivated-Land: Cultivated land is limited to the eastern edge of the site (totally about 135/70), east of the 45 Canal . Agricultural use consists of irri- gated pasture; no crops are grown on the land. The area has low wildlife habitat value. ,�. .. Disturbed Areas: Included inthis category are areas (about 8% of the site) occupied by structures or paved for roads or airfield runways and taxiways. The vegetation and wildlife value is minimal. Plant and Animal Species of Concern This discussion focuses on specific rare or endangered species of plants and animals which literature sources and other data indicates could be present at the site. A special effort was made during the field survey to look for these species. A listing of all species identified at the site is included in Ap- pendix B. ` P1 ants: Species of concern in the area include Amsi ni ck"ia arandi fl"ora, Lastheni a "cQhJ ugens," Exch-chol tz i a rhombipetaLa, and Tropi doca rpum cappa ri de- �n. None of these were found at the site in the habitats suitable for their existence. A variety of Lastheni a;"' L. "f remonti i, was noted in several of the vernal pools on the southern and western parts of the site, but this variety , is not classified as rare or endangered. Animal-s: The animal species of greatest concern in the project area is the San Joaquin kit fox. This species is classified as rare on the California Endangered Species List and as endangered on the Federal Endangered Species , List. The site lies about five miles northwest of the Bethany Reservoir and a similar distance east of the Los Vaqueros region, two of the known habitats of ' the kit fox, and has been thought to be -on the edge of their territory. Typi- cal signs of kit fox presence in an area include mounded sprays of freshly dug } 62 �1 dirt outside oval holes, trails beaten through the grass converging on holes, ' and scat and remains of prey. No such signs were found on the site during the April field survey. No holes suitable for dens were noted. Equally importantly, there was almost no evi- dence of ground squirrels or badgers, favorite prey of the kit fox.- Pocket ' gophers are common on the site, but their was no indication of cini ne. .di ggi ng around their burrows. Canine footprints found in the mud around the vernal ' pools were determined to be coyote. Given these findings, it is concluded that, if kit fox ever are present on the site, their use of the area is 1 im- ited to occasional hunting of casual territorial movements. Another species of concern in the area, according to the California Department of Fish and Game, Is the prairie falcon. Nests have been reported within five miles of the site. This bird probably includes the airport area in its hunt- ing territory, but none were spotted during the reconnaissance. Alternatives < No detailed study or field investigation of the vegetation and wildlife on the alternative sites has been conducted. The principal habitat types of these sites can be generally characterized, however. East Oakley is rich pasture land for cattle; it is mostly within the natural inundation area of,.. .the San Joaquin/Sacramento River Delta and is kept frau flooding by levees. The Hill- side site is primarily open range land on rolling hills. The Southeast Brent— wood site is composed of intensively cultivated crop land and orchards. Impacts Habitats A major design criterion in the layout of the proposed airport was to avoid ' elimination or disturbance of the most critical habitats. The habitats most Impacted by the project would be grasslands and vernal pool area C. 63 Vernal pool area A woul d remain unchanged by the project, except for the mini- mum amount of alterations that might be necessary to correct the flooding problems along Armstrong Road. Area C would also be left mostly undisturbed. , Impacts would be limited to construction of the airport access road across its northeast corner and the possibility that removal of the hill to the east ' could somewhat affect the drainage flow into the area. Area C, identified as the least significant of the vernal pool areas, would be eliminated during the ' mid to long-range phases of airport_ facility construction. Area D would be impacted only at its northern end, where some of it would be covered by runway construction. In total, approximately 35 acres of the estimated 200 acres of vernal pool habitat on the site would be eliminated by the project. . Alterna- , tive layouts for the airport all would have substantially greater impact on the vernal pools. The freshwater wetlands along Brushy Creek and its northern tributary are similarly proposed to be disturbed as little as possible by the proposed proj- ect. The northwestern end of the airport building area, for example, stops at the creek boundary. Impacts on the creek are expected to be limited to minor ,. drainage changes resulting from grading of the area to the east, flood control measures, and new crossings for the airport access road and a taxiway. - The F greatest impact these changes would have on the habitat value would be el imi- nation of some of the animal burrows and other habitat on the eastern side of Brushy Creek where the existing 86-foot hill would be lowered by some 20 feet. r Alternative plans would necessitate channelization or piping as much as 6,000 feet of the existing Brushy Creek and northern tributary. Approximately 175 acres of grassland (open pasture) and 20 acres of cultivated land ( irrigated pasture) would be eliminated over the 20-year development of the project. Portions of areas within the runway clear zones could continue to be available for cattle grazing. To the extent possible, water would con- tinue to be supplied to the remainder ofirrigated pastures partially taken by the proj ect, al though the conf icurati on of the i rri gati on system soul d need to ' be changed. Other possible layouts of the airport would have somewhat less of an impact on grasslands and generally none on cultivated areas. 64 Some disturbed areas would be reused as part of the proposed airport. Other ' areas would be abandoned. A total of approximately 230 acres not now covered by development would be disturbed by completion of the project. Species of Concern No rare or endangered species of plants or animals were determined-to- exist on the site and the project is designed to minimize or altogether avoid dis- turbance of the habitats where they would have most 1 ikely been found. The project would not affect the existence of any species of plant or animal. The ' project woul d el iminate grassl and and the associ ated vegetation that prov ides habitat for small mammals and other common wildlife. These animals would be displaced by the project. Alternatives No comprehensive investigation has been done of the impacts that would occur. fif another airport site was developed instead of the one proposed. Consider- ing the vastly different types of habitats on each of the sites, the impacts would obviously be substantially different-as well. Mi tfioti 611-wg sures It is anticipated that most of the impacts that would require special mitiga- tion measures have been avoided or minimized by the proposed design of the proj ect. However, the speci f is areas to be di sturbed by the proj ect shoul d again be surveyed by a biologist prior to when construction of major. .new phases of work commences. If any species of concern are discovered at that time or even after work is in progress, efforts would be made to find the most suitable mitigation measures. ' As mitigation for elimination of one area of vernal pools, the bulk of the other vernal pool areas on the site are proposed to be dedicated as nature preserves. Oversight of these areas perhaps could be delegated to a public or private entity specifically concerned with their ecological importance. ' 65 i The possibility of creating new vernal pools in another location has been ' considered as an additional mitigation measure. Vernal pools, however, are a complex mosaic of soils and plants. Evidence f ran biologists indicates that vernal pools probably cannot be created by man. Nonetheless, it may be possi- ble to recreate a vernal pool that has disappeared as a result of marinade drainage changes. There are places on the site where vernal pools may once have existed before levees were constructed, altering the naturals-rai,nage pattern. The possibility that removal of some of these levees could reestab- lish vernal pools without disrupting areas proposed for aviation uses should be investigated. Removal of levees also may allow Brushy Creek to follow more of its natural course, thus allowing any former freshwater wetland areas to be reestablished. Drainage patterns from the proposed construction areas should be designed to , minimize changes in the flow of water into vernal pool areas unless such changes would be beneficial to the vernal pool habitat. When the project is being engineered, biologists should be consulted regarding vernal pool drain- age needs. , As a replacement for the-removal of irrigated pasture, the possibility that irrigation water can be supplied to nonaviation, currently dry pasture, por- tions of the site should be investigated. ARCHAEOLOGY seirti 9 ' A review of literature and other data has revealed no recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological sites within the proposed project area. One historic site is located nearby, however, and there is some indication that historic artifacts could be found within the project boundaries. No field reconnais- sance of the area has been conducted as part of the current study and there is . no record of any past surveys. 66 The one nearby site is Byron Hot Springs. It is included on the county list of historic places. The Hot Springs Hotel was a popular recreation and health spa for prominent citizens of the San Francisco Bay Area from the 1880's until the early 1900' s when the natural hot springs dried up. The facilities were used as a Japanese prisoner of war camp during World War II. Several major historically significant structures and other smaller ones still stand, in- cluding the hotel, baths, manager' s house, and cottages. All are-in dilapi- dated condition. There is evidence that some of the smaller buildings are occupied. A possibility exists that a public park could be established on the site (see Recreation section). An historic ma of Contra Costa Count depicts some settlement in the project P y P P J vicinity (McMahon - 1885). Extensive agricultural activities and, to a lesser extent, other development have greatly disturbed the natural surface of the earth in the area and probably would have covered any artifacts that may be there. Nevertheless, it is possible that artifacts associated with early farmsteads could be found on the project site. Other than the hangars on the existing Byron Airpark, the only buildings within the development area of the proposed project are two barns located adjacent to each other about 1,300 feet west of Byron Hot Springs Road and Holey Road. According to the property owner, both were built in the 1940's and primarily are used for storage of hay. Imp� The project would have no direct impact on any known archaeologically si gni f- icant features. The only structures that would need to be removed as a result ' of the project are the two barns and one hangar building. An indirect impact of the project would be an increase of already existing aircraft overflights of Byron Hot Springs. A minor amount of noise impact would result, but the historic value of the site would not be degraded. 1 67 W Mitigati_dti'Meass4Lres Afield survey of the project area should be conducted by a qualified archae- ologist during the initial engineering design phase of the project. If any artifacts are found during construction activities, work in that area should cease until an archaeologist can investigate and determine,,rthe possible archaeological value. This provision should be stated in the project con- struction specifications. LAND USE Set�ina Existing Land Uses Southeastern Contra Costa County is a rural area characterized by primarily low-intensity agricultural activities. Cattle grazing is the most common land , use, some on irrigated pasture, but mostly on open range land. The soils, especially those near the project site, generally are inadequate to support =. crop production. The small unincorporated community of Byron, population under 1,000, and the ' growing resort community of Discovery Bay with presently over 3 ,000 residents, Are the only areas of concentrated development within six miles of the pro-- posed ro-posed airport. Within a mile of the site, residential development is limited to a total of about 20 dwellings mostly located to .the west along Armstrong Road and to the east along Byron Not Springs Road. The age of these dwellings ranges from less than 5 to more than 40 years and the quality also varies greatly. Three of the dwellings are mobile homes. The nearest school to the ' airport site is the Byron Elementary School 1 ocated 2.5 miles north. The location of most of these land uses are depicted on the Approach Protec- tion Plan (Figure 3) . 68 Future Land Use For the most part, land uses in the area have historically changed very slow- ly. The one major exception to this pattern has been the rapid spread of wind farm development during the past five years. Beginning in the windiest 1 oca- tions of the Altamont Pass in adjacent Alameda County, construction of new ' wind turbines has moved northward to within 1.0 miles south of th-e-airport site and, as noted in Chapter IV and elsewhere in this chapter, is now pro- posed for two properties immediately adjacent to the site. This trend is significant in several respects: o Wind farms are highly compatible with the cattle grazing for which the land has been used. o The wind farms effectively preclude extensive residential development on ' the properties involved. ' o The value of lands suitable for wind farm development has risen substan- tially. Although it is too early to accurately predict the effect, early e estimates are that the land values have about tripled. Soon to be imple- mented changes in the tax structure involving wind turbines (see Socioeco- nomics and Housing section) also could affect the land values, probably in a downward direction. A potential development that could have even more significant consequences for the southeastern part of the county is the Los Vaqueros Reservoir. This proj- ect, known formally as the Los Vaqueros Offst ream Storage Unit, has been pro- posed by the California Department of Water Resources to augment the yield of the State Water Project. It would consist of two large reservoirs In the vi- cinity i- cinity of Vasco Road southwest of Byron. The main reservoir would cover an ' area of up to 7.5 square miles and would require relocation of the road. A secondary reservoir, the Kellogg Forebay, would cover nearly 0.9 square miles extending up a narrow valley to about one mile west of the present Byron Air- park. If the water project is built, much of the adjacent land could be de- veloped as a park and the reservoir itself could be open to recreational use. 69 The impacts of such a development undoubtedly would extend to the land uses p pm } k and road system throughout the area. Implementation of the proposed project would permanently change the .land use of the site and could also affect the future uses of surrounding,1angs. , On Site ' The most substantial land use change would be the conversion of a small, pri- vately owned airport plus nearly 1,000 acres of adjacent land into what ulti- mately would become a full-fledged, publ is airport._ A total of some 12 parcels with six different owners are included within the. proposed 1,270-acre fee sirr ple acquisition area. Table 2 in Chapter III lists the parcels involved. The distribution of different types of land uses within the acquisition area is summarized in the Vegetation and Wildlife section. Other than the existing Byron Airpark facilities, improvements on the affected property are minimal . Two barns, described in the Arch aeol-ogy section, -are situated within the building area of the proposed airport and .would have to be removed. An irrigation system has been installed on some 170 acres of pasture land located within the acquisition area mostly east of Byron Hot Springs Road. A portion of this acreage would be encompassed by the runway system, but the remainder could be leased from the county and remain in use as agri- cultural land. Other improvements on the site include the prey iousl y__de- scribed irrigation canal and high-pressure gas and oil pipelines. Although ; undergrounds ng of a portion of the canal would be required, its use as well as that of the pipelines would not be impaired by the project. Only one dwelling is located within the proposed fee simple acquisition area of the airport. This house is situated in the southwestern corner of the ' Byron Airpark property. Although it would be acquired as part of the acquisi- tion of the Airpark, it is not in an area needed for aviation-related uses and its removal woul d' not be necessary. ( j 70 , i I Airport Environs iThe project would have three types of potential effects on land use near the airport site proper. In simplest terms, these impacts can respectively be described as proscriptive, indirect, and qualitative in character. Proscriptive: The proposed conservation and avigation easements .would..p-ro-- hibit ould.pro- hibit certain types of land uses in the airport environs. Only those land uses compatible with airport activities would be permitted. Noise-sensitive uses (such as residential development) and other uses (such as schools or ' shopping centers, however unlikely they may be) that would have high concen- trations of people would not be acceptable for areas beneath the runway ap- proaches. Restrictions would also be necessary on the height of structures and on other conditions (e.g. production of smoke or glare) that might create hazards to aircraft in flight. There is little pressure for development in ' the airport vicinity other than wind farms and perhaps some additional resi- dences; consequently, these types of potential land uses are the ones most ' likely to be affected by the proposed restrictions. Wind farms would be a problem close to the planned runways because of the height of the turbines (ones proposed for the area are up to 145 feet high) . Of the two wind farms proposed for development adjacent to the airport, con- struction would be restricted on a fourth to a third of the property as indi- cated on the Approach Protection Plan. Other wind farms that may in the future be proposed for the airport vicinity would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with the height of the turbines being the primary consider- ation. onsider- ation. ' Residential development is proposed to be precluded from areas that would regularly be subjected to low-altitude aircraft overflights (below about 400 feet AG U . Noise, safety, and nuisance impacts are all concerns. Based on a density of one dwelling units per existing parcel, potential construction of ty could be subdivided up to 11 residences would be precluded. If the proper r - 71 to the maximum extent allowed under current zoning (an improbable prospect ct because of various requirements), a total of some 183 possible dwellings would be affected. There is no conflict between the proposed airport plan and the preliminary plan for Los Vaqueros Reservoir and associated facilities. The Tuway Canal would be about 1 .0 mile southwest of the approach end of Runway 5-t— .� Inds rest: The possi bl e i ndi rect l and use impact of the proposed airport is ' that it could stimulate a demand for other development in the vicinity. This growth-inducement issue is discussed in the following chapter. ' Qualitative: The third kind of land use impact that the project would have on the surrounding area is a difficult one to assess. It concerns the quality of , life that the areas' s residents enjoy. The assessment is difficult because to a great extent this factor depends on each individual ' s perception of the area's character and what elements of it are most important. Many people undoubtedly value the area' s quiet, rural atmosphere and would object to any ' type of development that would give a sense of more "hustle and bustle. " The project would affect the character of the area ---there would be more aircraft over flights and vehicle traffic and just a generally higher level of activi- ty. How much this change would disturb people would vary from individual to individual. Alternatives , The land uses differ among each of the alternative airport sites and the im- pacts would vary accordingly. The East Oakley site would primarily affect pasture land of an operating dairy. Land uses on and around the Hillside site are similar to those at Byron -- grazing land on the site with scattered rural residences around the periphery. The Southeast Brentwood site is in intensive agricultural production plus sane dwellings would be encompassed within the , site boundaries. 72 The land use impacts of alternative layouts for the Byron site would differ ' from those of the proposed project mostly in a matter of degree. The total acreage to be acquired would vary to some extent depending upon the conf igura- tion of the runways and their relationship to existing parcel lines. The proposed wind farms would be more severely restricted by those alternatives in which the primary runway would be west of the proposed alignment. -Also, ac- ' quisition of dwellings would be necessary with some layouts. ' Mi ti�atI oh"P,1easures Acquisition ' The removal of land frau agricultural production is the principal impact the project would have on existing land uses. This impact can partially be miti- gated by allowing land not needed for development of airfield facilities to be leased out for compatible agricultural uses. In places closest to the runway, the use would be limited to growing and cutting of grass or hay; in. locations far enough away for a fence to be constructed around the runway, cattle could be allowed to graze. The land could be leased to adjacent landowners or as a 1 plot (or plots) independent of the adjoining parcels. The possibility that some -of this land could be irrigated should be investigated. Agricultural uses would continue to be acceptable on all property proposed to be covered by r conservation or avigation easements. ' A possible expansion of this purchase-and-lease-back arrangement would be for the county to acquire conservation easements rather than fee simple .on certain ' portions of the proposed airport site. The proposed acquisition boundary generally follows existing parcel lines (only three of the 12 parcels in the ' fee simple acquisition area would be split) . The result is that some land would be acquired that is not essential to airport needs. There may be advan- tages to trimming off some of the edges of the acquisition area illustrated in the proposed plan. Similarly, much of the land within the clear zones might not need to be purchased in fee if it could be assured that only compatible agricultural uses would take place there (the FAA, however, may require the 73 fee simple purchase) . These means of mitigating the impacts of land acquisi- tion should be examined when the property purchases are being negotiated. It could be found that they would both reduce the acquisition costs and be bene- ' ficial to the landowners. Incompatible Uses A potentially more significant land use impart associated with the project is the possibility that development incompatible with airport activities could ; occur around the site. The project proposes -two major measures to mitigate against this possibility. o The fee simple acquisition area would extend beyond the projected 20-year ' needs of the airport to protect for the ultimate foreseeable development. The ultimate runway clear zones are included within the proposed property , line. o Proposed conservation and avigation easements would permanently assure land use compatibility in areas extending more than a mile from the airport while allowing the underlying ownership of the land to remain private. In addition to these actions, other land use controls that should be consid- ered include: , Airpgrt Viciiii-y Heilaht'Limit Zoning_Ordinanae: Such an ordinance would gen- erally parallel the limits set by the avigation easements, but could be imple- mented prior to when the easements would be obtained on some properties. Also, it would cover a broader area than the avigation easements. , Aunty"-L-and*Use- Zoning: The County could modify the current land use zoning for the airport vicinity as appropriate to assure that only those uses compat- ible ompatible with the airport would be permitted. Given the predominantly agricul- tural zoning of the area, few changes would likely be necessary-.7- 74 , r r Buyer Arareness Progrm: The County could institute a programrequiring that t prospective buyers of property in the airport vicinity be notified by their real estate agent and/or title company regarding the proximity of the airport ' and the type and level of activity anticipated to occur there. Such a program could reduce the nuisance impact of the airport by eliminating the surprise factor and enabling individuals who might be most annoyed by aircraft over- flights to avoid moving to the area. .� AiEWEI LainlUse Commission"Plan: The new airport would come under the juris- diction of the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and the ' commission would probably adopt a land use compatibility plan for the airport environs. Such a plan would address the noise, safety, and height 1 imit as- pects of compatibility between the airport and its surroundings. Moreover, state l aw requi res that the l ocal . l and use pl an and zoni ng desi gnati ons be consistent with the ALUC plan unless specific steps are taken to override the ' commission' s plan. rtlMft8(."RESOURCES r . Setting The natural_ resource in the area that is most significant to the project is r wind energy. The extent of local wind energy development is described in the Land Use section. Nearly 5,000 wind turbines of various designs and sizes rhave been erected in and around the Altamont Pass to take advantage of the stronc and consistent winds. The best wind conditions are found on the hills bordering the pass. Farther north, in the vicinity of the proposed airport, the hills are lower and the wind conditions are more marginal. With present ' technology, an average wind speed of about 11 mph is considered necessary for a wind farm to be practical . A discussion of the economics of wind farms ' follows in the Socioeconomics and Housing section. _ The agricultural value of the land is low. This topic is discussed in the ' Vegetation and Wildlife and the Land Use sections. ' 75 1 t IM0 5 ' If the airport is to be built, construction of wind turbines in certain areas , close to the airport would have to be prohibited or restricted as described and illustrated in Figure 10 and in the Airspace analysis. Approximately 25% ' to 33% of the machines proposed for installation west and southeast -of the site would be affected. Although the differences may be sl fight, the portion of each of the wind farms that would be precluded represents generally the poorer part in terms of wind energy potential . Another type of impact that the project would have on -natural resources is the consumption of materials for construction of the airport pavement and other ' facilities. Base rock and asphalt would be the two major construction ccmpc- nents. No particular difficulty in locally obtaining these materials is an- ' ticipated. Alternatives Evaluation of the alternatives conducted during the site selection phase of the project indicated that the most significant natural resources existing on those sites are good agricultural soils on the East Oakley and-Southeast Brentwood sites and sand at the Hillside site. Development of these sites would limit the future use of the soils, but would have potentially allowed or , even increased the rate of sand extraction. Each of the alternative sites would consume somewhat less natural resources for construction materials be- cause of the lack of a need for a second runway. r Alternative layouts of the Byron site, as noted in the Airspace section, would ' have a more significant impact on wind turbine development than the proposed. plan has. Similar amounts of construction materials would be used in each ' plan. 1 76 ' cZ O m = a N i v..v rn D• w _ CA f c R f T I : l 1 :• if _' :;..... :.: CO o: .......:.:.�.,...'.... m 14 y. v . .•t , t O Z O' C Z O Dov - a C) 0. ..__:-.... _.....:':. �.` . v �.. BYRON HOT` SPRINGS ROAD : m -. r / a > _ O mm : i ��^,�0 _ c . r r x •a O. CO) o 9 ���9 ti otiti 0 r r o 'fl 0 � O /p0 O / W � a, Q / o- C- .a O o oma, / /. m.oro. o. . i Ili . '.m ' o "� ,��,' o`•:%�!:.�•� / � ' O�`• \ \ d D Z � � \1 , :::�;::.'y',t'iitl.�.tttt[t'• \ O\ . m .......... / • �..{/ � \ � A. off• \\ CD m m < me �:. . ..__. ...\ !. .. \.. _ Y `�o ;_ , ,\ \ > m _ NORTH BRUNS ROAD . r.. ....--- - - — m ; `mo0. Mitigation Measures ' The project was designed to minimize the necessary restrictions or proposed 9 P P ' wind farm sites. Short of not building a new airport at the Byron site, no other mitigation measures are suggested. Efforts should be made to avoid wastage of natural resources used-in construc- tion of the project. SOCIOECONOMICS AND HOUSING etti n Eastern Contra Costa County is socioeconomically an area of generally modest incomes. The characteristics of the area differ from north to south, how- ever. The northern part, around Oakley, is experiencing rapid growth in part because the homes in the new subdivisions there are among the least expensive in the San Francisco Bay Area. Brentwood and vicinity, in the central part of the East County, is also increasing in population; however, intensive agricul- tural production, including various types of orchards and other crops, is still the economic mainstay of the community. Agricultural activities, pri- marily centered around cattle raising, are also the principal sources of in- come in the southeastern corner of the county surrounding Byron and-.:the proj- ect site. The recent spread of wind turbine development in the hills near the county line has provided a new source of income for some of the area' s land- owners. Wind farms typically are developed by wind energy companies that obtain in- vestment money. from private parties, lease the land from local landowners, and then install and maintain the wind turbines. A typical wind turbine costs about $150,000 to install. The annual revenue to the landowner can average about $1,000 per machine; at 2 to 5 acres per machine the resulting $200 to $500 per acre income is significantly more than the typical $115 per acre that can be obtained from cattle grazing (San Francisco Chronicle - 1985) . Local governments also benefit financially from wind farm development. _ Property tax ' 77 revenues can amount to about $1,900 per turbine initially, but this figure ' decreases rapidly as the equipment is depreciated. Over a 20-year lifespan of a wind turbine that was worth $150,000 new, the total personal property tax ' assessment would be approximately $20,000. A major incentive to investment in wind farm development in recent years has been the federal and state tax credits given for alternative ener y sources. ' The intention behind these programs has been to help the get inaustry past the initial expense of developing a new technology. Now, though, the credits are ' scheduled to expire (federal at the end of 1985, state within three years) and are not expected to be renewed. What affect this expiration will have upon future wind farm development in the area is still uncertain, t As noted in the Land Use section, some 20 dwellings are located within a mile of the proposed airport. These dwellings vary from modern, large homes to older farm house to mobile homes. Grants for airport development are available from the Federal Aviation Admin- istration and the California Division of Aeronautics. Approximately 9070 of < the construction costs are eligible for federal and state funding. Impact� Except for the restricti ons that woul d be posed on w ind f arm devel oprnent, the project' s impacts on socioeconomic and housing conditions in the east county are anticipated to be relatively minor. The airport itself would be a small additional source of employment in the area. Additionally, to the extent that ' it would attract visitors, it would bring outside income to the area. Employment generated by the airport would not: have any significant effect on the demand for housing in the area. The project does not necessitate the removal of any dwellings from the existing housing stock. It would, however, ' preclude development of new residences in certain areas bordering upon the site. 78 ' The project would have an adverse impact on income that local landowners ' potentially could obtain from wind turbine development on their property. As noted in the Natural Resources and Airspace sections, portions of two proposed ' wind farms would need to be prohibited to prevent conflict with the airport. Local government also would lose approximately $13,000 per year currently obtained from taxes on the property that would be removed from the--tax. rolls as a result of county acquisition of the airport site. Partially offsetting ' this loss would be the additional taxes that would be paid on the increased number of aircraft that would be expected to be based in the county. In- creased aviation fuel sites would also generate more taxes. New aviation businesses at the airport would pay taxes as well. ' Construction of the airport would cost the county as much as $1.2 million over the next five years and perhaps $2 million through 20 years. These estimates are based on a county share of 100 of the eligible project costs as estab- lished in current FAA grant guidelines plus various costs from nonel igi bl e ' items, project start-up and administration, etc. It is expected that the county funds would mostly be obtained -from revenues generated by Buchanan ' Field and later by the new airport. This subject will be further addressed in another study report. ' Mitigation pleasures ' These impacts are minor. No mitigation measures are suggested. ' AIRSPACE ' Setti a Airspace is a category of environmental impact unique to projects involving airports. It is concerned with the interaction between airports, the effects of a project upon the airway system, and the existence of obstructions to the navigable airspace around an airport. ' 79 Airports Except for the Byron Air ark itself, all of the existing airports within 10 ' P Y P g miles of the proposed East Contra Costa Country Airport are private-use facil- ities. Most are used primarily for agricultural activities. The nearest are: , Baldwin Strip, 4 miles northeast; T' s Nectarine Ranch, 5 miles north-north- west; and Pi l ati Strip, 5 miles north. All have very low activity --and -operate , only under daylight, visual flight rules conditions. i A rx ay s The nation' s airspace is divided into controlled and uncontrolled areas. Air- ' craft operations conducted within controlled airspace must meet more stringent ' standards with regard to visibility, di stance f rcm clouds, etc. , than those in uncontrolled airspace. All aircraft operating in controlled airspace do not necessarily need to be in contact with FAA air traffic controllers, however; the requirements vary depending upon the type of controlled airspace involved. The airspace above the Byron site is controlled beginning at 1,200 feet above- ground level. The site is located beyond the boundaries of the San Francisco < Terminal Control Area wherein all aircraft must be in contact with traffic , controllers. Within the low-altitude (from 3,000 feet AGL up to 18,000 feet MSU .-portion. of , the controlled airspace a series of routes called Victor Airways have been established. A half dozen airways pass through the airspace within 5 miles of the Byron site converging at an intersection 6 miles to the west. AirQraft following these airways navigate by means of radio signals from various navi- gational aids called VOR's (Very-High-Frequency Omnidirectional Range) . The VOR' s nearest the proposed airport are located southeast of Stockton, at Lin- den (northeast of Stockton), south of Sacramento, at Oakland, and at Concord. 80 Obstructions Obstructions to the navigable airspace are defined by Part 77 of the Federal ' Aviation Regulations, "Obstructions to Navigable Airspace, " and by U. S. Termi- nal Instrument Procedures Standards (TERPS) . Each establishes imaginary sur- faces in the airspace around an airport. If the height of an object -(high terrain, trees, structures, etc. ) exceeds a Part 77 surface, an ev-e-1-uation is conducted by the FAA to determine if a hazard results. Often the only re- quirement is installation of obstruction lighting on the object so that it can be more easily seen at night or when visibility is poor. More serious oD- ' structions, if they cannot be removed or prevented frau being constructed, can result in restrictions on use of the airport (e.g. where traffic patterns are ' located, how instrument procedures are designed, or when the airport can be used). In the most extreme cases, an airport can be restricted to private use or even forced to close. TERPS surfaces supplement the Part 77 surfaces and are used specifically in the design of instrument approach procedures. The height of objects that penetrate the TERPS surfaces determines first whether an instrument approach procedure can be established and, if so, the minimums (cloud ceiling height and horizontal visibility) requi red for an aircraft to be able to land. ' n he vicinity of the proposed East There are various potential obstructions � t y p p. Contra Costa County Airport. These include: high terrain to the northwest, west, southwest, and south; powers Ines in the hills to the west and others to ' the south and east; and existing and proposed wind turbines west, southwest, and southeast of the site. ' Impacts Airports None of the existing airports near the proposed East County facility are close enough or busy enough for any significant airspace conflicts to result. ' 81 Ai prays The abundance of airways near the proposed airport is both an advantage and a ' disadvantage. The advantage is that they would enhance navigation to the airport and simplify the establishment of instrument procedures. The disad- vantage, a minor one, is that more aircraft are flying over this area than perhaps over other locations. This is not regarded as a significant factor, however, because such aircraft are at a minimum altitude of 3,00&,-feet. and ' usually are much higher. Obstructions The obstruction issue has been analyzed in considerable detail during the ly course of the project planning and environmental impact analysis. ' Terrain and Power Lines: The high terrain to the west and southwest pene- trates the Part 77 surfaces associated with the proposed airport. The iota- ' tion of the northeast - southwest runway was dictated in part by the terrain in this area. A hill on the site near the runway end would need to be lowered to provide a clear approach surface. (See Approach and Clear Zone-Plan, Fig- ure 3) . Beyond this, the nearest penetrati-ons are nearly 5,000 feet frau the runway (beyond the normal traffic pattern limits). It is concluded that, although the high terrain would affect some of the potential instrument ap- proach procedures and could necessitate certain constraints on visual flight rules operations, the overall impact is not serious. A similar conclusion has been reached with regard to the power lines, particularly those east and south of the site. Those to the west are more significant because of their_Jocation near the ridge tops. Obstruction lighting of some of the towers may be neces- sary and could be expensive. (A major portion of the cost would result frau the need to get continuous power to the lights; power in the transmission , lines is not continuous) . A determination on this matter will be made by the Federal Aviation Administration. ' Find Turbines: The wind turbines are a more difficult issue. The concern is with the new wind farms proposed to be located within a mile southeast and ' 82 west of the airport (existing wind turbines farther away present no problem) . ' The fact that the anticipated sequence of events requires county action re- garding the wind farm proposals before final decisions can be made on the airport plan precludes the normal analysis by the FAA. Although it is antici- pated that the FAA, when reviewing the proposed airport plans, would concur ' with the analyses conducted for the present study, the possibility remains that the future development of the airport could in some manner b6—ton- strained. 6 iron=strained. The easterly portion of the development to the southeast would lie on the ' extended runway centerline within 4,800 feet of the planned end of Runway 30 and within 3,200 feet if the runway is ultimately extended to 6,000 feet. The ' proposed turbines, 128 feet high to the top of the rotor blade arc, would pen- etrate both the Part 77 and the TERPS surfaces for a precision approach to the extended runway. Although nearly three-quarters of the wind farm development is concluded to pose no significant problem, construction of the turbines in 1 and near the runway approach zone would conflict with the ultimate development potential of the airport. ' Analyzing the potential impact of the wind farm proposed on the property west of the airport site is, in certain respects, more complex than the above anal- ysis. Because the terrain in this location is higher than that to the south- east, wind turbines of almost any height (the proposed ones would bd 145 feet) would penetrate the airport' s Part 77 horizontal surface. This surface would be established at an elevation of approximately 235 feet MSL, 150 feet above ' the highest point on the airport runways and would extend approximately 10,000 feet from the ends of Runways 12 and 30. As noted above, however, penetration ' of a Part 77 surface does not necessarily constitute a hazard. The present analysis concludes that no significant hazard would be presented if wind tur- bines of the 145-foot height proposed are constructed on the western three-- quarters of the wind farm site lying more than about 5,000 feet from the near- est planned runway ends. This conclusion is based in part upon the following ' considerations: the normal traffic patterns would be within this distance from the runways; aircraft entering and leaving the traffic pattern would be at an altitude adequately above the proposed wind turbines; and only visual 83 i operations would occur over this area because the higher terrain farther to the west requires that instrument operations be restricted to east of Runway ' 12-30. If other wind farms are proposed near the airport site, they would have to be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine if they would conflict with �..: development or use of the airport. Alternatives As mentioned in Chapter III, the locations of existing and proposed objects ' that could constitute airspace obstructions were major design constraints. Alternative plans in which the primary runway would be aligned close to the existing Runway 14-32 would conflict with the wind farm development more seri- ously than the proposed plan does. The critical height limit areas for the alternative plans are indicated in Chapter VII. Moving the runways northward would create more terrain obstructions although the significant ones could be removed with a feasible amount of earthwork. A shift toward the east would ' result in the transmission lines in that area becoming critical obstructions. Each of the alternative sites would have some airspace constraints. The ex- tensive network of high-voltage transmission lines in eastern Contra Costa , County is a factor at almost any potential airport site. The wind turbine issue, however, is not present at the alternative sites. Mitigation Measures The only significant airspace impacts associated with the proposed project are the potential airspace obstructions. As suggested previously, the first mea- ' sure usually taken to mitigate any hazards that cannot be avoided is to in- stall obstruction lights. Smaller electric lines close to the site would be under grounded as part of the project if they pose conflicts. As a means of assuring that- unacceptably tall structures are not erected in ' the airport v icfni ty, the Master Plan proposes that av igation easements be t 84 ' obtained on nearby property. These easements would set the allowable height ' limits and permit the county to install obstruction lights where necessary. Once the airport plans have been approved by the Federal Aviation Adrninistra- ' tion, proposals for construction of tall objects in the vicinity would have to be submitted to that agency for evaluation of potential conflict with the air- port. irport. ROAD SYSTEM AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION Setti 9 Current Conditions The major access routes to the site for most of the potential airport users ' would be via State Route 4 and County Route J4 (Byron Highway) . Both are currently two-lane roads. The existing local roads serving the site are Byron Hot Springs Road, Arir- 9 Y P strong Road, and Holey Road (see Figure 2). These are each substandard two- lane roads with pavement in generally poor condition. Right-of-way widths are 50 or 60 feet. Byron Hot Springs Road intersects with .Byron Highway at a 450 angle complicated by an adjacent railroad grade crossing that necessitates an approximately 5-foot hump in Hot Springs Road. Current traffic volumes on most of the roads in the area are low. Average ' weekday two-way traffic counts in early -1985 were as follows (Contra Costa Public Works Department - 1985) : ' o Route J4 between airport site and Byron -- 5,353 o Route J4 -- north of Byron 6,534 o Route 4 -- west of Discovery Bay -- 8,657 o Route 4 south of Brentwood -- not measured (estimated at 10,000) o Route 4 3 miles north of Brentwood -- 16,074 ' 85 Peak hour traffic volumes on these roads are generally less than 10ro of the ' 's daily two-way totals and under 15% of the daily one-way totals. No counts _ have been conducted on the local roads adjacent to the site. The estimated , counts, though, are less than 500 vehicles per day. Future Conditions The need for future improvements on major roads in the area has been evaluates in a series of Route Concept Reports prepared by the California Department of Transportation. The report on Route 4 proposes that the route ne relocates ' and constructed as a four-lane freeway extending from about the present junc- tion with Route 160 to near the junction with County Route J4. No specific ' alignment is suggested. The cities of Antioch and Brentwood, however, have adopted a corridor that they want the freeway to follow. County staff indi— cates that construction of this freeway is probably at least a 15 to 20 years away. Two other highway routes in the area do not presently exist as state roads. One route basically follows the same corridor• as Highway J4 from Route 4 north ' of Byron to Interstate 580 near Tracy. This road would be constructed as a < two--lane conventional highway with provisions for widening to four lanes. The other unconstructed highway in the airport site vicinity is Route 84. If built, this road would run from near the present junction of Interstate 580 ' and Route 84 close to Livermore to Route 4 between Byron and Brentwood. The concept for this route is a four-lane freeway. No specific alignment has been ' adopted. Projections of future traffic volumes on these roaas are not available. Con- sidering the continuing land use development in the area, however, the traffic will certainly increase substantially, especially north of Brentwood. The , nearest major traffic generator to the airport site is the community of Dis- covery Bay; its continued expansion will add considerable traffic to Highway 4 and, to a lesser extent, to Highway J4 as well. Possible construction of Los Vaqueros Reservoir would have major impacts on traffic throughout the area as well. 86 ' r No public transportation serves the airport area. Dial-a-ride service is available with prior arrangement; without an advance call, a 2-hour wait is common. Taxi service and rental cars are currently unavailable in the area; the nearest taxi service or rental car agency is in Antioch or Tracy. Impact Traffic Generation 1 The airport would generate additional vehicle traffic on roads in eastern ' Contra Costa County. The impact would be significant on the roads immediately adjacent to the site, but minor with respect to Byron Highway or Route 4 . The five- and twenty-year projections for total traffic to and from the airport areas follows: ' --___--------------------------------------------------------------- Aircraft Operations Estimated Total Vehicle Trips ' Year Annual Average Day Averaoe Day Peak Day Peak Hour ' 1990 45,000 125 250 600 100 2005 160,000 450 400 1,600 200 ' ----------------- -------- ---------------------------- ------------ ---- ' These projections of airport-related traffic include trips generated by air- craft pilots and passengers, employees of the airport and airport businesses, ' and other people who visit the airport for miscellaneous reasons. At general aviation airports not having commuter airline activity, the number of airport- related trips has been found to correlate most closely with the number of air- craft operations. The above traffic projections are data from existing air- ports ir-ports that provide similar services. The 1990 peak-hour airport traffic would represent less than 2217 of the cur- rent average day, peak hour traffic on Byron Highway. Moreover, the peak- period traffic to the airport would normally occur on weekends; the highway ' 87 traffic is probably lighter than average on such days. Even with the airport traffic, the highway capacity appears unlikely to be strained any time in the near future. ' At greater di stances f ran the ai rport, traf f is w it 1 have di spersed onto a variety of routes. Although Highway 4 can be expected to handle the majority of airport-bound traffic, the airport' s proportion of the total op,this roan , would be small and the airport peak-period traffic would not coincide with the overall peak-traffic on the road. ' The traffic that the airport would add to Byron Hot Springs and Armstrong , Roads would be significant not so much because the volumes would be particu- larly high, but because these roads cannot safely accommodate any notable traffic increase. The problems of the narrow pavement widtn and poor grade ' crossing were cited above. Improvements to both roads are included as part of the proposed project. In accordance with County standards, the pavement would be strengthened and widened to 28 feet from Byron Highway to the airport. The existing right-of-way should be adequate. Proposed improvements at the Grade ' crossing would increase the sight distance over the hump and reduce the grade on the Byron Hot Springs Road side of the crossing. Access Time As noted in Chapter III, the bulk of the airport users are expected to come from the Antioch, Oakley, and Brentwood areas. The present average travel time from central Antioch to the airport site is approximately 30 minutes. Since the Oakley and Brentwood areas are closer to the site, the airport ac- cess time for the average user is estimated to be slightly less, about 25 minutes. This time is expected to stay about the same in the longer term the centroid of the user population would move closer to Brentwood and to the airport, but overall traffic increases would probably reduce the average speed. The one significant development that could reduce the access time woul a be extension of the Route 4 freeway. Construction of the westerly access route onto the site also would save a minute or two-. i 88 1 , Figure 11 depicts the access times to the Byron site from throughout the east ' county and surrounding areas. The estimated 1980 and projected 2000 total population within 20 and 30 minutes of the site are as noted below: ------------ Total•:, Access Market Area Year - Time Area Population 1980 20 Minutes Within Contra Costa County 15,000 All Areas* 40,000 r1980 30 Minutes Within Contra Costa County 65,000 All Areas* 130,000 2000 20 Minutes Within Contra Costa County 45,000 ' without freeway 2000 20 Minutes Within Contra Costa County 60,000 with freeway ' 2000 30 Minutes Within Contra Costa County 125,000.... without freeway 2000 30 Minutes Within Contra Costa County 180,000 with freeway * Including adjacent portions of Alameda and San Joaquin Counties ----------------------------------------------------------------- Road Closures rAnother impact of the proposed airport would be the need to sever Byron Hot Springs Road south of Holey Road. All parcels now served by this road must 89 t 7 continue to have access. The road presently becomes a private road at a wind t farm about 1.5 miles south of Holey Road: Five large parcels -- one with a single residence on it, one with the wind farm, and three that are undevel- oped, including the one proposed for development of a .wind farm -- have access from the road. The State Department of Water Resources does not normally use Byron Hot- Springs Road for access to the Aqueduct or the Delta Pumping Plant (the regular access is from the south) . The proposed project would maintain access to all parcels now having access from Byron Hot Springs Road. However, because the traffic on this portion of the road is extremely light and expected to remain so (except possibly during construction of the wind farm) , the replacement road is proposed to be a mini- mal facility. On an interim basis, a short, unpaved road would be constructed around the southeast end of the runway. Later•, a loncer new road would be necessary. This road, about 1.3 miles in length, also would be gravel sur- faced until such time as traffic volume would warrant a heavier construction. ' Both the interim and the later roads would be on the proposed airport proper- ty. Alternatives Several access road alternatives have been considered. A more extensive reconstruction of the grade crossing would perhaps enhance safety to some extent, but would be substantially more expensive and woula disrupt both the adjacent properties and traffic on Byron Highway; the volume of traffic involved does not warrant this level of effort. o Establishing Holey Road as the major access route to the airport would increase the access distance for most users and undoubtedly would not be used unless the existing connection at Byron Hot Springs road and Byron Highway was severed. , o With regard to replacing the severed portion of Byron Hot Springs Road douth of Holey Road, the principal alternative would be a new road 190 ;.... A ......................... •' ..J .. G .................... •:'• ' m � r m .., z ................ ... x........ aN4fy o �� }.fid j �+..i.�!"�,""K �.►i Ti � fJi #118 ♦♦ � : f 00 vor 4 40'♦•• E 1 0 1 t `� z r 1 o f ♦"I < 1 m ! ,0 f 4 ^ ♦ r o° ,i41 t lJ rr q Awn-qi r 1 2 / yy Q O ~ DZ r cn -^t rs a H D v o =+ � o � � zmrnz G) o m z z m m m m m i .. Z Z i .. 7] o - Z o cn -{ c� 0-n Z z '17 M aiMKm OD cQ (D ii -tMi0 zr M _ n Cn w � cD -4 >mCC m o < m r z4 > m -4 CD mm M. D o m m y ? 0c �` ' oz C ' extending cunni ng'al ong the north side of the California Aqueduct from the south end of North Bruns Way to Byron Hot Springs Road. This alternative would be advantageous if a road could be built on state lands or a public easement across the property proposed for wind tur— bine development. Its disadvantages would be that some additional right-of-way would be required and it would not as readily provide emergency access to the south side of the airport. Another type of alternative to be considered is with regard to the mode of access to the airport. It is assumed here that the private automobile woulo ' be the means of access for essentially all airport users. Although it is unlikely that any other mode could account for any substantial percentage of the access trips, the availability of other choices would be desirable. _The demand, however, would be insufficient to support modes such as scheduled bus service or local rental car service except in conjunction with overall im- provement of services within the southeastern part of the county. Possibly, as airport traffic increases, better dial-a-ride service would be possible or some loaner cars might be made available at the airport. Alternative layouts of the Byron site would generate similar amounts of vehi- cle traffic as the proposed plan, but would have different impacts on some of the immediately surrounding roads. Neither of the alternative plans would ' require severing of Byron Hot Springs Road, although Plan B woul a involve rerouting a portion of Armstrong Road. Widening of the northerly secment of Byron Hot Springs Road and improvement of the grade crossing would be- neces- sary in any case. Each of the alternative airport sites would have its own distinct impacts on local roads. Aside from the differences in which roads would require improve- ' ments, probably the most significant difference is that the. average access distance to the alternative sites would be less than to Byron. The East Oak- ley site would be particularly advantageous in this regard in that it lies within 15 minutes access_ time from most of the potential airport users. A ' full evaluation of this issue is contained in the Site Identification and Evaluation report. ' 91 Mitigatfon Measures Measures to mitigate the anticipated ground traffic and circulation system ' impacts of the proposed airport are incorporated into the project. These include: -, o Widening and strengthening of Byron Hot Springs and Armstrong Roads. ' o Improving the grade crossing on Byron Hot Springs Road near the inter- section with Byron Highway. o Replacing the severed portion of Byron;"Hotspings Road with a new road , on the proposed airport property. As long-term mitigation for the grade crossing problem, construction of a new access route to the airport should be considered. A preferred alignment for this road, from an airport access standpoint, would be from Byron Highway about a mile south of the town of Byron and along the west side of the Byron ' Hot Springs property. Approximately 1.4 miles of new right-of-way would be 3 required. If this new road is constructed, the access road onto the" airport should be relocated to run along the alignment of the existing Runway 14-32, crossing Brushy Creek near the edge of the building area as depicted on the Airport Layout Plan. Relocation of the access road also would be necessary , before the local izer needed for instrument approach capability to Runway 30 could be installed. ' RJ131 TC UTILITIES AND SERVICES ' in Utilities The existing utilities serving the area are limited to electric and telephone systems. Pacific Gas & Electric Company provides electrical service. Low- voltage overhead lines run along west side of. Byron Hot Springs road and nortn 92 -' and west e - -. sides of Armstrong Road. The telephone s rvtce �s operated by Pac�f is Bell. Domestic water in the area is obtained from wells on the individual proper- ties. Both the flow rates and the quality are generally poor. Nitrate con- tamination on- tamination is the principal quality problem. As of mid 1985, efforts are under way to determine the feasibility of instal- ling a community water system for Byron. The preliminary boundaries for this system are those of the Byron Sanitary District; that is, encompassing the built-up part of the community. The potential sources of water are the Byron- Bethany Irrigation District' s 45 Canal or deep wells. Funding remains the major question; if the need for a system can be adequately documented, app] i- cation will be made for State Safe Drinking Water bond funds and construction could be underway in two or three years. Septic systems are used for wastewater disposal in the vicinity of the site. Percolation rates in much of the area are poor because of the clayey soils. The Byron Sanitary District provides wastewater treatment for some 300 mostly ' residential connections within the Byron community. The system' s capacity is adequate for the current and projected needs. As noted in Chapter III, in addition to the local service systems, several major utility distribution lines pass through the project area. These include six PG&E electric transmission lines within two miles of the site and two high-pressure pipelines that cross the site. , The precise locations of the transmission lines can be seen on the Approach and Clear Zone Pl.an (Figure 4) . The two pipelines run about 12 feet from each other in a northwest-southeast direction across the center of the site within the same 30-foot right-of-way. 1 The westerly pipe is operated by Chevron USA/Standard Oil and transports cru Ge oil at a pressure of 400-500 psi . The pipe is 18 inches in diameter, con- structed of steel. The second pipe is owned by Standard Pacific Gas Line, ' Inc. and used by PG&E for transmission of natural gas. It is a 26-inch diame- ter line with pressures of-about 450 psi. In conjunction with this pipe, PG&E t93 also has a telecommunications line (used to relay data regarding flows, pres- sures, etc.) that runs through the area underground near the existing airport and overhead in other areas. A third line, now abandoned, parallels these two through the northern part of the site, then diverges slightly to the east. Its most recent use appar.ently was for transporting water northward to the Ridgemoor sand-extraction facili- ty. Services ' The site falls within the jurisdiction of the Contra Costa County Sheriff' s ' Department. The nearest station is located in Oakley, but regular patrols cover the Byron area. Typical response time to the site vicinity is 7 to 10 ' minutes. Fire protection in the area is the responsibility of the Byron Fire Protection District. A station is located in Byron about 3 miles from the airport site. Four to five volunteers are usually available to respond to a call within five minutes. Fi-re-fighting equipment includes a truck with foam spreading capa- bilities. , .Impacts i Utilities ' The proposed airport would require electric and telephone, water, and waste- water facilities. General aviation airports typically are not large consumers of electricity. , The principal power uses at the East Contra Costs County Airport would be for runway lighting, a rotating beacon, security lighting, and functions within , buildings, air conditioning being the major one. These power requirements probably can be met with 220 volt, 300 amp (3•-phase, 4-wire) service. Annual ' power consumption is estimated to be about 60,000 kwh initially, increasing to ; 94 -� 1 ' perhaps 300,000 kwh in 20 years. Fixed base operations and other private facilities on the airport (e.g., private airport hangars) would have addi- tional requirements at about the same order of magnitude. The existing ser- vice lines within the immediate vicinity of the site would need to be upgradea to accommodate these needs, but the overall capacity in the area is adequate. ' Telephone system requirements at the airport would be limited to a few lines -- perhaps as many as a couple of dozen -- serving the terminal building and fixed base operations. The principal water uses at the airport would be for drinking and restroom functions, aircraft washing, and fire protection. Total water consumption would be relatively low. Potable water would be needed for at least the _first of these uses. Also, for fire protection, local flow rate and pressure re- quirements must be met. The anticipated source of water for the airport is the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District 45 Canal. Preliminary discussion with the District management indicate that such a proposal would be given serious consideration. On-site treatment of the water would be necessary, with the capacity limited to that required for airport-related uses. Alternative water sources include deep wells on site or a connection to the proposed Byron community system. Major shortcomings of a well are uncertainty ' of adequate volume and the possible need for added treatment because of ni- trates in the groundwater. Connection to the community system would require installation of some 2.25 miles of pipe from where the system would otherwise end. Approval of the County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) also would be needed for service to be provided to the airport. Although the LAFCO has not yet adopted a sphere of influence for this proposed system, the bound- ary likely will be contiguous with those of the Byron Sanitary District. This option would have greater growth-inducing effects then the proposed plan and would likely be more costly as well. Its advantage would be avoidance of the need for on-site treatment and pumping facilities. ' Disposal of wastewater is also proposed to be done with on-site facilities. The estimated average flow ranges from 1,250 gallons per day initially to 95 4,500 gallons per day in 2005 provided that no restaurant is located at the airport. Finding a location on the site where an adequate percolation rate for a septic system could be obtained may not be possible. Some type of me- ' chanically aerated system installed on the site would therefore be necessary. The alternative form of wastewater would be to run a small diameter-, low- pressure force main northward to Byron Sanitary District system. This -alter- native would require LAFCO approval since the district' s sphere of influence is limited to its current service area. It also would have a growth-inducinc potential similar to that of a water line extension. In addition to the utility usage generated by the proposed airport, the proj- ect would affect or be affected by the major power and pipe lines in the. area. The issue with regard to the power transmission lines is one of possible air- ' space obstructions and safety hazards as discussed in those sections of this chapter. No need for relocation, undergrounding, or other major modification , of these lines is contemplated. Installation of obstruction lights on the towers and marker balls on the lines may, however, be necessary in some loca- tions. The pipelines likewise would not need to be altered by the project. The proposed plan limits construction over the lines to a minimum area of pavement. If any significant change in the depth of earth cover over the ' pipes would be necessary, appropriate measures would be taken to protect the pipes and allow than to be accessible. , Services , The airport would not place any significant demand on local pol ice or--f ire ' services. The need for emergency services is expected to be infrequent and no additional manpower would be required. The initial response to most incicents at the airport normally would be made by airport and fixed base operations 1 personnel . Sheriff' s officers may be called for occasional security problems. Calls to the Byron Fire Protection District could be necessitated by struc- tural fires or aircraft accidents. The type of equipment currently operatea by the Fire District should be adequate for the kind of incidents likely to occur at the airport. 96 An agency that would be more significantly impacted by the project is the ' County Public Works Department. The East Contra Costa County Airport would be owned by the county with maintenance and operations being the responsibility of Public Works, probably in a manner similar to that employed for Buchanan ! Field Airport. Additional county. personnel would be needed to handle the day-to-day duties at the new airport. Mitigation Measures Preliminary contact has been made with the major agencies involved. Further coordination should be established with all affected agencies during the engi- neering phase of the project. These agencies include: o Pacific Gas & Electric Company electric and pipeline divisions. o Pacific Bell Telephone Company. ' o Standard Pacific Gas Line, Inc. o Chevron USA. o Byron-Bethany Irrigation District. o Contra Costa County Health Department. o Byron Fire Protection District. Early consultation with local fire authorities during the engineering design of the project should be used to determine what fire flow requirements, if any, should be met. Pressure pumps or on-site storage should be considered, if necessary, to meet such requirements. When warranted by the volume of aircraft activity, consideration should be given to establishing a fire station on the airport, owned and operated under airport auspices. ! 97 MOISF -L9 Southeastern Contra Costa County, including the environs of the project site, -� is basically a quiet, rural area. The pr imam existing noise sources are: } local traffic; the nearby rail line; farm equipment; animals; aircraft over- ' flights, both from the existing airport and from in-route flights; and wind. Ambient daytime noise levels in the area were measured at 35 to 45 dBA with wind noise being the major variable. Presently, the only noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity are- residences. If the Byron Hot Springs property is developed as a park, noise impacts upon it could be a concern there as well. , Impacts ' Noise can be described as an unwanted or disruptive sound. Two basic ele- ments determine whether a sound is perceived as disruptive: (1) characteris- tics .of the sound itself and (2) the human activity taking place when the ' sound occurs. Measurement , Sound is measured primarily in terms of its intensity or loudness as indicated ' on the decibel (dB) scale. In order to measure the noise value of a sound, however, it has been found that other factors also must be considered. To take such factors into account, various composite noise descriptors have been devised. The descriptor most commonly used in California to measure noise generated by aircraft operations at an airport is the Community. Noise Equiva- lent Level (CNEL) . Inputs to the calculation of CNEL contours include the sound level transmitted by individual operations of each aircraft type using , the airport, the time of day when the operations occur, runway utilization and aircraft flight track geometry, and the takeoff and landing profiles of each aircraft type. % 98 ' Thero'ected short-term (1990) and long-term (2005) CNEL contours for the P J 9 East Contra Costa County Airport are depicted in Figures 12 and 13, respec- tively. These contours are based upon forecasts of 45,000 and 160,000 annual operations for the respective time periods. Additional data used to calculate ithe contours is summarized in Appendix C. ' Significance ' The type of human activity is a factor in determining the disruptiveness of a noise because a noise level that may be disruptive to one type of activity maybe acceptable with respect to another. Various studies have been done to ascertain the decibel level at which noise will i nterfere with a given activi- ty. ctivi- ty. These data in turn have been used to establish relationships between acceptable composite noise levels and specific types of land uses. ' State of California airport noise standards as well as Federal Aviation Regu- lations (Part 150) establish a CNEL of 65 dBA as the maximum acceptable noise exposure for residential land uses. This criterion, however, is set primarily with regard to air carrier airports in urban locations. For typical general :.� aviation airports in suburban or rural settings, a 60-CNEL or even a 55-CNEL standard is more applicable. The latter is suggested as the appropriate basis for evaluation of noise irrr- pacts of the proposed East Contra Costa County Airport, at least for the fore- seeable future. Two considerations support this recommendation: o Ambient noise level =_ in the project area are very lcw and there has been little experience with the impacts of aircraft noise. Although ' the Byron Ai rpark is already established at the site, it has so little activity that its impact is nearly insignificant compared to a more typical general aviation facility. o Because very little residential development exists in the area, a 55-CNEL standard can realistically be achieved. Moreover, by adhering to this standard with regard to any future residential development proposals in the area, a very high degree of land use compatibility 99 oi a _ \ -8M 23 WQI \ 15BSA 26 \ 14 Pumptnit Stat on ;. Rts*rUDif BM 17 I nxM \ O / /�f f` \ x t�) H(XEY 23 Rwa22 1 55 CNEL v t 60 CNEL _—_ _ Q 76. ft' r CD. 26 41 I i f` L: 45,000 Annual Aircraft Operations AVIATION PLANNING� SERVICES � i1I 1 ^---� FEET NOISE IMPACTS — 1990 •iii t4QOGE5 a 51-tU7T 1 2000 400 8 Figure -12 100 r O ----_._— Yd L / \� SM 23 \ Well l r. 1 • vr h ¢' q • 15 �' s� Y� 15 ,� , 14, r '. \ p \ n \ n 9M o Station \ :. ... e I _ ------ -_-- -- f y`' J 11 • � � D 55 CNEL- r 6 0 C N E L eM 17 I .windmfl �---. .. 65. CNEJ,3 I'm 22`\ r+aEr I \ � 9 101 ' /ICJ \ \ .4}i' _ `•\, �_ -- r 0 .. z'I aq G fl 'I Oif j •� r 1 Z. C — * \ a< I 160,000 Annual Aircraft Operations AVIATION PLANNING SERVICES III ��II � FEET NOISE IMPACTS — 2005 HOOGES 3 SHUTTI 2000 4000 Figure 13 1 101 can be maintained. At someoint in the future, if the area develops and ' P - ambient noise levels increase, this standard can be reconsidered. An examination of the contours presented in Figures 12 and 13 shows that there would be no existing residences within the 55-CNEL contour in 1990 or 2005. The nearest dwellings to the runway are 1,000 feet to the side and, along the takeoff flight tracks, the nearest that might commonly be overflown are 3,000 ' feet from the closest end of a runway. The proposed limits of conservation easement acquisition include the projected 55-CNEL contour for 2005, thus no future residential development should be able to take place within this impact area. Even though a CNEL of 55 dBA is quite conservative as a land use compatibility standard, it does not totally mark the limit of the noise impacts that would be generated by the proposed airport. In circumstances where the ambient noise level is low and the airport has a small volume of activity, composite , noise levels are often not as significant as individual event noise levels as a measure of noise impact. Loud overflights can be particularly intrusive ' even though infrequently occurring. Alternatives ' Each of the alternative airport sites would have some degree of noise impact , on surroundina land uses. The extent of the impact depends largely upon hcw much residential development already exists in the respective environs. The ' East Oakley site is perhaps best in this regard, although the Byron and Hill- side sites would not be appreciably different: in the most affected areas. ' Alternative layouts of the Byron site would distribute the noise impacts dif- ferently, but the same group of residences would be affected in some degree. ' The proposed plan has comparatively about as little noise impact as is possi- ble at this site. i 102 ' t ' Mitigation Measures ' An airport' s noise impacts can be mitigated both by removing or preventing development of noise-sensitive land uses in the airport environs and by reduc- ing the noise that the airport generates. The proposed project takes the former approach; there appears to be little need to constrain the use of the ' airport because of the noise it would create and it would be poor planning for a new airport to be in that position from the very start unless &' olutely ' necessary. The acquisition of conservation easements on the most impacteg land would preclude new incompatible uses. Avigation easements would estao- ' 1 ish the right of aircraft to overfly a property and make a normal amount of noise. The buyer awareness program discussed in the Land Use section would further help minimize problems of incompatibility and should be considered. t If, when the airport begins operations, specific compatibility problems are ' found to exist with regard to individual existing residences, available op- tions that should be considered include adding sound insulation to the build- ing (probably not a very effective solution considering the low noise levels) or acquiring the property outright. Unless it is concluded that the noise ' level would be annoying to most people, any residential property acquired under these circumstances could be resold with a conservation or avigation easement attached. HEALTH AND SAFETY ttin The principal health and safety issue associated with the proposed project concerns the safety of aircraft operations. There are two aspects to aviation safety: hazards to aircraft and their occupants and hazards to people on the ground in the vicinity of an airport. Score relevant points can be drawn by examining nationwide statistics on general aviation accidents assemblea by the National Transportation Safety Board. 103 o Duringthe period from 1972 through 1981, general aviation aircraft ' P 9 accidents occurred at a rate of approximately 2.6 per 100,000 opera- ; tions. About one-third of these took place beyond the influence area of an airport; thus about 1.8 accidents have occurred on or near an airport for every 100,000 aircraft operations. o Of the airport-related accidents, about 710 occurred within airport ' boundaries. o Landings accounted for 630 of airport-related accidents; take-off and taxi/static accidents comprised 300 and 70 of the total. ; o Two-thirds of airport-related accidents historically have involved no i nj uries. o Historically, less than one general aviation accident in 150 nationwide , has involved an aircraft collision with a building. Over a 16-year period ending 1979, only 27 such accidents resulted in an injury to an occupant , of the building. (Sources: NTSB - variousears• AOPA - 1983 ' Y , � Because of the very low level of activity at the exi sting Byron Ai rpark, the facility has not developed much of an accident history. A review of NTSB records from the mid 1970' s to 1984 does not reveal any accidents associated ' with the airport. Another facet of the safety issue as it involves the proposed airport is ground transportation safety. The inadequacy of local road=_, as noted in the ' Ground Transportation and Circulation discussion, represents a safety concern. Byron Highway has had serious accidents due at least in part to the high speed ' of travel on it and the insufficient shoulders. Byron Hot Springs and Arm- strong Roads, although narrow, have low traffic volumes and normally low-speed travel . There is no record of any unusual number of traffic accidents on ' these roads. 104 ' / Impacts ' Airport Design Standards ' Federal and state design standards for airports have been established with safety as a primary concern. These standards specify such things as: runway ' length and width; setback distances from runways and taxiways to aircraft parking areas and buildings; surface gradients, both on paved areas and adja- cent to them; and clear zone sizes and approach surface slopes. The proposed airport design meets or exceeds all of the appropriate standards. ' Hazards to Flight ' With retard to the safety of ai rcraft in fl ight near the ai rport, two matters are of specific concern: wind conditions and nearby obstructions to the air— space. ' The fact that strong and sometimes turbulent winds occur in the vicinity of the proposed airport was noted in Chapter IV. This fact was considered care- fully during the site selection process. The conclusion reached was that the wind conditions, although far from ideal, are not inherently unsafe. Strong winds pose the greatest problem when crosswind operations are necessary. The ' proposed airport would alleviate this problem by having two runways. The recommended 75-foot width of both runways further provides pilots with some ' leeway in operation of the aircraft, particularly during landings. High terrain, power transmission lines, and wind turbines discussed previously constitute the most significant potential airspace hazards near the airport ' site. Except for some small close-in hills on the site that may need to be graded down, the high terrain would not be a major factor. It lies far enougn from the proposed airport that it would not constrain normal traffic patterns ' or other flight procedures. Power lines are more of a concern in that they are not as visible as terrain and other obstacles. Further analysis will be 1 required to determine whether any of the power lines should be obstruction lighted as a safety precaution. The existing wind turbines are far enough 105 from the airport site to pose no problem. New wind farms proposed for closer to the airport would partially conflict with the airport's airspace as ex- t plained in the Airspace analysis in this chapter. For safety reasons, some of the turbines should not be permitted if the Future development potential of the airport is to be preserved. . Also, obstruction lighting of some of the ' turbines may be necessary. The net effect of these potential obstructions is that they would not be al- lowed to represent significant hazards: either they would have to be elimi- nated or lighted or the operation of the airport wou1G have to be restricted (e. g. by raising the instrument approach minimums) . Hazards on the Ground Potential hazards to people on the around would result from the many aircraft overflights of the area. Statistically, however, as the above cited data ' suggests, the risk would be extremely small. Moreover, the development den sity in the airport environs is very low. The extensive open space surround- ' ing the site would enhance the airport' s margin of safety. In the great majority of off-airport accidents, the pilot has substantial discretion re- cardi ng where to attempt an emergency landing. Given any reasonable choice. of a flat, open area, the pilot will head for that spot and try to avoid any structures or other obstacles that would increase the likelihood of injury to ' the aircraft occupants. Ground Traffic Hazards Another potentially adverse safety impact of the proposed airport woulc arise ' from the motor vehicle traffic it would generate. As described in the Ground Transportation and Circulation section, however, the amount of traffic gener- ated would be small. The proposed improvements to bring the local airport access roads up to county standards should reduce the risks associated with ' airport-generated traffic to a negligible level. The airport may contribute in a minor way to the eventual need to upgrade Byron Highway. 3 106 - ' 1 Mitigation Measures ' The principal measures intended to mitigate potential safety impacts of the proposed airport are designed into the project. These include: o Adherence to Federal and State airport design standards. o Providing wider than normal width runways to compensate for the area s ' strong, gusty winds. o Undergrounding of local power distribution lines that cross the runway }approaches. ' o Obstruction lighting of hazards to the airport' s airspace. ' o Establishment of easements to assure the maintenance of compatible land uses in the vicinity. o Upgrading Byron Hot Springs and Armstrong Roads and the railroad grade crossing. o Other safety mitigation measure that should be considered include 1 and use ccmpatibility measures adopted in the form of local land use zoning and an Airport Land Use Commission plan, as described iri the ' Land Use section. ' A final consideration, although not one that directly enhances safety; is that airport tenants would be required to carry property and liability insurance. ENERGY CONSUMPTION ' Settin Energy consumption at a typical general aviation airport results primarily from three different types of activities: aircraft operations, access trips, ' 107 1 anda ' 1 ht"n tg t g and other electrical cal uses. Light, single-engine e-engt ne planes consume on the order of 10 to 15 gallons per hour while cruising. This equates to , about 15 miles per gallon. Although this mileage is less than that achieved by most recent model automobiles, aircraft gain from generally being able to travel a more straight-line distance between two points. Uses of electricity -' are noted in the discussion of Public Utilities and Services. The current consumption of energy at the site is negligible. The level of aircraft operations at Byron Airpark is small . Electricity usage is limited ' mostly to interior lighting and miscellaneous equipment in the two large hangar buildings. ' acts The project probably would contribute to an increase in energy consumption for transportation purposes to, from, and within eastern Contra Costa County. The ' more extensive facilities that would be available at the new airport would be conducive to an increase in aviation activity compared to what does or could ' occur at Byron Airpark and Antioch Airport. A corresponding increase in air- port access trips would result as well. Assuming that a full range of general aviation services would be offered at the airport, the total amount of fuel sold could be or, the order of 75,000 to 100,000 gallons per year in 1990 and 300,000 to 500,000 gallons in 2005. ' Nighttime lighting of runways, air conditioning in buildings, and other uses ' of electricity would consume additional energy. Total annual consumption for both public and private facilities on the airport is projected at up to , 120,000 kwh initially and 600,000 kwh in 20 Years (see Utility section) . Alternatives , The alternative airport sites would consume a similar amount of energy as the Byron site. Being located closer to the potential airport user than the Byron site is, these sites would generate less access trip mileage and fuel use than Byron; this effect, though, probably would be slightly reduced by more usage 108 ' . a ' of the facility resulting from the more convenient location. Al 1 sites would ' be about the same with regard to other forms of energy usage. Also, there would be no appreciable differences in energy consumption among the alterna- tive layouts of the Byron site. Mitigation Measures Design of the airport has taken into account minimizing taxiing distances, ' thus saving fuel consumed during that phase of activity. The proposed runway layout also would minimize delays to airborne aircraft by enabling both run- ways to be used simultaneously under certain conditions. No feasible means of reducing access trip energy consumption are apparent (see tGround Traffic and%,Circulation section) . ' Installation of a radio controlled switch enabling pilots to turn on the lights as needed should be considered as a means of reducing energy consump- tion. The design of the airport buildings should include means such as added insula- tion nsula- tion to make them as energy-efficient as practical. ' BI R- QUAL ITY Setting The airport site is situated at the eastern edge of the San Francisco**Bay Area Air Basin less than 4 mile=_ from the boundary of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The boundary between these two basins follows the county line; all of Contra Costa County is within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. ' Despite the formal air basin boundaries in this area, the air quality in the vicinity of the site is probably more similar to that of the San Joaquin Val- ley Air Basin than it is to the more urban San Francisco Bay Area. No air quality monitoring stations-are located sufficiently nearby to offer data 109 representative of the air uali at the site. Given the lack of population ' q ty P P _ in the area, the agricultural activities, and the strong winds, it is probable that suspended particulates constitute the major air quality problem. Impacts The project would create air quality impacts as a result primarily of aircraft , operations at the airport and motor vehicle trips to and from the facility. Some emissions may also occur during fueling activities. Estimates of emis- sions generated by airport-related activities are summarized in Table 3 . These estimates are calculated from emissions data for individual aircraft landing and takeoff cycles provided by the Bay Area Quality Management Dis- trict. a ' This emissions total is considered relatively small even in the long range and would be unlikely to have any significant effect on the area' s air quality. ' Data from Federal Aviation Administration guidelines (FAA - 1982) indicate that non-air carrier airports having less than 180,000 annual operations nor- ' orally do not create significant air quality impacts. Carbon Monoxide (CO) is the critical pollutant in determining this threshold: this level of annual , activity corresponds to the number of peak-hour general aviation operations (about 50) that would produce off-site concentrations of CO approaching 10a of the national one-hour standard (40 micrograms per cubic meter) . , Aircraft emissions associated with the airport are calculated on the basis of the average time required for various types of aircraft to complete each phase of a normal landing and take-off cycle (LTO cycle) . The cycle begins-"at the , point when an aircraft descends through an altitude of 3,000 feet on its ap- proach and ends when it reaches this altitude on departure. This altitude is , considered to represent the upper boundary of the surface layer of air wherein surface features (e.g. trees and structures) affect atmospheric turbulence ana diffusion. The full LTO cycle is divided into five phases of aircraft opera- , tions: (1) approach and landing; (2) taxi-idle in; (3) taxi-idle out; (4) takeoff; and (5) climbcut. , 110 - ' ' Table 3 AIRPORT-RELATED AIR POLLUTANTS tYEAR - 1990 45,000 Annual ' Aircraft Operations Pounds Per Day CO _jjQ_ NQx nx ISP ' Aircraft S i ngl e-Engi ne 777 15 .0 1 .2 Tw i n-Engi ne 82 2 .8 0 .3 ' Business Jets __z Q17_ Q-A Q11 � Sub-Total 861 18 .5 1 .9 0 .1 Automobiles** _ 6-2 $_a_ Q16_ 11� Total Emissions 923 24 .7 10 .7 0 .7 1 .6 YEAR - 2005*** ' 169,000 Annual Aircraft Operations -Aircraft S i ngl e-Engine 2,650 51 .2 4 .0 ` Twin-Enci ne 510 17 .6 2 .0 ' Business Jets —3a 11 ,5 -6.3- Sub-Total 3,195 80 .3 12 .3 1 .5 Automobi 1 es** —222. 22x2 3-1-4 212 61Q. Total Emissions 3 ,417 102 .5 43 .7 3 .7 6 .0 --- ----- — ---- --------------------------- - * Less than 0 .05 pounds per day. ' ** Emissions within 5 miles of airport. *** No allcwance for improvements in emissions technology. ' CO = Carbon Monoxide HC = Hydrocarbons NOx = Oxides of Nitrocen SOx = Sulfur Oxides v ' TSP = Total Suspended Particulates Sources: Hodges and Shutt Bay Area Air Quality Management District - 1982 ' 111 Automobile emissions estimates are for the portion of the access trip within , five miles of the airport. This represents the area within which most trips would be on the same roads. The number of access trips are as noted in the ' Ground Traffic and Circulation section. t The figures are calculated on the basis of a typical aircraft or automobile in use in 1985. As technology improves and older planes and vehicles are re- , tired, the average emissions per LTO cycle or per mile will decrEase. ' No estimate of the percentage reduction in emissions has been made here; thus, the totals in Table 3 reflect a greater impact than that expected to occur. Alternatives ' Other airport layout alternatives would have fairly similar air qual ity irrr- ' pacts. Minor differences would occur depending on such factors as taxi dis- tances to and from the runway. ' The impacts associated with alternative airport sites would be similar with , regard to aircraft emissions. There would be differences, however, with re- spect to total access trip emissions because of the varying trip distances involved. Because the Byron site is farther from where most airport users reside, it would generate more total emissions than the other sites; this difference, though, would be slightly offset by the probably greater usage a , closer site would receive. Emissions associated with the No Project. alternative would be less than these of the proposed project to the extent that the air and ground trips i-rtvolvec , are not made. If the trips are made, the principal difference would be a shift of the impact area from the Byron vicinity to the vicinity of Buchanan Field or to some other airport or, if the trip is made on the cround, to the areas along roads that might be used. r 112 -i ' M tf on . i Qati Neasures The measures capabl e of hav ing perhaps the most si gni f icant effect on reduci ng aircraft and vehicle emissions are not ones that can be taken at the project, or local level . Continued efforts on the part of the state and federal gov- ernments as well as manufacturers can be anticipated to reduce emissions lev- els of new planes and autos. These improvements would have a long-term- bene- fit with regard to the proposed project. Any circumstances that would speed up the retirement of older aircraft and vehicles also would produce a local benefit. At the airport itself, the most effective means of reducing pollution is to reduce delay. This applies to aircraft waiting their turn for landing or takeoff and also to the distance that aircraft must taxi to and from the run- way. Although some short-term inefficiencies are inherent in the plan, the rlong-range "open V" layout is designed to maximize the efficiency of opera- tions at the airport. When warranted by the volume of aircraft traffic (typi- cally a minimum of 160,000 general aviation operations), establishment of an air traffic control tower should be pursued with the Federal Aviation Adminis- tration. With reeard to motor vehicle emissions, one mitigation measure often consia- eyed is greater use of public transportation. This would be impractical with reeard to the project, however, both because airport trips woul e not be con- centrated enough within any period of time and because the overall demand at the airport and in the vicinity would be low. RECREATION etti na Existing recreational opportunities in the vicinity of the proposed airport are relatively 1 invited. The water-oriented, recreational community of Discov- ery Bay, located 5 miles northeast, is perhaps the most substantial recrea- tional development. Additionally, several navigable waterways come within two ' 113 miles east of the site, providing access to the greater San Joaquin River ' Delta system. The nearest parkland is the Bethany Reservoir State Recrea- tional Area, located 3 miles south of the site in the northeast corner of Alameda County. Another recreational facility in the area is the existing Byron Air-park... The majority of the current flight activity is recreation oriented. In addition ' to standard l ight a rcraft, experimental and ultral ight ai rcraft`'also "are based at the field. Other major recreational developments have been suggested as future possibil i- ties for the area. Closest to the airport site is the Byron Hot Springs less , than one mile north. As a result of the recent annexation of eastern Contra Costa Country to the East Bay Regional Parks District, the Hot Springs has been ' among a number of sites in the area considered for public acquisition and i development: as parkland. Current indications are that the District will not ' presently pursue acquisition and development of the Byron Hot Springs. Private development of score sort could be a possibility, however. The property is , shown as planned recreational use on the East County General Plan. Another interest of the East Bay Regional Parks District in the area is the preservation of vernal - pools. As previously noted, several clusters of these features are found on the airport site. At the present time, no plans for ' acquisition or other means of protection have been pursued by the district. One further recreational possibility in the area is associates with the pro- s posed Los Vaqueros Reservoir previously described in the Land Use section. If ' this project is built, the County of Contra Costa has requested that the state acquire much of the surrounding land for development as a park. , Impacts Development of the airport would expand the opportunities for recreational flying. Although much (perhaps even the majority) of the future activity at the airport would be for business purposes, recreational use would continue be 114 ' ' significant. The new airport would offer greater capacity and safer flying conditions than now exist in the area; both factors which could be conducive ' to recreational use. It also is possible that an area could be set aside especially for sailplane and ultralight aircraft use if conflicts with other aircraft can be avoided. tThe proposed airport could have both positive and negative effects on possible development of recreational facilities at Byron Hot Springs. On the positive side are the proposed access improvements -- an improved grade crossing at the Byron Hot Springs Road and Byron Highway intersection and, in the long term, a possible new road on the west side of the Hot Springs property. The airport would also provide air access to a Hot Springs park; a campground for people who fly in might be a possibility. The negative aspect is that aircraft _using the airport would regularly either overfly the Hot Springs or ccme close enough to be audible. Whether such noise would be disruptive would largely be ' dependent upon the types of activities that would be established at the Hot Springs. The project would not have any impacts relative to Section 4( f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act. This section declares that it shall be a national policy "that -special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreational land=_, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. " The act further states that federal approval shall not be given to any transportation project which require=_ the use of any publicly-owned land of this type unless "there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land" and the project "includes all ' possible planning to minimize harm" to such areas. ' Mitigation Measures If the Byron Hot Springs is some day developed as a recreational facility, efforts should be made to minimize the airport' s noise impact on it and to ' 115 promote types of activities there that would be compatible with the noise ' 1 evel s. No need for other types of mitigation measures are currently apparent. ' VISU setti- The predominant visual character of the area around the proposed airport is one of low rolling hills, green in the winter and spring, golden in the summer and fall . Scattered among the hills, groups of rural residences, farm build- ings, trees, and cattle can be seen. To the west, the hills become steeper and many are topped by wind turbine machines. Eastward, the hills flatten out ' into irrigated agricultural lands spreading toward the Byron Highway,, the Clifton Court Forebay, and the San Joaquin River delta. , From the Byron Highway, the nearest major road, the buildings of the existing , airfield can barely be seen. Most passers-by probably become aware of the field's presence only when aircraft are seen taking off or landing. , Impacts The proposed project would not significantly change the visual character of the area. Topographic changes necessitated on the site by the project proba- bly roba-bly would be noticeable mostly just by people familiar with the area. New airport structures would be low to the ground (typically 25 feet or less in , height) and generally not very visible except from the immediately adjacent roads. Arriving and departing aircraft would be the principal sights marking the airport' s presence. ' At night, the rotating airport beacon would be visible from surrounding areas. ' The light beams of the beacon, which alternate green and white, would be angled upward so as to be more visible from -the air and to avoid shining on ' structures on the ground. Runway lights and other lights on the airport would 116 ' ' be apparent mostly only from locations to the west which would overlook the field. None of the airport lighting is expected to be disruptive to residents of the area. ' The most apparent visual changes produced by the project would be ones seen from the air by occupants of aircraft landing at and departing from the air- port or flying over the area. Large scale features such as the runway system, aircraft aprons, clusters of hangar buildings would be the most +apparent by ' day. At night, the rotating airport beacon would be visible from miles away; the runway lights becoming noticeable at closer distances. For a pilot look- ing ook- ing for the airport, the high visibility of these features would be a positive visual impact. Mitfgation Measures Design standards should be established for the airport to assure the attrac- tiveness of hangar buildings and other structures. Landscaping should be installed in major public areas. Vegetation should be reestablished in earth work areas both for aesthetic reasons and to reduce erosion. Although an unlikely prospect to occur, measures should be taken to assure that the rotating airport beacon does not shine directly on nearby structures rin the hills west of the site or otherwise become unnecessarily annoying. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ' The impacts addressed in the preceding sections either involve permanent phys- ical changes to the site or are continuous effects associated with use of the proposed airport facilities. The impacts of construction activities, by com- parison, are short-term in duration; they end as each phase of uevelopment is completed. ' 117 Construction of the project as 1 ayed out in the master plan would take place ' in increments over a 20-year time span. The proposed development staging is outlined in Chapter III. The first couple of years would be occupied with ' property acquisition. A major spurt of activity would follow with construc- tion of the first segment of the primary runway and the initial portion of the ' building area. This work would be accomplished over one or perhaps two con- struction seasons. About half of the total earthwork in the project would be , done during this time period. Another major construction year w-oul d•probably occur in the 1990-to-1995 time frame when the secondary runway would be built. During other years, various pieces of the building area would be developed as , dictated by the demand for additional facilities. Impacts . Erosion: Removal of the existing ground cover plus the large amount of earth- work involved in the project presents the potential for significant erosion ' problems. This in turn could lead to siltation and other water quality im- pacts on Brushy Creek and other downstream waterways. , Air-Quality: Blowing dust from the construction site could be a significant problem, especially considering the strong winds in the area. Some increase , in dust levels at nearby hones, particularly those downwind of the construc- tion area may be unavoidable, Noise: Large construction equipment -- including heavy graders, earth movers, , trucks, and other diesel equipment -- are relatively noisy. The nearly 1,000-foot distance from the airfield construction area to the nearest homes should help keep this impact to a tolerable level . The noise of truck traffic t on adjacent roads may be the more significant impact. Safe Safety would be a major concern during the construction period. The concern is for not only the construction crew, but also for the general public and the users of aircraft operating at Byron Airpark. ; 1 118 a o -The operation of heavy construction equipment i nnerentl y involves some degree of risk. The existence of high-pressure gas and oil pipelines across t he site is a particular concern. o The general public would not be allowed on the construction site for reasons of safety. The heavy truck traffic to and from the site would present some unavoidable danger=_, however. It is estimated that at least 2,200 truckloads would be required to haul base rock, asphalt, and other materials to the site during the initial phase of develop- ment. ro Because most of the proposed new facilities would be located sone distance from the existing Byron Airpark runways, it is anticipated that the present airport could remain open during the construction period. Temporary closure of one or both runways may nonetheless be necessary while certain items of work- are accomplished. Road-System and Traffic Circulation. Reconstruction of portions of Byron Hot Springs and Armstrong Roads are included as elements of the proposed project. Temporary closure of these roads probably would be necessary while the work is ' being done. The improvements probably would be done in two stades with wigen- ing of the roadbed done early on in the construction sequence, but resurfacing 1 waiting until after most of the heavy truck traffic is finished. The type and quantity of truck traffic associated with the project construction would cause ' little, if any, deterioration of roads, such as Byron Highway, that are de- signed for such traffic. Irrigation Sy stem: Construction of an underground pipe to replace a portion ' of the 45 Canal may necessitate brief disruptions in i rrigation water suppl ied by the canal. Energy nsumption: Consumption of energy, primarily in the form of diesel fuel, would be an unavoidable effect of the project' s implementation. Because ' of variations in types of equipment used by contractors, no estimate has been made of the total consumption that woul c result. 119 A chaeol" . A noted in the discussion of this topic earlier in this chap- ter, s discussion ' A- ter, it is possible although unlikely that artifacts could be uncovered on the site during construction. ' Hitigation'Heasures -, f osion: Good engineering and construction practices should be followed to , minimize erosion problems. These should include: o Undertaking construction during the dry season not only to minimize erosion but to keep construction equipment from becoming mired in the , mud. o Compacting fill areas to reduce the erosion potential as required by ' Federal, State and local standards. o Planting new vegetation on all exposed cut and fill surfaces. Air lual i Special efforts, including frequent moistenin of exposed soil, ' should be taken to keep blowing dust in check. Noise: To the extent feasible, construction work should be done between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays so as to avoid the more noise-sensitive nicht- , time and weekend periods. Safety Precautions should be taken to assure the safety of the construction j crew, the general public, and airport users. ' o All safety precautions required by law should be adhered to during the ' construction. o Coordination should be established with the pipeline operators so that the lines can be accurately located and adequately marked. ' 120 ' ' o Haul routes should be located so as to minimize theotential impacts. P P ' If deemed to be an appropriate precaution, flagmen should be stationed at key points of potential traffic conflicts. ' o During periods when temporary closure of one or both runways is neces- sary, the runways should be clearly marked with X's to indicate thei r closure. Road System-and -Traffic Circulation: Temporary closure of local roads while construction is done on them should be kept to as short a time as practical or ' temporary alternate routes should be established. Irrigation-System: Coordination with the Byron-Bethany Irrigation District should be maintained to assure a minimum amount of disruption of irrigation water supply. Archaeoloby: If artifacts are found on the site during construction, work in ' that area should cease until a qualified archaeologist can investigate the significance of the findings. The above provisions should be included in the engineering specifications for the job. Detailed arrangements would be worked out through consultation be- ' tween the- contractors, the on-site engineering inspector, the design engineer, the county, and other involved parties. Additional measures should be taken to the extent practical to minimize other impacts that may arise. i i - ' 121 1 ' VI - OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS SIGNIFICANT IRREVERUBLE CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN_ THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLL ENTED ' The most substantial irreversible change that would result from the project would be to the topography of the site. Over the 20-year time span of the plan implementation, two hills on the site would be lowered and some 500,000 cubic yards of earth would be moved. The physical placement of new pavement and other materials on the site would also, for most practical purposes, be irreversible; they could be removed if necessitated by some later, higher priority, development plans for the area, but probably would not be if the ' airport was merely abandoned. ' The commitment of materials, energy, manpower, and money to development of the airport would be irreversible. Because of these expenditures, the commitment to use of the site for an air- port would certainly be a long-term one. This commitment could be reversed, though, if unanticipated future conditions should so warrant. ' As long as the airport remains in operation, the proposed closure of local roads would be permanent. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The potential for the proposed airport development to induce growth in south- eastern Contra Costa County is perhaps one of the most significant impacts that the project could have. County policies call for minimizing growth in ' this area and for maintaining agricultural activities to the greatest practi- cal extent. Placement of a major node of activity in this area could foster demands on the part of nearby landowners to be allowed to develop or sell ' their property for airport-related or other uses that would be more profitable than cattle grazing. ' 123 In evaluating this issue, it is concluded that the growth-inducement impacts ' of the project can be held to an insignificant level. The following reasons support this conclusion. ' o The type of airport that is proposed is riot inherently growth induc- ing. Unlike airline airports or major general aviation airports, the proposed East Contra Costa County Airport would be a relatively quiet place. Pilots and others would go to and from the airport ami"-conduct ' aviation-related business there, but would have little reason to remain in the immediate area. Many general aviation airports, even ' ones with a couple of hundred airplanes, exist in relatively isolated locations with little other development around them. o No non-aviation related development is proposed to be accommodated on , the airport site. Once the airport plans have been adopted by the county and approved by the Federal Aviation Administration, a change , in county policy and concurrence by the FAA would be necessary to allow such uses. The sizing of on-site water and wastewater facili- ties for aviation uses only would also effectively preclude other types of development. o The area currently lacks the conditions -- including nearby population or economic base and existing infrastructure -- that would be condu- cive to growth. The airport by itself would not change these condi- tions. Policy changes and other actions would be necessary to create ' these conditions. If and when growth does occur in this area, it would much more likely come as an expansion of the growth now occurinc ' in the Oakley and Brentwood areas to the north or possibly from the Livermore area to the southwest than it would be to develop first around the airport. , o The water and wastewater systems that would be constructed to serve the airport, whether self-contained on the airport property or ex- tended from systems serving the community of Byron, are proposed to be 124 -, sized only t6 meet the needs of the airport. B limiting the capaci- ties 9 P ties and not allowing connections to the systems from surrounding ' properties, the infrastructure necessary to support significant future development in the area would not be provided as a direct result of the project. If construction of the systems is funded by Federal Aviation Administration grants, the FAA would expect the capacity to ' remain available solely for airport-related uses. ' o It would not be in the best interests of the airport for many possible types of development to be allowed to occur in the vicinity. Resi den- ' tial development would be particularly incompatible with the airport for reasons of noise, safety, and general nuisance. The proposed project includes not only the fee simple acquisition of a substantial amount of property, but also the acquisition of conservation easements designed to preclude incompatible development from surrounding lands. ' Additionally, it is anticipated that an Airport Land Use Commission plan would be adopted for the airport area and that this plan would ' not allow incompatible development. ' The type of growth that the project clearly would induce would be in aviation activity. The facilities proposed to be provided would be far_ superior to those now available at the Byron Airpark or elsewhere in eastern Contra Cosa County. The airport is expected to attract most of the aircraft owners and pilots from this area, plus perhaps some that new use the more crowded ' Buchanan Field and Livermore airports. The overall level of aviation activity in the region would probably be slightly higher with creation of the East ' Contra Costa County Airport than if the demand is constrained by lack"of air- port capacity. RELATIONSHIP' BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Implementation of the project would represent a long-term commitment on the part of Contra Costa County to this particular site as the means of serving t125 - local aviation demands. For the foreseeable future, it would foreclose the option of developing a public airport at a different location. R *1 The proposed acquisition of more property than is expected to. be needed for aviation purposes in even 20 years enhances the long-term viability of this airport site. The establishment of conservation and avieation easements on adjacent property is a further step in this direction. An approach that would , be less expensive in the short term would be to acquire a smal W'-6mo6nt of and initially and then add to the property as needed. The long-terve costs of such an approach could be significantly higher, however; for one, the cost of the raw land could go up even if growth is held in check and, secondly, incom- patible development including wind farms or residences could occur in loca- tions that would be critical to future expansion of the airport. i � t 126 -, ' VII - PROJECT E ALTERNATIVES INTRODUCTION There are three basic alternatives to the proposed project: o No Project -- A new airport would not be built in the east county. -- e built at a different loca- tion Alternative Site A new airport would b �1 �f t 1 ' tion in the east county. o Alternative Layout -- A new airport would be built at the Byron site, but a different plan would be follcwed. The following discussion describes the major features of these alternatives. Also indicated are the reasons why the proposed project is preferred over each ' of the alternatives. < HQ PROJECT The premise of the "No Project' alternative is that Contra Costa County would tnot build a new general aviation -airport to serve the east county. Such a decision, though, would not necessarily mean that the status quo would be ' maintained. The demand for aviation facilities would continue to grow, al- though it would be somewhat constrained by a lack of facilities. ' n n .. Under the No Project scenario, some or all of the following events could ' occur: ' o Privately-owned Antioch Airport would eventually close as it becomes enveloped by urban expansion. Most of the 75+ aircraft based there would be moved to Buchanan Field if space can be found for them. ' 127 Other planes might be relocated to Rio Vista Municipal Airport or private airports in the east county; a few may go to more distant ' airports or be sold to owners in other areas. o Buchanan Field would continue to be the only full-service or publicly owned general aviation airport in Contra Costa County. Aircraft ac tivity at the airport would increase more rapidly than if an_,reast . county airport is built. o Byron Airpark would be further developed as a private airport. De- velopment, however, would be much less extensive than if the proposed publicly-owned airport is constructed. Expansion of aircraft parking areas and, possibly, addition of new taxiways would be the most likely improvements. ALTERNATIVE SITES The process of identifying and evaluating a site for an east county airport was presented in detail in the Phase l; Site Identification and Evaluation report. The report conclusions were considered by the County Airport Advisory Committee and the Board of Supervisors and were addressed by the publ is at hearings held by these two bodies. The Airport Advisory Committee recommended ' to the Board of Supervisors that detailed plans be prepared for the.6yron site and the Board concurred in this selection. Ficure 14 maps the locations of the various possible sites originally: identi- fied and also shows the top candidates. Layout concept plans of the three sites that were the primary alternatives to Byron are presented in Ficures 15, 16, and 17. Reference is made jo the Phase 1 report for descriptions of these sites. Chapter V of this environmental document only briefly notes the general char- acter of the impacts that development of these sites would generate. A more thorough evaluation is contained in the Phase 1 . report. 128 _3 .rlyA.• ..y ra.. h t.1'"" V .rr.••••••........ 1 ............... m IS �- X 11 U. , rn _ j F• J 1 ............ } m �..... ..... ................. "t .:......... ,-T.+` y�-r •'h.• .........................••.1 ...... a..� ........ ...... 0 1 �d 0 1 \ O X21 n -� m o FF � m \ d \r A n CA)co t3 ➢ _ V b W m O S CJt Z U., J _ ~W � vn V A G� f OQ �, la m...Q.a a , o � o n CO O o n 1 , �I Z .• -1 m ' (7 l T m o -� rn cn w N X O v < m a O m Z m H m v a o Ro n y w c vi m m �' -i Z f" = n a m a z _, G w i Z -4 -r m Z co lc < C y r Z m v d a m Dca -r Z CL Ait D v O m D C3' m < v CO .. w CO) m N C w C7 -� �: -{ D m m _ o x C0 CD co CD -� v OAKt:EY NX r ( m X13 3 I 10 o� > ' on -� m a i w I I I I 0 �ar8ji •� � � _ �. I o Ino I w M a r / / • ww11[� W II 1� I I Y ii?Airi <i''2: I' .is i'::+:'#::::;•; 0 I I � A C CSSS ROAD I u I i I ..............::.. II I I r � J `C I v ( i V J 1 �o I' I 1 I I u I <f y w y I I i N I I I i J I •,. I r, ;� 6'!20 I O II _ �' I I�� II a 1�' {� 2408 I 1 II: u I n i I i I t it I � II ;.'�1;:.;:%? � • n II I n n I � a NIL b Du t h Slit CD , CD ~< O W a m O _ _ O ' 0 ' 0 .. m ' ' CD _ --i Cr m M c =r M o Q w .< .:. co m 0. u •* ca Ts rt I ► r CD Q a z "1 *0 _ _.— 0 asco m o Z O Il m o co 0 Cc m a CO .m 74 0)Cc 3s 0m O m C K O O n r -t "� — z m �o a . r�.. � o O m am m e .oma. = c v c + C CD m a 0 m z > O O Sn cr .0 > O — m '� m O 0 M 1 v� 1 � W :. .--. ....,............................ v SELLERS ROAD • I ,..._,....•. �, ! m r Vii' i m no ti N F 01000, 000000'" 1.0000000000000 (� O `• •' �0000000000000,0C • v0400000000000 0'0000000400C 04t Q _ �• —C�.. l0aooaooaooaoobo0aoa4o —�(� • }["Z )000o400000000000000000( 00000QO0Oo000a0a0000000 )OoOOoo.00000000000OdQ00( , Y. 00000000000000000080000 )000000000000000oo0000ot :. `�•�� 0000000000000000000000o )0000ab000000o0 U0o000% / • 000000000oQOtl0000000000 orx , 10000000000000000 ' 0000000000 00000' 000000004000, , -f x ,�•`�\ 000 000000 . a ` 000000oa ` n o .� 0000000, \� ,00000' f' f /� V +.�• . "'y f fid: : s � ZZ ob4goa � ag0000a • - 4004000 �+ 1#� , Qoa0000 vtiooao ag000a0 > C0o6040t 0 .. .va.gaootr..,:- - 46 7O!o00b0000000040C 4000 '001'0000 0000 Oo0o0004gtSa'p 00000600 �t�OOOOOgOna0000 080' 080000Dpcoca OO 000Oddo000000000000 Ctio00oDOCb000oo0 cr OOoDOoo 0000 ab40'obo40o'000AOOOOtloU 000600U000000� 0 0004000 00000 JOOo'DOg000bO000a0000000 )o0400000000o000 O' OOOD6 *coca od 00o000000'000.00000000Q 40400000oo000000 00o 000, O000 OOOOp 000000**OOQ0000.4ao0 ,� � 70000000000000001 0.00 O 00000 -00000000000004400Q0000000 i OO 1000G�00006000 00000 -00400 Oo0IIo00.o0000go0000000ao00 "'♦': oo 100 0040009( .00000 Oa00 0000400 d000000000a00-nO000C coo aD 00000000 ' 000000 Ooo000oOt a000000000000000 { o00000o00000000t aog0000000000000 O OO 000O0oo040t � 000000000 O � .. oooo 00p00� OOOOOOU o OOOao OOOt Ooo00o0000o0000oo000000000p000000000d000 004000oo0 C OOo0000000o0O00C F' 0000000000000coo io ooC000UC , 0000000000000 OCCO 0000000 o' oo 000000000040000^a-40oo00000na .\ •OQOOo00o00oc 0CGC9 c U oC ' ri�ObOUn0000 ' 0 C00C000On' ,OOU0040aOCt ODOOOUOOOOOOnopO0000000b000000 040040?9000 O000000b0000ca oo 00a00000000000 ponoCOnOCOC • o 000 O 0000 C 000000000o000000000U Uo0000ococ OpO0a00000G8GGU0o000CA 00000000 )oop0000G00 PO OO O OOO:/OCGO0000dOp0000000000 n .. i t1 CANAL ouoa0000000 1 0000000c0000000ao 00000b000000d00000 OOO00000OC OOg0000 OOO O0000000000tl00 I U) 00044 COO OCO 000000 O O0oo00o0040000 00000000000000000 oo 00 0000000000o I !�! ,,_'••,,, 000000O000000a000 Od0040 gOOpD0000 �I O00000boO0Co00000 040000000 , 0000000 1) 40000000000c00000 oo000000o 0'O 00000 { ob004000000000000 OOOOOOQOOa00p. 0000 I jryj II OO c000000000bo000 0400040p000000 000 1/ O 00000000000000oU OOOnOOQO000op006 O II 00000000000000000 30000000000on00000 0000000000coo0 coo Oo00o0ooc 000bOQOOo .O o00o40o0000oC Co00pOOpCo000000000� " o00n00000o0coo 0b0000000on0 f "oo00ooc0000000 Oo00000000000 ♦'• 1� ,.-• OOOOOOOOOOOOOOC OOo000000000 1 ' 'ologo000000o0000 .. ,....,....10 01700oo0.040o0 '! 0OOa00o7oaC00 0000 - 0000000Q0000 , Oo000o00400o 'Oa00oo000oo0 .� 0000000004000 " aa0000000000 a000000000000 000000000000 II �i 000000000000 (4 000000000000 a00000000coo 0o0000000000 000000000000 4I 'i 0o Oocc000000( 00 000000000 O O00o000004o00 o O O O O O o0��0pp0ppoo0 �� r• 4o 0000 000000 006 ✓ `� HIGHWAY 4 ' 4Oa4 a4 00coo A Ut - amom Z 'tp tb O w O } ♦ 1:)00 D 11] 1 ! 2 oc ;34o' 11 ao Uy - m a a '� o c . Cr 0 Cr ! DDOO O to ^oo I C: X004 r 000 �_� (_j m m > -� m 9 Z m '� cu 0 a (D v = O r' Ce n ,r z -ao0 a_ _�,-•v 3 O a to �. � Z m o c "ca ` CO > a > a p ' x tD M z p-4 p G 1.« A_. O 0 r "< . M m a s� : . �. c Z `0 p ,! p ,., C v c a x as °' :, °� > .. c. .+ CD a o = -c N m -cxiv P4. z r • (� 0 � ;cD C1. r, --..r rr _ �r r . r� r �r r� ' �r �r mss.. �r.. r� ru. r-, --■ 1 ..,r^^`.._,_ r✓ � ..ter. �. �( '�' ' Co Ali 11 _ • R 2 E �' � :::: » .w,acn►ur, sc,vfr��. �, cm CD F i ' I I ' NVWIjOMch Cx C ,, ...., iixt to 010 CD G1 > tow, cA _ to Z CD 0 m CD0 U ` acoa a =r I -rtl ffam ° -- m m ' L. rte-- n � „_ O CD �+ m ^ Z -- -- C7 .. a _ ro rCD 0 (D . w a Z . v �- O u m _ °� m a cc > Cf) Z ...m C m O K m cocc `� n m O C .► _. O m m 0 " m a� ' o'm c -0 O O .+ a m ; toZ > .r t N C m rr '0 CL z 0 o m m a 81 TERNATIVE LAYOUTS There are numerous possible variations with respect to the design of an air- port for the Byron site. Three concept plans were prepared and presented to the Airport Advisory Committee for consideration. One plan was determined to be superior to the others in several important respects as discussed in the Design Constraints Section of Chapter III. The other two are i1TVstr�a"ted in ' Figures 18 and 19. Various minor modifications to the basic proposed plan are expected. Some of these are noted in Chapter III. It is anticipated that certain changes will occur as the detailed engineering analyses are accomplished. Other changes probably would be made in later phases of the airport's development as needed in response to the actual conditions that evolve. Changes to the indicated rsequence of development also could happen. Another type of layout alternative would be development of a scaled-down air- port at the Byron site. No plan for such a facility has been prepared. The clear direction given by both the Airport Advisory Committee and the Board of Supervisors has been that the airport should not be unnecessarily constrainer -- it shout d have the potenti al to serve- the county s need for wel 1 beyond 20 years. Preserving this capability has meant that substantially more property is proposed for acquisition than would be needed for many years. Itis uncer- tain what sort of plan or acquisition boundaries would be appropriate for a more limited airport. 129 SM 23 \ ' y 4 14 SM 26 -------- ` Purnp \� J10 �^•� � .k, ��is it;..�_>'�i:;;:�; �:_:�: �� �',y� BM 17 2 jt. d oter 23 RaAa a 22<> 10 rr i 0 o - G 101 100 26 �+1 i V 1� LEGEND . . ;property acqulaltIon airport building area �� r 0 2000 { NMm= .....»•.»-... runway clear zones Feet 1 AVIATION PLANNING SERVICES } ALTERNATIVE LAYOUT CONCEPT 1 �! Figure 18 ins HOOGES 8 SHUTT J 130 SSM 23 well tt it r'C _ �\ _ 15 �i'4" � f1 BM 26 *f 1 ,r 1Efind I \ 22 HOLEY 23- RoAa �\ j ::::::::.:::: 4 100 e 1 n - c ..�' • � _LEGEND �- ;"t property acquisition ` airport building area 0 2000 . _ i�= ..•,��.•^»� r u n w a y clear =ones C� Feet AVIATION PLANNING SERVICES ALTERNATIVE LAYOUT CONCEPT 2 ■1I HOOGES & SHUTT I Figure 19 ' 131 -� VIII - REPORT RESOURCES REFERENCE ' Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. 1983. "Aviation Fact Card.', ' Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 1982. A Methodology for- Estimating Emissions From Ai rcraft'Operati ons. California, State of. 1979. Cal ifotni a Airport Noise Standards (Administrative Code, Title 21, Section 5000 et seq.) as amended. California, State of. Department of Finance. Population Research Unit. 1984. Projected Total Population of California Counties - July 1, 1985 to July 1, 2020. Report 83P-1. 1985. Populati-oh Estiniates of California Ci ti_es__and_Co-unties: January 1, 1984 to J ah6a ry' 1 198S. California, State of. Department of Fish and Game. 1983 . Los Vaqueros ' Project - Fi sh--and W il'dl'i fe- Impacts: A Status Report. ____ 1985. "Natural Diversity Data Base." Computer-generated maps and data base search report. Unpublished. ' California, State of. Department of Transportation. 1985a. Route Concept Report - 'Route 4 (04-CC-4; P.M. 0.00 to 48.39) . 1985b. Route Concept Report - Route 84 - S.M. 0,0/CC7.1. 1985c. Draft Route Concept'Report - Route 239 ALA 0.00 to CC 1.2.._4.4 ' California, State of. Department of Water Resources. 1981. Los Vaqueros Offstream Storage Unit - Engineering Feasibility Study. Summary and concI,usibns. ' Cheatham, Norden H. 1976. "Conservation of Vernal Pools. " pp. 87-89-. In: Vernal Pools; -Their Ecology and Conservation. S. Jain, ed. Institute of Ecology Publication No. 9; Davis, California. Contra Costa, County of. East County Area General Plan Review Committee. 1978. East Area-G-ehe7ral -Plan. Adopted by the Board of Supervisors on ' April 4, 1978. Contra Costa, County of. Public Works Department. Traffic Division. 1985. Vehicular volume - machine counts for Byron Highway and State Highway 4. ' Unpublished. ' 133 } Hall, Frank. 1983 . "Status of the San Joaquin Kit Fox, Vuloes macrotismutica, at the Bethany Wind Turbine Generating Project Site, ' Alameda County, Cal iforni a." Holland, Robert, and Subodh Jain. 1977. "Vernal Pools." . pp. 515-533. In: Terrestrial Vegetation of California. Barbour and Major, eds. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Kerster, Harold. 1976. "Vernal Pool Fauna - A Commentary." pp. 86-87. In: Vernal Too s: Thei r Ecology and Conservati on. McMahon, T. A. and W. Minto. 1885. "Official Map of Contra Costa County, ' California." San Francisco Chronicle. 1985. "Wind Industry Buffeted by Tax, Pricing ' Changes. " Karen Southwick. Monday, July 15, 1985, page 23. , San Francisco Examiner. 1985. "Rich Investors Aren't Jousting When They Buy Into Windmills." Doug Harbrecht. Sunday, May 19, 1985, page D12. ' United States. Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. 1977. Soil Survey of Contra Costa County. Cal iforni a. United States. Department of Commerce. Bureau. of the Census. 1982. 1980 Census of* Population - Characteristics of the Population - Number of Inhabitants - Cal iforni a. Report No. PC80-1-A6-Calif. United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration. 1975a. Federal Av i ati on Reaul ati ons Part 77: 0b-i ects ' Affecti'nq Navigable Airspace. __ 1975b. Utility Airports: Air-Access to National Transportation. Advisory Circular No. 150/5300-4B, through Change 7 (9/23/83) . 1979. United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedure=_ (TERPS.) . FAA Handbook 8260.38, change 1. , --------- 1980. National *Airport System Plan -- Revised Statistics 1980---1989. , 1985. Federal Aviation Reculat.ions Part 150: Airport Noi=e Compatibility PIanning. Proerams. United States. Department of Transportation. Federal Aviation Administration. Office of Environment and Energy. 1982. Air Qual itv Procedures for Civilian Airports and Air Force Bases. Report No. ' FAA—EE-82-21. United States. National Transportation Safety Board. Various years. Annual Bev i ew of Aircraft Accident Data: U. S. General Aviation. 134 _J 1 `1 INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED During the course of the study, contact was made with the following individuals in person, by telephone, and/or via correspondence. ' Contra Costa 'County .Assessor' s Office Al Lagorio Community Development Department �- Arthur Beresford Dennis Berry James W. Cutler, Chief, Comprehensive Planning Maurice Shiu, Acting Assistant Director, Transportation Planning Dan Vanderpriem Health Services Department Jim Blake Local Agency Formation Commission ' Dewey Mansfield, Executive Officer Publ is Works Department Duane Currey, Traffic Division Tom Duziak, Roads Division Paul E. Kilkenny, Assistant Director, Environmental Control Stan Matsumoto, Senior Civil Engineer, Flood Control Planning Leroy Vukad, Traffic Engineer ' Harold E. Wight, Manager of Airports Oth6t L6dAX Agencies Byron-Bethany Irrigation District Fred K. Specht, Manaaer Byron Fire District Nick Papadakcs, Fire Chief Byron Sanitary District Jim Elder, Consulting Engineer Contra Costa Water District Austin Nelson, Chief of Water Supply East Bay Regional Parks District ' Rosemary Camarron Thomas H. Li ndenmeyer, Environmental Coordinator, Planning and Design Metropolitan Transportation Commission 1 Chris Brittle, Airport Planning Engineer $tate of California Air Resources Board Gary Acid, Chief, Local Projects Support Branch, Technical Support Division ' Edward Yotter Energy Commission Kathleen Gray, Energy Analyst 135 Department of Fish and Game �. Brian Hunter, Regional Manager, Region III, Yountville ' Frank G. Wernette, Wildlife Biologist, Bay-Delta Fishery Proj ect,Stockton Theodore W. Wooster, Environmental Services Supervisor, Region III, ' Yountville Rich York, Administrator, Natural Diversity Data Base Department of Transportation, District 4, San Francisco Wallace J. Rothbart, District CEQA Coordinator , Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, Sacrarpento.. . Fred G. Lemke, Chief, Technical Services Branch Bill Riesen ' Department of Water Resources Denver Criner, Civil Maintenance Supervisor, Delta Pumping Plant Office of Historic Preservation Marion Mitchell-Wilson, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer United "States Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento Art Champ, Regulatory Section Tom Coe, Environmentalist Fred Mueller, Engineering Technician Federal Aviation Administration Nick Krull, Air Quality Division, Washington, D.C. John Pfeifer, Airport Planner, San Francisco Airports District Office Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Jim McKevett, Field Supervisor, Division of Ecological Services Qthers ' Byron Ai rpark Don Stiles, Owner California Archaeological Inventory Christian Gerike, Assistant Coordinator, Northwest Information Center, Department of Anthropology, Sonoma State University Chevron USA Larry Beagle, Pipeline Department, District Superintendent, Tracy s Local Landowners William E. Ralph Anthony F. Souza ! Pacific Gas & Electric Company ' Fred Bowles Bruce C. Ghiselli, Antioch Division Gerritt Orton, Land Right Agent, Land Department, San Francisco Realtors , Ron Enos, Brentwood Wind Farm Developers Logan Belton, Project Coordinator, Wind Energy Specialties, Inc. , L ivermore Kenneth E. Cohn, Altamont Energy "Corporation, San Rafael Gary Wayne, Engineer, Construction Services Corporation, San Rafael 136 \,�, 1 _ REPORT AUTHORS This environmental document, as well as other elements of the East Contra ICosta County Airport Site Study, have been prepared for the County of Contra Costa by the consulting firm of Hodges & Shutt, Santa Rosa, California. The ' individuals principally involved have been: David E. Hodges - principal in charge. Kenneth A. Brody, senior planner - project manager. Henry S. Fultz, civil engineer. Robert J. Rebuschatis, airspace specialist. Additional environmental data was provided under contract to the consultant by the following: Richard L. Simon, consulting meteorologist, Corte Madera. Diane L. Renshaw, consulting ecologist, Montara. 137 - Appendix A Planning Department Contra Courity.Administration Building, North Wing Costa P.O. Box 951 County "'irtinez, California 94553-0095 Anthony A. Dehaesus Director of Planning Phone:372-2035 ' NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND SCOPING SESSION .� ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AIRPORT County File #PW 85-43: The'project is the proposed construction of a new public use, general aviation airport to serve eastern Contra Costa County. Approximately 500 to 700 acres would be acquired for airfield, aircraft parking and runway approach protection purposes. Two intersecting runways «would be required; the loroe. orae havitlo all initiai length of 3,800 feet with potential extension to 6,000 feet. Initial development would provide space for about 150 based aircraft with potential demand of 400 based aircraft in ' 20 years. The proposed site is in southeast Contra Costs County, 2.5 miles south of Byron and 1.0 ' miles west of County Route J4, bounded roughly by Armstrong Road and Byron Hot Springs Road. An existing privately owned airport, Byron Alrpark, occupies part of the S site. Brushy Creek traverses the site. ' As the owner of abutting property, or as an o-therwise interested person or eroaniz_ticn, you are invited to submit any comments you may have on this project, and raise any significant environmental issues of which you are aware so they can be considered in the environmental revie,:r prpcess. ` This letter plus enclosures will constitute a Notice of Preparation. _Please circulate this information to the appropriate persons and agencies as soon as possible. I woulc encourage those interested to contact me directly by phone or letter to convey any concerns they may have. We have selected a consulting firm to preprare an E-R: therefore, the earliest contact will erasure the best coverage of any concerns. It is 'hoped that the Draft EIR will be brought to public hearing at t:le earliest possible date. :additionally, Our Office will conduct a scc�)i rg sessicr, Cr this project for those that ` i-cih to attend. It will be held at t.'-.e Delta Cemim,unity Services Center (730 Third S.reet, ' Brentwood) on May ?rd a-. 2:00 nm. If you have anv comfTe-^,ts On this \ot?c-:! Of P7ecara_:oi. ple_-se conzac- me 'bv Sincerely yours, Antt:orty A. Dehaesus Director of Plar,r,inS ' f _ James W. Cutler, Chief - Comprehensive Planning JWC/mb5a ' cc: File No. PW 85-43 P.-l Contra Public Works Department . ' Costa County initial Study OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE - P4! 85-43 vyw.c won. o+o.n....^r File Y Mm.m.•nt.on BaJ6^4, East Contra costa County Airport ^^• a E<oE.• s....d /"1. Pr olcct Name _ M.•r....r. Gl.lwn.. 94553 l Jim Cutler Date April 8, 1985 Prepared by Reviewed by Dennis M, Barry Date April 10, 1985 RECOMMENDATIONS: �. { )Categorical Exemption (Class )( )Negative Declaration (X)Envircnment Impact Report Required ( )Conditional Neg.Declaration The Project (May)�Fi:: -tk' Have A Significant Effect On The Environment The recommendation is based on the following (List all items identified as significant): The project will ha-:e various significant iroacts (see attached checklist and discussion) ` and may also be controversial in nature. What Changes To The Project Would Mitigate The Identified impacts (List mitigation measures for any sicnificant impacts and Conditional Negative Declaration). Some mitigation will be accomplished by the wav in v-htch the site deveiooment is planned. To the extent eossible, the most significant natural habitats will be avoided and the need to acquire existing residences will be minimized. Mitigation or environmental impacts also will be considered in the enaireerina design of the proposed face sties. USGS Quad Sheet Byron Hot Scrings Base Map Sheet= Nnn- Parcel?_ GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS: 3 Clifton Court Forebay 1. Location The nronosed site is in southeast Contra Costa Countv, 2.5 miles south , of Bvron and 1.0 miles west of Countv Route J4; bounded rouchly by Armstronn Road < and Bvron Hot Sorinas Road. An existinn nrivately owned airnort, Bvron Airnark, occueies nart of the site. Brushy Creek traverses the site. ' 2. Project Description?h2�_nrojett_i<,'•hp nrnnnc:.d r nen triirtloof P new nublic U�?. no•.oral ayfa fnn airnnrt to z—vo o❑c orn Cnntra Costa Countv Anoroxirately ' i 5r1n to 700 aces would be acouired for airfield, aircraft narkinn and runway ' aonroach nrotection ourooses. Two intersecting runways wou a be recuire , the lonqer one na'ving an 1nin8i iE't. to 131 3,6,73 M:L wiLn 6040171G, CACE!I iV , CQ ,UUu reef. 1G7Llai oeveior.-enc wouid nrovlce space ror aoout i:V oaseg airc.ra. , noten.7ai ce-anc o- 400 oasea alrcrart to eO years. ' i 3. Does i; appear that any feature of the project will [,••lyes ❑no ❑maybe l generate SiC^ifican t public concern? (nature of concern): `7C Se, Cssit�e relocation 0 residents, impacts on natural env iron-.ent 4. Will the pro?ect require approval or permits by other �yes ❑no than a County agency? Acency names(s) lirnert Land Use Cc—ission 5. Is the project within the Sphere of Influence of any city? (,Na-e) No � A-2 i ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS: S=Significant NzScoligible C=Cumulative No=None U=Cnknown 1. Water. \tiiU the project result in: e) is any portion oC the project within a ['food Hazard Ares? C3 YES ❑NO S N NO b) Reduction of surface or ground :valor quality-or quantity? C C ❑ U ' c) Increased rimoff or alteration to drainage patterns and streams: ❑ C ❑ ❑ C d) Erosion of'or sedimentation in a body of water? ❑ ❑ ❑ M C 2. Earth. (Consider the Seismic Safety Element) gill the proposal result in or !)c su5ject to: ,Y a) Is env portion of the prcjr_t within an Alquist-P-iolo Act Spec:sl Studies Zone? (if yes, date County Geologist notified ❑YES D NO ' b) Poteztieily h=cidous geologic or soils conditions on or S N C h0 V i :-_'==:sl;• EW;oininr the site? (slides, springs, erosions, liqui- faction, earthquske faults; consider prime soils. slope, septic tank limitations). Cite any geole,is or engineering reports. I (County Geologist consulted 'lam ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Grading tccnsider heig^t amount, steepness end visibility of ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ C proposed slopes; consider erect of aradin; -on trees, creek channels and ride tops)(are there an'_:grading psis?) ❑Y ES [ NO 3. P!art.'Animel Life. S N C NO U a) hi!-' dere be a reduction or disturbance to ani• .habitat for ' pian-- and animals? Onc'uOing removal or disturbance of trees) ❑ C C ❑'r O b) Will' the Project affect the habitat of any rare. endangered Or unique species located on or near the site; See D D . G C. C C) V,het vegetation (habitat) tvpes exist on the site (B:ve relative ^� Cr proportionsiC significant)? List habitat t% es. See Discuss.on d. Air. Will the Project result in deterioration of existing air quality, S N C NO U including creation of obieetionabie odors, or will future project resicents be subiected to significant pollution levels? C O C ❑ ❑ 5. Vose. ttiill L.e project resu!t in: a) Is an.,. :,erticns o: the Dro;et:t within the 1290, 60 dBA `o•=e C]YES NO Con:cur? (c^ec` tioise Element at 1000 scale maw) b) Inc.ceses f:orn existing noise levels? G ❑ C C C ii. -ert::Nati:rs: (Consider Genera'. Plan, Safety enc_e:_--.e c=:e:y E::..._..•s;. he pro iecestslt in a). Any 3L' .. :na! cC..__mpticn o� encr g%-7 L 51 b) A:`ec. ...e potent:4'. use. ex:ractien, co^.se-va';cn ct depietic'l ^ o; a :.n,.;.sl r?acs:cep C C U 1 lr.cvease rs of err losion, release of ha 'rdo s s,:bs:_races c- c- gens tc pU ._ eal' _:- Safe I .. _ C 7. Ctii les and -^!i_ Se.-vice. Wil :ne project. E) ie=:.-e elver=tion G: a,, ition to or the ree�t 'c; new Ut!lity _:ay' S;` :e C� _ �. C'.c^lees •�titer. S�'n e:, SJ.:�: %,wnst•e)? .... �. A-3 b) Result in the need for new or expansion c. the following U services: fire and police protection, schools, parks and ' recreation, roads, flood. control or other public works fac- ilities, public transit or governmental services (include changes to sphere of influence)? Cl ❑O ❑ ❑ ❑ - c) Affect recreational opportunities (consider General Plan Recreation Element-Trails Plans)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ J 8. TransoortationlCirculation. (Consider the Major Roads Plan) Will the project result in: a) Additional traffic generation or increase in circulation pro- blems (consider road design, access, congestion, parking and accident potential)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ - b) Special transportation considerations (waterborne, rail, air , or public transportation systems and parking facilities)? Yes c) Inc:ease in commuting to and from 'Local community? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. Housjne and Community Develooment. (Consider Housing Ele- ment). is the project: a) Located within a Neighborhood Preservetjon Area? DYES [ NO ' b) Is there an opportunity for construction of low• and mode-ate income housing? ❑YES ❑NO 10. Culturel Resources. a) Review by the Regional Clearinghouse? (their recommend- ❑YES (K11 N0 ation)? Date b) Any nearby County Historic Sites (Consider Historical Resources Inventory) Yes ' 11. Aesthetics. (Consider the Scenic Routes Element) Will the project obstruct any public scenic vista or view, create an , aesthetically offensive site open to public view, o- produce new light or glare? ❑YES 2 NO 12. Is this project a growth-inducing action (encourage additional requests fer similar uses) or set a precedent in the area? [}YES C^NO 13. Mandator v EjrdinLs of SiEnificance. (A "ves" answer on anv of the following questions requires preparation of an EIR) , a) Does the prcie^_t have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, or curtail the diversity in the environ- ment? n YES ❑ NO b) Dees the project `aye the potential to achieve sho-t-term, to the disadvantage of long-term. en.vjronmental goas': C-YES G NO I c) Dce<_ the proje have jmoacs whirl. are indivjzualy iced, but cumulatively considerable'. :K Y=S [NO d) Does the project have envi,-opmen.tal inpects which will cause subste.^.tia! adverse effects on human beings, either , djrectiv o. indirectly? ❑:'ES IT NO Dscu-sior t I A-4 ro y v o < _ o z v -„ n r O < c = a c a o � F- � CL ' 1 n Q J W •1 O C C) ¢ o a P E W I r Ui L o C ` s d V o f e — Z 3 _ p c < Z a - p O C ` G C a 0 T-t — — O - - C — O�t�` C Y ,• u L c – c s IIS[ a 1 T - � - � - v �C C C c -; O S Ifi I-J C – C O C C O C z a a _ u c 3 _— .�` Cl- I \- - c c ' Li Imo- � �;i ./ i ''J /^� `' �o-. {�`�\ �•;_ , �� to �_ }�• C A� Imo+ \ 1 // ?C w W INo 3 • - I � �%• � b•:� '�, v -> _spry I• - o -- ' •-� \ <\ 10, `� n r 5fVytlDE f la. Brushy Creek crosses site. Creek fl ow vol times w it 1 be consi erred i n engineering desion. , c. New pavenent will increase local runoff. Effects will be accounted for if-, ; project enci weer i na. 2b. Site is in an arca of Icw to moderate I icuCfaction potential . r c. Extensive CradinC will be recuired. .quantities will be estif - ed and , lm,pacts assessed. r 3a. Nevr pavem=-nt will eliminate vecetaticn preser.Lly cra.,' ing in the af;ectec 1 ocati ons. r b. A un ique pl ant sr^.eci es--Lasthen i a conj ucens--i s f oun6 al onC she edc=s Cf vernal pools on the site. Some of t'.ese areas would be signif icantly affected by the -project. No tracks, dens, or other signs of the San Jeaquih kit fox (an endangered species) have been found on the site, although tie area may be on the edge o1 the ani.^.al ' s_rance. 1 c. The proportions of different habitat types on the site are es ti r-.ed �s i 01 1CWs: , OQUCed annual crass" and - S: perc=_nt Vernal pool systems - 25 percent n r G; sturbed Gre..as — 1 —� _., rerc�n� _ i F si wa.e r 'N e.i ar,Q - per cart 4. r.i rcr cit crerati ons and vci,1cl e access i:;i Ys w ill c^ntr i tute --7,a, aTounts Cf E r poi 1 uticn Er�.: ssicns. i Sb. Fit rCr alt opea ra t.i cns w ill ir,C.:'ease ext St i c r,c: Se i ev e, s. Ine cf.c., c: Lhe be A-6 r . 6a. Airport facilities and aircraft operations will consume. energy in rel- tively shall amounts. ' c. The probabil ity of an ai rcraft acci dent off the ai rport w ill increase as activity increases, but the ri sF:s will be negligible because of the iminimal nearby deveiepment. 7a. Addi tional el ectrical and tel eph ore 1 Ines may need to be e;.tanded to the site. Water and sc-,ace re;ui re::,ents will be met by facil i"Lvies'to be developed on site. ' b. Some add; ti conal county staff may be neeced to operate the airport. ' Sa. Airport traffic will r-uire that kimstronc and Byron Hot Sprincs Roads be improved. ' b. The project will chance the air transportation system in the county. ' c. For most users, the access trip distance to the new airport will be creater to the Antioch Airport, which i s expected to_cl ose. 10b. Byron Hot Springs- is located about 0 .6 miles north of_ the site. 12. The project is expected. to have Heel iciole arcw th inducing impacts. Ine _.. issue will be assessed nonetheless. 1.3 a. The pct=_ntiai for s1cnificant. ad`erse ii:�pact,s exists. Vost Impacts are expected to be r,Mor, hcwe^rer, and imiovation measures will be incor- porated into the c�sicn. c. The c;:mu i ativ e 1-Pacts of the airport' s i ono-ter,;, level or hent will be more sici:ificaf;t t±.an the i:7pacts. A 20-year caster plan fcr- ai rport Gevel or-,ent will be pre.;are, and the Env irc,:-ental cnalysi s wit-1 address the i„pac_s er.;=cted c•:er ccr.—I ete period. d. The proj eco' s r;,ar cr e! -Ls cr, hc-�a, ~- . r;`s k cul c �= u;,on t cs_ hc'_sehcl Zs that ray n_z-c to be rc1oc= ._d off p-c;ect si.e. Tr,s .c_ai n,.-ser c•` res er-ces cf f=-:ed is expect-ed! to „= I :.=s Chari f i• e- a d CGl i C tE ZcrC. A-7 r . r - - Appendix A rRESPONSES TO NOTIQE OF PREPARAT19N ro California Department of Transportation, District 4 Wallace J. Rothbart, District CEQA Coordinator April 30, 1985 o California Office of Historic Preservation Marion Mitchell-Wilson, Deputy State Historic Preservation Of icer ' May 1, 1985 o Francis M. Scott undated (received May 91 1985) o Local Agency Formation Commission of Contra Costa County Dewey Mansfield, Executive Officer May 10, 1985 o Conta Costa County Community Development Department, Transportation ' Planning Division Maurice Shiu, Acting Assistant Director May 16, 1985 ro W i l l i am E. Ralph May 16, 1985 o Wind Energy Specialties, Inc. Logan Belton, Project Coordinator May 21, 1985 ao California Air Resources Board, Local Projects Support Branch, Technical Support Divisior. Gary Acid, Chief May 24, 1985 o East Bay Regional Park District T.H. Lindenmeyer, Project Coordinator, Planning and Design May 28, 1985 c Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District Robert Clark, Chief, Unit 1 Regulatory Section o California Department of Transportatin, Division of Aeronautics F.G. Lernke, Chief, Technical Services Branch J une 5, 1985 o California Department of Fish and Game, Region 3 Brian Hunter, Regional Manacer July 5, 1985 v V 1 A-8 r Appendix B PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES IDENTIFIED BYRON AIRPARK RECONNAISSANCE, APRIL 6, 1985 PLANTS Achyrachena mollis blow-wives Alopecurus saccatus Allenrolfia occidentalis iodine bush Amsinckia intermedia fiddleneck Avena barbata A. fatua wild oats-r- Brodiaea laxa B. pulchella blue dicks Bromus mollis soft .chess B. diandrus ripgut brome Cotula coronopifolia brass,-buttons Cryptantha sp. * Distichilis spicata salt grass Downingia elegans * 1 Eleocharis acicularis Erodium spp. filaree Eryngium vaseyi Festuca sp. Frankenia grandiflora Grindelia camporum gum plant Hemizonia pungens common spikeweed Hordeum leoporinum farmer' s foxtail Juncus bufonius toad rush Juncus sp. 1 Lasthenia chrysostoma goldfields L. fremontii L. sp. Layia sp. tidy tips Lepidium dictyotum peppergrass.— L. latipes * Lolium multiflorum rye grass Lupinus cf . bicolor lupine L. cf . micranthus Myosurus minimus mouse tails Nava-rettia sp. skunkweed Orthocarpus campestris field owl clover 0. purpurascens red owl clover Placiobothrys sp. popcorn flower Pogogyne sp.. * Polypocon monspieliensis rabbit ' s foot crass Psi!oca-ruhus cf . brevissimus wooly marbles Ranunculus californica buttercup Rorioca nasturtium-acuaticum watercress Rumex so. dock Scirous cf . californicum tules S. cf. robust-us bulrush S-ilybum marianum milk thistle - Scercularia media sourrey Suaeda fruticosa seep weed so. Tv p1 1 cattails B-1 ha B-1 ANIPLkLS Mammals Lepus californicus black-tailed hare Thomomys bottae Botta ' s pocket gopher Canis latrans coyote A-mphibians r Hyla regilla Pacific tr=tee-L.r,og Birds -� Anas platyrhynchos mallard Cathartes aura turkey vulture Elanus leucurus black-shouldered kite Aquila chrvsaetos golden eagle Circus cyaneus northern harrier - Numenius americanus long-billed curlew Eremophila alpestris horned lark Hirundo rustica barn swallow Sturnella neglecta meadowlark , Agelaius phoeniceus red-winged blackbird Passerculus sandwichensis savannah sparrow * denotes vernal pool species ' ' i � s B-2 •; 3 ' Appendix C NOISE IMPACT CALCULATIONS INPUTS PiRCRAF7 M[% l99i! Fro�ectl.n AIRCRAFT HIX 2gr1� project--n Total Operation{ Total Op-�rattcns Annual Avq Dav Percentage Annual Avq Day Pe,cen!aq- ------ ------- ---------- ------ ------- ---------- ' Single Engine 43,100 110 9!.P% Single Engine Ia7.200 403 q2.04 T-in Engine 1,901) 5 4.1:,•: T..tn Engine 11,_00 .31 7.0% Business Jets 100 0.; Q. Business Jet ------ ------ ----- ------- ----- ----- total 45,0n0 123.3 1011 % total 160,000 4:S.4 :00 .•••.•••.......................................... .................................................. TI7E OF DAv 1917 Fro;ectton TIME OF DAY _005 F^o;ec_icn Percent e: All Coerations Percent o' All Cperac:c^s ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Dzy --------------------------- Dzy EvenincNignt Dav Eventnq vi;r- 7 a.:1. 7 p.m. 10 p.m. 7 a..-1. 7 p,.n. 3.,. 7 p.m. 10 p.m. 7 a.m. 7 p.m. 10 o.m, 7 a..e. ______ _______ _______ ------- -- ---- _______ Singl• Engine 96.0% 3.0%: 1.0:: Single Engine 92.0%: 6.0% <:y'/. T-in Engine 97,Q% 2.:;: 6.7: T. in Tin Engine 93-s% 5.0% 1. Business Jeta '77.1>% % �.?! 0.7;: Business Jet 4�.5% 5,0 ...•.............................................. .................................................. RUNWAY UTILIZATION TABLE 19c0 Pro,ect:cn RUNWAY UTILIZATION TAFLE Percentace of Takeoz-Fs Pe,centage e; ____________________________________ --_-____-_-_____---____-_______ .._:_- ' RU NWAY RUNWAY RUNW all, FUN«AY RUNWAY RUNWAY RUNWAY f._.•...-. « 12 5 2 12 Single Entine Single Eng ne Day 0.•G, 3.1r;: 1 (1 e5.•:,. Day 1.0"!, 27.-"% S. . . Eveninq 0.0:. I. 3. 75.;)% Even:nq 0.6% ;2.4% 11,0% ' Night 0.0% 0.:1% Z5.07. 05.');: Niah! T-in Engine Twin Engine Day 0.0% 1.0% 1-.1:: 6`.6:: Day i!,77. 21.0% 8.P;: 6c. - Evenim.q 0.1);; Q, 2c,2,. 7`. _.. Evening 0.a%: --,OY, 12.-.- ' Night 0.0% 0.0;: 35.0% 6=.:)'i Ntgnt 0.:%: 2E.9%: 17_+% _ _ Sustness Jets Puniness Jets _ Day Q.C.. ..Ii% 14.0% bc.+i% Dov 1i,.1-•: 1�. 9. Evnnin^, Q.2•. 1:.- . 14._.. %._.. N:^•1t Ii. : .C1. .. lc_-: _ ............................................. .................................................. ------------------------------------ --------- n-a------- -i-- -------- --------------a--------r---------- --- :. '• RUll .(�•1.:A. ;1117.- -L'..W:.. cj ':-.,- -i.?.r,., ..... 4 72. • s• _ ._ T..:n Eni .. ..... . Dav a. r1 r• _ �..y 1. _ C-7 ' Appendix D RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR P BLIS HEARING A Public Hearino on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the East Contra ' Costa County Airport (County File #PW 85-43 ; State Clearinchouse.1,85042304) was held by the Contra Costa County Planning Commission on November 26, 1985. After hearing public comments, the commission closed the hearino and allowed 20 days for receipt of additional written comments. Copies of the Public Hearinc notice and transcript are attached (Appendices E and F, respectively) . Two members of the general public spoke at the hearing. Comments also were made by several members of the commission. PjWj-jQJ:9---ARING COMMENT5 AND RESPONSES Comments are listed below in the general order that they were made at the hearing.- They are presented in a summarized form based upon the official hearino 'transcript and notes made at the hearing by the EIR preparer. Several comments pertained to the Public Hearing notification rather than the content of the Draft EIR; these are not addressed here. rChair DaYi- Comments 1.- Could the EIR address the "collect and convey requirements" that the Commission so stronoly advocated in the east County area? 2. There are no comments relative to the City of Antioch' s southeast area plan and the future of .the Antioch Airport. 3. What will be the near7term growth of based aircraft at the airport l considering the' current numbers at Antioch and Byron airports? D-1. Responses i 1. The Draft EIR has been reviewed by county aencies. It is anticipated _ P that the proposed plan will meet the appropriate drainage requirements. 2. The subject of Antioch Airport is discussed in the Site Identification and Elevation report, incorporated by reference. It is assumed that ' this airport will close as urban development reaches it in accordance with the City's plan. 3 . There are presently about 75 aircraft based at Antioch and. 30 at Byron Airpark. If Antioch closes and the new airport has been built, perhaps two-thirds of the aircraft might move to the new facility. This would account for a total of 80 aircraft at the new airport. Additional aircraft are assumed to come from the small, private-use fields in the east county and to some extent from Tracy and Livermore airports. The balance of the 150 aircraft forecast i s potential growth from all sources. , Dennis L.ogez ' Project area resident Comments 1. The EIR does not cover everything. It does not consider our way of life. 2. The EIR does not explore flooding problems. Responses 1. Way of life or quality of life is a difficult topic to address in an EIR because it is to a areat extent both nebulous and subjective. Nonetheless the EIR does implicitly recognize, through the discussion f� Of Growth inducement and the specific impacts that would occur, that D-2 s the general character of the area would chance over a period of time as the airport is developed and activity increases. The most explicit discussion of this topic is on panes 68 — 69. ' 2. Considerable discussion of the area' s flooding problems is contained in the Hydrology section of the Draft EIR (paces 48 — 53) . The report states that floodino occurs along Brushy Creek and its tributaries and that measures would be required to protect the airport facilities and ' surroundino lands. ' Sam Stewart Clayton resident, project area landowner Comments 1. People were not adequately notified. 2. Opposed to the project. Responses 1. Comment does not pertain to the content of the EIR. 2. Opposition noted; no response required. Commissioner Feliz Comments (Note: comments were only partially audible) 1. The discussion of noise impacts needs to be more specific. ' 2. Is more study of vernal pool impacts planned? . l ' D-3 'Responses , 1. To the extent that the project' s potential noise impacts-can reasonable be predicted, they are described in the Noise section of the EIR. The fact that runways do not exist in the proposed locations limits the ability to measure actual, impacts from individual overflights. i 2. A mitigation measure included in the EIR (page 61) is that the -specific areas to be disturbed by the project should again be f i el'd`su`r'veyed by a qualified biologist prior to commencement of any construction on the site. CQmmissioner -Aiell Comments r (Note: comments were only partially audible) , 1. Were comments received from the East Delta Planning Advisory Committee (EDPAC)? Responses 1. No comments were received. ' CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED a Within the time period provided by the Planning Commission, written comments pertaining to the Draft EIR were received from 13 agencies and individuals ; listed below in alphabetical order. The dates indicated are the date of the correspondence. A copy of each piece of correspondence is attached at the end of this document (Appendix G ) . 4 o California Department of Food and Agriculture (Harry J. Krade, Assistant Director, 'Special Assignments) -- Ncvember 19, 19b5. i 3 D-4 f 1 of ion, District 4 (Wallace J. e California Department 7ransportat , (W 1 Rothbart, District CE(A Coordinator) -- November 7, 1985. o California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (Sandy ' Hesnard, Environmental Planner) -- November 21, 1985. ' o California Office of Plannine and Research (John B. Ohanian, Ch-ief Deputy Director) -- November 21, 1985. o California Wind Energy, Altamont Energy Corporation (Thomas R. Morton, ' Executive Vice President) -- November 18, 1985. ' o Contra Costa County AirportL"Land Use Commission (Barry Cromartie, - Planner) -- November 21, 1985 . ' o Contra Costa County Health Services Department (Dan Bergman, Assistant Health Services Director, Environmental Health) -- November 26, 1985. 1 o Contra Costa Resource Conservation District (S. Bradley Thomson, President) -- November 21, 1985. o East Bay Regional Park District (T. H. Lindenmeyer, Environmental Coordinator, Plannina and Design) -- November 27, 1985. ' o Stewart Erskine (Owner, Delta Airpark, Oakley) -- December 12, 1985. ' o Local Agency Formation Commission of Contra Costa County (Dewey E. Mansfield, Executive Officer) -- October 29, 1985 . ' o Pacific Gas and Electric Company (P. J. Matthews, Land Supervisor, Regional General Services) -- November 22, 1985 . o Francis M. Scott (Antioch resident) -- December 4, 1985. D-5 �)yB,1<TTFN GOhih1ENTS AND RESPONSES: ' Responses to written comments are provided in this section. The comments are stated in a summary _form. For the complete text -of comments, see the accom,- panying copies of the correspondence received. ' California Department of Fob and Agriculture Comments ' 1. Agency does not object to the project because: - Measures to protect against unnecessary removal of agricultural lands are employed in the project. - Soils on alternative sites are better suited to agricultural 1 production than those on the proposed site. Responses 1 1. None requi red. California Department of Transportation; District 44 Comments _. 1 1. Additional data ( including peak hour volumes, cumulative impacts, and ' turning movement data) should be provided regarding the projected traf- fic impacts on the intersection of Byron Highway and State Route 4. , 2. Further data, including cumulative growth impacts, should be provided to document the conclusion that the vproject would not have a signifi- cant ignifi-cant adverse impact on State Route 4. Responses 1. No current turnino-movement traffic counts for the Byron Highway - i State Route 4 intersection are available, nor have any projections been , calculated. D-6 _ i How much of the airport traffic would pass through this intersection can only be roughly estimated. The principal variable will be where rpilots who would use the airport would come from. Given the assumption that the *preponderance of users would reside in northeastern Contra Costa County, the majority (60572 to perhaps 80%) would pass throuch the intersection headed f rcm south(east)bound Highway 4 to southbound Byron Highway and vice versa. With peak hour traffic to and from the- airport projected at 100 trips in 1990 and 200 in 2005 (Draft EIR, pace 85), ' the movements throuch this intersection in these directions would be on the order of 30 to 40 each way in 1990 and twice that in 2005. The remaining airport traffic would be split between points east alone Highway 4 (e.o Discovery Bay) and points south via Byron Highway ( including Tracy and Livermore) . (References: T.S. Kane, Contra Costa County Community Development Department; Steve Coleman, DKS Associates. ) 2. Projected traffic volumes for the Highway 4 corridor are currently being developed for the Oakley General Plan update. Preliminary projections have been developed for planned build-out (between 2000 and 2005) for three land use scenarios. In the maximum-traffic scenario, the ADT and p.m. peak-hour figures for two points located between the airport site and Brentwood are as follows: P.M. Peak Hour Location ADT Northbound Southbound St. Rte. 4, S. of Balfour Rd. 17,100 1,171 1,422 Byron Hwy, S. of Camino Diablo 11,400 328 576 (References: Same as for preceding response.) D_7 California Department of Tran.spj2rtation, Division of Aeronautics , Comments ' 1, The document adequately addresses the issues of concern to the aeency. } Responses 1. None required. California Office of_Flanning and Resezrch Comments 1. The Draft EIR was submitted to state agencies. Comments from the De- partment of Food and Agriculture and the Division of Aeronautics are transmitted. Responses 1. None required. California Wind Enerpv, Altamont Enerpy Corp ration Comments 1. The airport development would result in restrictions on the-company' s ' proposed wind farm development. As a result, the company objects to the proposed airport project. Responses 1. Comment does not suggest a need for additional data in -the EIR; there- fore, no response is required. I D-3 i Contra Cocta unty Airport t and Lie Co mission r Comments 1. Flood control ponds on the site would attract birds. Have the poten- tial P ' tial hazards these represent been addressed? 2. What constitutes a safe versus unsafe buffer in locatina wind turbines near the propc sed airport? 3 . What are the short- and long-term consequences of the proposed turbine placement? 4. It is strongly recommended that undergrounding of utilities should be required. Responses 1. The flood control ponds (detention basins) mentioned in the EIR as potential means of mitigating flooding impacts on and downstream of the site are employed at other airports (e.o. Petaluma Municipal) . It is anticipated that they would be put to use only as necessitated by heavy storms. Water would evaporate or could be pumped out. The-potential to attract birds would be minimized by controlling the growth of vege- tation within the ponds. 2. There is no way to define precisely what would constitute a safe buffer between the airport and proposed wind turbines. Safety is not absc- lute, but rather is a question of what can be considered an acceptable risk. The answer to this question will depend upon the individual who is answeri na. ' Ideally, no wind turbines or other obstacles should penetrate the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 surfaces (see DEIR Figure 4) or Terminal Instrument Procedures surfaces for the proposed airport. At D-9 the East Contra Costa Airport, this ideal is impossible; terrain and powerlines, primarily west of the site, already exceed the Part 77 limits. When circumstances such as this occur -- and they do at many airports -- steps must be taken to assure that the obstructions do not represent serious hazards to air navigation around the airport. The P � P most common measures include defining the airport traffic patterns and instrument approach procedures in a manner that takes thp.:obstructions into account and/or markino and liehtino the obstructions. Many of the wind turbines proposed to be installed near the airport site would penetrate the Part 77 surfaces but would not necessarily constitute hazards. The most critical locations are those within the runway approaches and other areas less than approximately one mile frcm the runway ends. In other locations, wind turbines that would exceed i the Part 77 limits by the amounts proposed can be considered accep- table. It must be reiterated, however, that this issue is subject to review by the Federal Aviation Administration. 3. In the short term, while the volume of airport activity is relatively low and the type of use is limited primarily to- small, general aviation aircraft and visual operations, the nearby turbines are unlikely to be of significant consequence. For the longer term, the proposed airport plan attempts to consider what the airport usage and development re- quirements will be and to limit the wind turbine construction accord- ingly. The possibility remains, though, that some options for devel- opment of the airport could be constrained by the wind farms---if they } are still in existence. ' 4. All new power lines on the site will be constructed underground. Exi sti no local service lines adjacent, to or crossing the edoes .of the site will be undergrounded if they constitute obstructions to the runway approaches. Undergrounding of the nearby major high-voltage i transmission lines is not possi bl e.- _J D-10 Contra Costa Coynty Health Services Department Comments t1. The type of uses on the airport and the projections of based aircraft and aircraft operation=_ tend to indicate that the project will create ' sionificant demands for potable water and wastewater trei,.tm.ent. and disposal . 2. Development of water supply and wastewater treatment facilities on the site must meet state and county requirements. Approvals for such sys- tems must be obtained prior to commencement of construction. Responses 1. Projected requirements for water supply and wastewater disposal asso- ciated with use of the proposed airport are described on paces 93 - 94 ' of the Draft EIR. The -types of uses planned for the airport would place relatively small demands on water and wastewater systems. 1 2. ' Comment noted. All necessary approvals will be sought during the engineerine design phase of the project. Contra Coca Rem urce Conservation District Comments 1. The project does not appear to be compatible with the County General 1 Plan. It is sited in an area designated as Agricultural Residential instead of some other area of compatible land use designation. 1 2. The project will generate considerable pressure to develop surrounding properties to the detriment of agriculture. There is no way to limit the accelerated growth potential by- the methods listed (pace 10) . ' D-1l 3 . A peak flow of 2,600 cfs for Brushy Creek is too low for' a 100-year storm on a 6,800-acre watershed. 4. It is not convincino that the proposed design completely addresses the downstream impacts that will occur due to the vast amount of impervious -� surface the project will create. 5. Will the airport lie within an area of inundation if there is an unanticipated canal or dam failure at: the proposed Los Vaqueros and ' Kell000 Forebay Reservoirs? 6. Theng g otential for bird strikes on arriving and departing aircraft is P � P .. not discussed. 7. The Socioeconomics and Housina section fails to recognize the need for additional commercial services associated with airports (e.c. restau- rants, lodaino, automobile rentals, and air taxi services) . These uses cumulatively would impact the area significantly. 8. Over the lona term, development of the airport will contribute to the , decline of agricultural lands not only in eastern Contra Costa County, but also in parts of Alameda and San Joaquin counties. Responses 1. Future public facilities are not normally shown on a general plan in a site-specific manner until the location has been approved and the land acquired. The proposed location of the airport amid agricultural lands is a highly compatible relationship. 2. The measures listed on pace 10 and described on paces 124 - 125 cf the Draft EIR can and have been effective in limitino development in the , vicinity of airports. If pressures for development to the detriment of agriculture do ultimately occur in southeastern Contra Costa County and . adjoining areas, it will not be to any substantial decree because of i S D-12 I the airport's presence. The need to preserve agricultural land is a statewide and national issue that calls for actions directly addressing the problem. Agriculture is for the most part a highly desirable land use for the vicinity of airports. The project proposes a substantial ' amount of feesimple and .conservation easement property acquisition in order to maintain compatible agricultural uses in critical - areas. Any additional actions that can be taken to preserve agricultural_ land uses in the vicinity of the proposed project would be beneficial to the air- port. 3 . No measurements of flow=_ in Brushy Creek are known to exist. The 2,600 cfs ficure cited in the Draft EIR was an estimate obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers. Further examination of the issue indicates that is most likely too low for a 100-year storm; a more realistic ficure would be two to three times higher. v - (Reference; Fred Mueller, Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento. ) 4. Until detailed engineering studies are conducted of drainaee from the proposed airport, it will be impossible to provide completely convinc- ina information regarding the project' s potential downstream impacts. As noted in the Draft EIR, most of the flow from the airport is expec- ted to run through a small tributary of Brushy Creek that empties into Italian Slough. All but about 1,000 feet of this water course has been channel ized.` If onsite facilities cannot be desi oned to sufficiently limit the peak flows into this channel, a necessary mitigation measure may be to widen the channel . Also, if additional flows directly into Brushy Creek are greater than can be handled by the structure where the creek passes beneath the 45 Canal, reconstruction of the underpass to accommodate additional flows may be required. 5. The proposed Los Vaqueros Reservoir would lie within the Kellogg Creek J watershed; any failure of the dams containing this reservoir.would not result in inundation of the airport site. D-13 Portions of the Kellogg Forebay, however, would extend into the Brushy Creek drainage area. Based upon the preliminary plans for this facil i- ' ,ty prepared in 1981, a failure of one of the dikes alono the forebay' s eastern side would cause water to flow into Brushy Creek. Use of the proposed emergency spillway also would dump water into Brushy Creek; �. this design for this spillway called for a maximum drawdown flow of 64,200 cfs in the event of an urcent need to lower the forebay' s water level. At the time the preliminary design work on the i`'acifity was halted, no determination had been made as to the area that would be inundated by either of these circumstances. It appears, though, that the airport could be affected. Another element of the Los Vaqueros system would be the Tuway Canal connecting the Kellogg Forebay with the existing state aqueduct. It_ proposed route crosses Brushy Creek. There would be check structures at both ends of this canal and the flow would be determined by pumping. ■ Any flow into Brushy Creek resulting from failure of the canal struc- ■ ture thus could be quickly controlled. (Reference: Nal Higgins, Central District Regional PIannino,_ Cal i- fornia Department of Water Resources.) 6. Each fall and winter large numbers of waterfowl are attracted to the open water and flooded agricultural 'lands of the Delta. When flooded with winter rains, the Byron Airpark vernal pools and adjacent fields are undoubtedly used for feeding and resting by waterfowl overwintering in the Delta area. Ducks (many species), tundra swans, and -geese (including snow, Ross' , white-fronted, and Canada ) are amono the most abundant users of flooded agricultural fields; red-winged and Brewer' s blackbirds are common as well in these wet areas (Nadrone Associates, 1980) . These are all relatively large birds that flock and startle, and their presence in the vicinity of the airport could pose a poten- tial threat to aircraft in fl icht. D-14 1 ' Birds cause the most serious damage when they are sucked into jet en- gines; flockino birds like culls and starlings are typically the most common species involved in this sort of incident. Propeller planes are less seriously affected by bird strikes, although large birds like waterfowl can cause significant physical damage to small aircraft. Field work for this report was conducted in April 1985 at a time when the surroundino fields and grasslands were not flooded and most of the vernal pools were dried or drying; no evaluation of the wintering waterfowl use of the immediate project site was possible. However, the ' largest pools on the site, located immediately adjacent to the existing runways, were being used by waterfowl at the time of the field survey as described in the draft report. Presumably these pools could be more rheavily used during the wet winter month=_. Accordina to the owner of the existing private airport, though, incidences of waterfowl and other . ibirds congregating on the site have been rare. A quantative evaluation of the potential threat of bird strike=_ at the proposed new airport would require a more extensive study of actual ' bird use of the site. In any event, the projected threat would most likely be small, since all but one to two percent of the aircraft using the facility are expected to be propeller planes. The potential threat would also be seasonal, with a peak risk in the winter months, and would vary with the amount of air traffic and with the placement and ' use of the runways. Larne numbers of around-nesting birds (e.c. , mead- owlark, pheasant) that might cause problems at other times of year were not observed in any part of the project site. Various= measures are available to reduce the airport' s attractiveness to birds. Limitino the height of grasses and other around cover is one measure that may be applicable on much of the site although only to a limited extent in and adjoining the vernal pools. Areas close to the runways, where the possibility of startling birds into -flight would be greatest, would be designed to drain well and avoid ponding. Other r � r p-15 measures that could be brought into play if necessary include noise- _ r! makino devices and installation of widely spaced, fine wires several feet above the areas attractive to birds. (References: o Madrone Associates. 1980. Delta Wildlife habitat _ i Protection and Restoration Phan. Prepared for- Cali- fornia or Cali-fornia Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Fish and ' and Wildlife Service. o Don Stiles, Byron Airpark. C Q ' 7. It �s not essential for success of the airport that such uses be Bevel- oped in the airport vicinity and measures can be taken to restrict them. The subject of the project' s potential growth-inducing effects is discussed in Chapter VI of the EIR. i 8. See response to this agency' s comment no. 2. Z Fact. Bad Regional Park District Comments 1. The agency remains concerned about the loss of 35 acres of vernal pools. ' 9 2. The management of the remaining 165 acres of vernal pools 'is in doubt. , The DEIR fails to mention the vital role of crazino in the maintenance of vernal pool habitat and the potential conflicts between grazing and other airport management objectives (e.g. bird control) . 3 . The discussion of alternatives does not compare the relative env i ron- mental impacts of alternative sites to those of the project. Such a ccmpari'son might identify an alternative which would not adversely impact vernal pool habitat. E D-16 Responses 1 1. Comment noted; no response required. 2. Prior to European settlement of California, nomadic native herbivores (elk, antelopes) crazed the grasslands and vernal pool areas of the Central Valley. Modern herbivores (cattle, sheep, and horses) are stocked and maintained more densely on enclosed canoes in the remainino. grassland and typically exert a more intensive crazing pressure on these lands. Heavy grazing by domestic stock can adversely affect ' vernal pools in a number of ways : - By direct removal of unique vernal pool plants; - By trampling around the pool margins, destroying plants and the soil structure of the pool ; - By introducing (through seeds contained in feces) alien, competitive annuals in and around the pools; and - By ing_estion and subsequent removal of highly adapted and special- ized ecial- ized vernal pool plant seeds from the pool area into the dry upland areas, where the establishment and survival of the plants is much less likely. 1 However, if monitored and controlled, 1 icht to moderate grazing appears to have a minimal adverse effect on vernal pools and is considered to be generally compatible with the maintenance of the pool flora. A con- trastive example of variable orazino pressure occurs at the Byron Air- park: pools on the western part of the.site, where crazing is restric- ted because of proximity to the runways, have oreater floristic diver- sity and are apparently less heavily grazed than pools on the eastern part of the site. 0-17 Long-term existence and maintenance of' vernal pools is more dependent ' on local soil structure and hydrologic: conditions than on crazing by either native or introduced herbivores. Licht crazing may be advanta- ' oeous to lcw-growing native wildflowers in situations where the thick growth and resulting heavy thatch of introduced annual Grasses would ' otherwise crowd out the native flora. The saturated and often alkaline soil conditions of the pool beds would similarly discourage a thick grassland cover. Grazing would be ccmpatible with the pro°posed airport development over a large proportion of the site. Restricted areas would include the runway/taxiway system and apron and building area. Areas near the runway=_ and in the runway approaches could be used for crazing up to the distance where a fence would constitute a hazarc to ' aircraft operations. (References: o Jim Bartel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacra- mento. o Thomas Lindenmeyer, East Bay Regional Parks District. o Rick York, California Department of Fish and Game. ) 3 . Most environmental impacts of the project alternatives are discussed in ' Chapter V to the extent that they would differ significantly from the impacts of the proposed project (pace 44) . With regard to impacts on vegetation and wildlife, however, a comparable level of analysis for the alternative sites would have required a biological field investiga- tion of each one; this level of analysis has been considered to co beyond that necessary for the decision-making process on the project. A general investigation of each alternative site was conducted durino the site identification and evaluation process that preceeded the selection of the Byron site. Although vernal pools do not appear to be present on any of the three sites that: became the primary alternatives to Byron, each location was found to have significant environmental limitations of its own. This topic is addressed in the Site Identifi- cation and Evaluation Report that is incorporated into the EIR by reference. D-18 As indicated in the Draft EIR (pages 23 and 59) , the presence of the vernal pools was a major consideration in development of the proposed layout of the Byron site. Because of other site constraints, especial- ly the proximity of nearby transmission lines and proposed wind farms, ' no alternative layout was apparent that could meet the identified faci- lity needs without some distruction of vernal pools. The proposed prc ject layout has significantly less adverse impact on vernal pool areas than any apparent alternative layout including either of-the-two de- ' scribed in the Draft EIR. Stewart Erskine Comments 1. The proposed location of the airport is protested. The airport would interfere with wind farms; the site is not located close to public transportation or to Bethel Island, Oakley, and Brentwood; and the site is too close to the mountains for safe aircraft flight. ' Responses 1. Protest noted. The extent to which the airport necessitates restric- tions on wind farm development is described in the Draft EIR. The site' s lack of proximity to public transportation and the towns listed is accurate; this factor was one of the short-comings of the Byron site considered during the site identification and selection process. The distance between the proposed airport and the nearby mountains will affect the location of traffic patterns and the desion of instrument approach procedures; the proximity is not inherently unsafe, however. Local Agency Formation Commission of Contra Costa County Comments 1. The' DEIR does not point out or map the existing urban services districts' spheres of influence for acencies which could serve the proposed airport. D-19 2. The EIR should review the potential to serve the airport with urban services, especially sewer and water. The feasibility of the alterna— tives mentioned in the document should be disussed and the potential spheres,of influence for the agencies that would provide the services shoule be identified. 3 . Growth—inducino impacts of expanding urban services, either on site or ' by annexation, should be reviewed. Specific mitigations need to be included to minimize the affects on adjacent agricultural lands. 4. With r'ecard to on—site facilities, the County Health Department should comment on the quality and quantity of cround water in the area and the potential for cround disposal of sewage effluent. Responses 1. The site lies within the established boundaries of the Byron Fire Protection district and the Byron—Bethany Irrigation District both of which would potentially provide services to the airport. The airport would not require the services of any other district (e.o. school-s) ' within which the site is located. Water and wastewater services are planned to be provided by on—site facilities; thus expansion of nearby n districts to encompass the site would not be required. 2. All analyses conducted for the Airport Master Plan and the Environ— mental Impact Report indicate that the water and wastewater treatment facilities required by the project can be provided on site at a rea— sonable cost. More detailed engineering design of the facilities and negotiation with the Byron—Bethany Irrigation District for access to water from the 45 Canal would occur during the engineering phase of the project. It is recognized that the alternatives of extending the planned water and existing wastewater systems from Byron, although probably feasible technically, would undoubtedly be more costly and would also have serious growth—inducing consequences. _s D-20 3. The proposed plan calls for construction of on-site utilities solely to ' meet the requirements essential to operation of the airport. With this restriction, the water and wastewater systems would not have sionifi- ' cant growth-inducing effects on adjacent agricultural land. The sys- tems would be designed in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations to assure that their operation would not have adverse impacts on adjacent land. r4. Discussions were held with County Health Department staff during prepa- ration of the Draft EIR. The information provided was taken into account in the conceptual desicn of the proposed water and wastewater facilities. The acency also has reviewed and commented upon the Draft ' EIR. Pacific Gas and Electric Company Comments 1. The company is still concerned about the impact of the airport project on existing and future cas and electric facilities within the project area. Specifically, the California-Oreoon Transmission Line is planned for the airport area and may have an impact on the airport project. Responses 1. The location of hieh-voltage transmission lines was a major considera- tion in the search for an acceptable site for an East Contra Costa County airport. The many corridors in the area siGnificantly limit the ' options of where such an airport can be located. The Byron site is one of the better locations in this regard, although there are transmission lines as close as about two mile=_ from the proposed runway ends and the proposed runways had to be layed out with power line locations in mind. As of early 1986, the California-Oregon Transmission Line is in the early stages of planning. Alternative routes are being defined and the tadvantages and disadvantages of each are beino studied. One alterna- D ' -21 tive route would cross the approach corridor to Runway 12 approximately ' 1.5 miles northwest of the runway end .and would potentially conflict with the instrument approach potential for this runway. Information reaardine this conflict has been provided to the organization assessing the alternative routes. If the airport plan is approved before the y plans for the transmission line are adopted, then the decision en the transmission line route will have to take the airport' s airspace requirements into account. Francis M. Scctt Comments 1. Comments are in support of the proposed project. The DEIR is compre- hensive and has addressed all the questions on the project. Responses 1. None required. 1 �1 1 D-22 z Appendix E E_", Ot NO IC A i You are hereby Tuesday, November 26, 1985 at7:30 o_m. b � notified that on �y� ' in Room 107, County Administration Building, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California, the Contra Costa County Planning Commission consider a_n -eriyirnnmPntal imnart report i, described as follows: EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AIRPORT County File #PW 85-43: An environmental impact report for a proposed construction of a new pudic use, general aviation airport to serve eastern Contra Costa County. Approximately 500 to 700 acres would be acquired for airfield, aircraft parking and runway approach protection purposes. Two intersecting runways would be required; the longer one having an initial length:of 3,300 feet with potential extension to 6,000 feet. Initial development would provide space for about 150 based aircraft with potential demand of 400 based aircraft in 20 years. The proposed site is in southeast Contra Costa .County, 2.5 miles sou-,h of Byron and 1.0 miles west of County Route 34, bounded roughly by Armstrong Road and Byron Hot Springs Road. An e.eisting privately owned airport, Byron Airpark, occupies part of the site. Brushy Creek traverses the site. ' For purposes of compliance with. provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an',Environmental impact report -(EIR) -has-been."oreoar_ed--for this project 'and is being considered for adoption at this hearing. For further details comact the Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, Martinez, California, or phone trip or at 17 _7(135 Anthony A. Dehaesus, Director Contra Ccsta County Community Development Department AP 3c 5/85 E-1 ' Appendix F November 26, 1985 I - 1 - 1 I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: PUBLIC HEARING: EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AIRPORT - County File =PW 85-43 To consider the adequacy and the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the pro- posed construction of a new public use, general aviation airport to serve eastern Contra Costa County. Approximately 500 to 700 acres would be acquired for air- field, aircraft parking and runway approach protection purposes. Two intersect- ing runways would be required; the longer ore-having an initial length of 3,800 F-1 November 26, 1985 , feet with potential extension to 6,000 ft. Initial development would provide space for about 150 based aircraft with potential demand of 400 based aircraft in 20 years. The proposed site is in southeast Contra Costa County, 2.5 miles south of Byron and 1 .0 miles west of County Route J4, bounded roughly by Arm- �. strong Road and Byron Hot Springs Road. An existing privately owtned airport, Byron Airpark, occupies part of the site. Brushy Creek traverses the site. MR. CUTLER: As you recall , we have distributed the East County Airport EIR and it has been more than 45 days since we have distributed it. Tonight, the purpose is to receive comments on the adequacy of the EIR only; comments on the nature of the airport are not proper at this particular point in the hear- ing. You -will notice that we have a fairly large crowd here tonight and I might point out that there 's a County Advisory Group and I 'm looking- for. them. The Airport Manager Hal White is here and is the primary person in charge of this and if he would raise his hand to indicate his precense. The Advisory Committee is also working on this issue and is providing advise to the Board of Supervisors are here in mass a-nd then they will have a meeting in an adjacent room. Would those members here raise their hands so the Commission -will know who you are? The Advisory Committee assists the Board of Supervisors on matters dealing with the airport. Some of them are also members of the Airport Land Commission which is a State mandated commission administered at the local level which has powers- parallel owersparallel to this Commission's . I just thought you would like to know that these groups do exist and are to meet next door shortly. CHAIR DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Cutler. Are there comments on the EIR from the Comm- ission? Mr. Cutler, I have two comments . One deals with drainage and on Pagel, _ in the summary and I don't recall the page in the body, but it deals with on-site ponds to hold the excess run-off water. I- wonder if the EIR could- address the collect and convey requirements that the Commission so strongly advocated - in the east County area? The other question I have deals with the Antioch airport. There 's .no comment in Othe EIR relative to the City of Antioch 's southeast area plan that essentially has redesignated the airport site as something other than airport and there's no indication that the Antioch airport may close and what time frame. . i Additionally, on Page X16 where the EIR is talking about the highes-t reasonably , likely activity levels in 1990, the based aircraft as I understand it is -75 Ocurrently based in Antioch and 75 currently based on the Byron field. It indicates in the text that (inaudible) for near-term growth and if that's the current esti���ate, then I wonder what the current increment airtermed growth for the next 5 years would be? MR . CUTLER: Certainly, we' ll deal with those. CHAIR DAVIS:. Any other comments from the Commission? (None) . This is a public hearing on an environmental impact report. The Commission will not take testim- ony on the airport and whether it is or is not appropriate. The testimony that , we will take tonight is only on the adequacy of the EIR itself: You should con- fine your cornents to the adequacy of the document. The testimony is taken in any order. We ask that you speak into .the microphone, give you name clearly and that you present a green slip with your name and address and deposit it in the box on the railing. Is there anyone to speak on the EIR? _ MR. DENNIS LOPEZ, Route yl, Box 4-A, Byron, California. I 'm listed in there and F-2 November 26 1985 and it has in there "grazing land" which is not true, number one. We have an embryo transplant facility and we have our way of life. The environmental im- pact of that report that I 've read doesn't cover everything . It doesn't cover the idea that for 97 years my family didn't allow* subdivision on the property; we didn't let the wind companies put up their factories; we didn 't let them assemble the wind turbins on the property; we didn't put up the office build- ings . We didn't do a lot of things . We didn't subdivide into 5 acre parcels . We preserved the land for ourselves . We were offered a lot of money. We didn 't want the traffic; we didn 't want the neighbors . We didn 't want anything . So, now,, that we 've saved this property for all these years, we have not saved it for some damned airport; we've not saved it for the County. We..don •t •rant this to happen. In other words, we've saved the property for ourselves . We didn't save the property for the County. It really, really makes me sick to look at the situation; to deal with people like Hal White who can 't get a letter written to the County in seven days and get me a letter in 8 hours but can't get a letter to Harvey Bragdon in seven days and he . says it's the mail which is bullshit. It 's not the mail . Its this whole thing. I :vasn 't notified to begin with that there might be an air- port. I wasn't notified that there was a remote chance for it. The thing that makes me so- sick is that we preserved the land . We make sure that we don 't take advantage of the dollars and cents value because we want our privacy and our way of life; so, we 're saving our land so that somebody can come in and take the land. It's not even close to being right. OThe environmental impact report doesn 't say everything. It doesn't even explore the floodingness. It doesn 't explore the turbulence in the wind. It says what the people who want the airport to go it what they want it to say. It doesn 't say all the facts. It doesn 't say all the facts about the drainage. I notice the Chair picked up on the ponds and where the water goes . Well, the present airport now is a joke because it 's under water all the time and yet they're going to consider putting another airport there. It makes no sense whatsoever. LNone. It's a scam to get Don Styles out of. debt. CHAIR DAVIS: Are there others to speak on the EIR? MR. SAM STEW'ART, P . 0. Box 19, Clayton, California. I 'm a property owner out Othere. Everybody was not notified. In fact. one of the people who's property is under proposed condemnation wasn 't notified either; they weren 't-'sent a copy of the EIR; they weren 't notified of the meeting. The thing I have to say is that my property is under a conservancy easement for 320 acres . We raise cattle on the land. We have young sons that maybe won 't be interested in raising cattle. There 's a height limit on that and put an air- 0 port in it---althought I 'm not against airports, I 'm against the idea of someone thinking they're going to put me on hold for 20 years while they expand their air- port and give be a few hundred dollars per acre, I 'm not going to buy it. I 'm prepared to file a law suit should this happen. CHAIR DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Are there others to speak on the EIR? I see no one else rising to speak therefore, the matter is before the Co .mission. COMMIiISSIONER NI1MR: Madam Chair, question of staff. How were people notified that the environmental impact report was being prepared? V.R. CUTLER: We notified everybody, keep in mind, property ownership changes and there are a lot of people that own property; but, Public Works Department prepared a list from the latest assessment rolls that they had available to them of all the F-3 November 26, 1985 r property owners within 300-ft . , of the airport of supposedly affected by the air- port and they were noticed both in terms of the notice of preparation that we are doing an EIR and the same list was used again several- months later for the notice of this particular hearing . CO! 1,ISSIONER NIMR: Hoar many copies did you send out to people who requested it? MR. CUTLER: We noticed everyone by letter that might be impacted by the item tonight that there would this EIR hearing tonight. We mailed out about 50 to 60 copies of the EIR which is a lot less than what we noticed since we didn 't know who was interested in it or not. COMMISSIONER NIMR: I 'm a little concerned that I think this is really a monumental change in their way of life . I would like to see it much more widely publized that there is this document---that could be done through the news papers . This is a very radical change of what 's going on in that area and is going to affect everyone , not only those who live within 300-ft. , of the property but people who live in the East County area in general . I would like to see much more publicity in ne•,•rspape.rs . MR. CUTLER: It was published in the newspapers as required in terms of notice of , completion of an EIR and that was done when we did complete the environmental document and there were articles in the Contra Costa Times this week . I 'm not too sure if that was carried in the Antioch paper or not. COMMISSIONER NIMR: Did EDPAC receive copies? MR. CUTLER: I presume so. I don 't recall that directly. We did talk to the Byron Sanitary District. They' ll be late in getting in their comments and P .G. & E ., is going to be getting in comments this week . We did give you a pack of comments before. CHAIR DAVID: I think what Commissioner Nimr is raising is a critical issue here, Mr. Cutler, and probably has to be addressed by the Board of Supervisors and that is -it is the practice of this department to public notice in the Contra ' Costa Times for issues of great importance for East County and rarely do those public notices get into the Brentwood News, Oakley Gazette or the Antioch Daily Ledger that most of us in east county take. I would comment for Commissioner Nimr that there was an article on' the EIR three days before I received by copy so I know that at least one article had been written; but, I think an issue has been raised as to where we public notice hearings of issues of interest to certain geographic areas in this County. i Commissioner Best, you have comments? COMMISSIONER BEST: Yes . As a point of clarification, Mr. Cutler, were the property owners who were notified only those who were within 300-ft? MR. CUTLER: And those on the property involved. COMMISSIONER BEST: It would seem to me that in the case of an airport as opposed to a housing subdivision, we 're talking about an impact that goes beyond 300-ft. , and I don't know how you address that; but, I do think that it would be appropriate to give direct notice to property owners that might be within a wider circumference. MR . CUTLER: Whatever the Commission desires . I do note that it was published also ' in the Dailey Ledger on October 8th--- COMMISSIONER NIMR: You 're talking about the legal notice though. i MR. CUTLER: Yes, I am talking about legal notices since that 's the way we get information out. We don 't know what the newspapers are going to print or not j print. That's up to them. We have no control over their editorial policy. We F-4 November 26, 1985 just make it available and they do what they choose. Obviously, there were parts of the Lesher chain that found it worthy of news and did print an article on it. CHAIR DAVID: The matter is before the Commission. COMMISSIONER FELIZ commented on the EIR, none of which is audible to the transcriber. CHAIR DAVIS: I would only comment to the Commission that I have mixed emotions on how to proceed at this point. If .we found in the past that in general the public prefers to comment on the project as opposed to commenting on the environ- mental impact report, I know there are several people who were goi-ng to. come to the hearing tonight until they found out that we would not actually be; discussing the project; so, in that regard, I feel that if we close the hearing- and allo:.red additional time for written testimony, we would certainly be handling it appropriate- ly. On the other hand if there are those in the public who have not received a copy of the document and wish to do so, I certainly feel they should have that opportunity and think that the additional time we allow for written comments should be long enough so they would be able to get it, read it and make written comments . 1 COMMISSIONER AIELLO commented. Her comments are entirely inaudible to the trans- criber. COMMISSIONER BEST: - The staff is recommending that we allow an additional 10 days for comment and schedule January 14, 1986 for a decision on the EIR. It occurs to me that since we do have a meeting scheduled for December 10, 1985, that we could continue the hearing for one more--- MR. BRAGDON: That 's going to be a heavy agenda. COMMISSIONER BEST: My thought was that if we continued the hearing to the 10th there still might be additional time -or enough time to allow for the written comments and still prepare the responses for the 14th. Would that be correct? MR . CUTLER: I think what really needs to be done and in light of Mr. Stewart's comments, we think we got through to everybody that we knew about but there are always people who didn 't get noticed. I did check to make sure his name was on the mailing list for noticing of this particular hearing and it was . What might be the- appropriate way to proceed is extending the time frame for additional written comments and since we don 't have a lot of speakers tonight but since we dodhave a lot of concern that the way to approach it is to continue the time allowing for written comments and still leave it scheduled-'for January 14, 1986 and if it appears that we cannot have a final document by that time, we 'll put a staff report in your packet stating that we haven 't been able to ' complete the written document in that period of time. What I 'm suggesting is going from 10 additional days for written comments to 20 or 25 days whatever the Comnission feels comfortable with and see if people respond that way. . COMMISSIONER BEST: That would be acceptable to me. CHAIR DAVIS: Is there a notion on this? Upon motion of Commissioner Best, seconded by Commissioner Accornero, it was moved that the public hearing on the Environmental Impact Report for the East Contra Costa County Airport, File `,`PW-85-43, be extended for written comments for 20 days and schedule January 14, 1986 for decision on the EIR, and CLOSE the public hearing at this time. F-5 November 26, 1985 A roll-call vote was taken; following is the Commission's recorded vote: AYES: Commissioners - Best, Accornero, Nimr, Aiello, Feliz, Davis . ` NOES: Commissioners - None. ABSENT: Commissioners - Donald E . Anderson. ABSTAIN: Commissioners None. CHAIR DAVIS: Before we leave this subject, Commissioner Aiello brought up the ' point that she doesn 't know whether or not EDPAC has addressed this issue and neither do I . I wonder if we could ask staff to contact the Chi r of EDPAC and see if they have reviewed the docu ,ent and have any comments . MR. CUTLER: I would like to further comment that if there are still people r:ho feel that they would like an opportunity to review this since we have that long lead time, if they would leave their names and addresses, we will see that they , get a copy of the EIR mailed to them. There were no further comments on this item. . , i F-6 California Appendix G yi C_; �J e,morandum J � . Mr. Price Walker Date :• November 19, 1985 State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research Place = Sacramento 1400 10th Street Sacramento, CA 95814 R i QI �m Department of Food and Agriculture ,.-.-NOV 9 ��'•�•...�R�111ItC,� tecti SCF No. 85042304 - East Contra Costa County Airport, Draft EIR The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) has reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the above referenced project wherein Contra Costa County proposes to develop a new public use, general aviation airport in the southeastern portion of the county. The project would entail the eventual fee simple accuisation of 1270 acres of land presently zoned for agricultural use. Upon reviewing the EIR and evaluating the alternatives presented; we do not object to this project for the following reasons: 1 1. Even though the project site contains soils generally inadequate to support crop production, this department views the conversion of 1270 acres of land suitable for grazing as a significant impact. In order to mitigate this impact, the draft EIR, onpage69, suggests that lands not needed for developing airport facilities be leased for compatible agricultural uses. According to the draft EIR, page 5, only 230 acres of the 'total 1270 would ultimately, be developed for air facilities. Employment of this measure would further the interests of the County while preventing unnecessary removal of agricultural lands. The County would benefit by receiving revenue for leasing lands serving no other purpose than providing runway clear zones. 2. The draft EIR, page 65, indicates that the soils on the Byron site are generally inadequate to support crop production. Since the alternative ' sites have good agricultural soils, development on the Byron site would result in the least impact to agricultural resources. CDFA recognizes the projected need to develop a public-use airport to serve the growing population of Contra Costa County. By locating this pro- ject on the Byron site, pressure to build the project on sites with prime agricultural soils would be eliminated. Moreover, by adopting the mitigating ' measure discussed above, the number of agricultural acres removed from G-1 Mr. Price Walker �•r -Page Two November 19, 1985 production can be minimized. Because of the foregoing, this department Orecommends adoption of the proposed project with the already discussed mitigating measure. , We have appreciated the o_oportunity to cb-,-tient. Harry J. Krade Assistant Director •Special Assigiunents (916) 445-0682 cc Jinn Cutler , - i i G-2 . r L,..).'f California Business and Transportation Agency Femordridum Price Walker , Manager Date: November 7 , 1985 State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth St. , Room 121 File : C0004-44 . 37 Sacramento , CA 95814 SCH ;#85042304 CCO04086 Joni DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION —4 lbiect: DEIR - East Contra Costa County Airport Lead Agency - Contra Costa County Caltrans has reviewed the above-referenced document and forwards ' the following comments : lO From the table on page 85 and text on page 86 , , beginning ' sentence under "Access Time" , it is expected that most of the 200 peak hour trips in 2005 will be using the intersection of Byron Highway with State Route 4 . Although these volumes in and by themselves may fall short of causing ' a significant adverse impact on the State highway, the weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes expected to use that intersection in 1990 and 200.5 should be shown in order to be included as part of the cumulative impacts . Cumulative impacts include existing volumes and those generated by the project and all other local projects affecting this intersection. Existing and -project-generated volumes should be shown for each of the six movements at the intersection. OPage 86 , paragraph 2 suggests that the airport development will not have a significant adverse impact on the operation of State Route 4 . The document should provide additional traffic data to support this , including cumulative growth impacts . ' Should you have any questions regarding these comments , please contact Charlotte Cosulich of my staff at (415) 557-9431 . WALLACE J. ROTHBART District CEQA Coordinator ' uE. 'J NOV 151S385 -� 1 - r � E OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS,TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN,Governor PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION I11ECEIVED ' ISION OF AERONAUTICS K STREET-4TH FLOOR i` ; �•""i i P.O.BOX 1499 RAMENTO.CA 95807 )322-3090 t�L;CHANAN FIELD fDD 323-73-7665 November 21, 1985 L al Wighta Costa Cou ohn nn Driver , CA 94527 Dear Mr. Wight: DEIR, East Contra Costa County Airport, SCH 185042304 The Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics, has reviewed the above—referenced document with respect to those areas germane to its statutory responsibilities. Those areas include airport—related noise and safety impacts on- the surrounding region, potential impacts to airport operations, and land use compatibility in the vicinity of the Oairport. . This document is very thorough and appears to adequately address , all of the issues of concern to this Division. Thank you for the opportunity- to review and comment on this- proposal. Sincerely, JACK D. KEMMERLY, Chief Division of Aeronautics Sandy He and Environmental Planner i . r i G-4 ec,, T r. TE OF CALIFORNIA—OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Govemor FFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH TENTH STREET C 1"' V 7-� T j j T� D� _ ; : .<AMENTO, CA 95811 :�x;j - ' Ha Wright tv8UCHAAN FIELD November 21, 1985 17k John Glen rive Con rd A 94527 Subject: East Contra Costa County Airport SCH# 85042304 / Dear Mr. t4right: J The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named draft Environn°.ental Impact Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and the corrients of the individual agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. Also, on the enclosed Notice of Completion, the Clearinghouse has checked which agencies have co7m7,ented. Please review the Notice of Completion to ' ensure that your comment package is ccmplete. If the package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse ir►nediately. Your eight digit State Clearinghouse nu.-rber should be used so that we may reply promptly. ' Please note that recent legislation requires that a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive cements on a project which ' are within the area of the agency's expertise or which relate to activities which that agency must carry out -or approve. (AB 2583, Ch. 1514, Stats. 1984. ) Oy These cc-,unents are foniarded for your use in preparing your final EIR. If you need more information or clarification, we suggest you contact the commenting agency at your earliest convenience. ' Please contact Price Walker at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, John B. Cha-nian Chief Deputy Director Office of Planning and Research cc: Resources Agency Enclosures G-5 is . - • •am latae 3a•1•L;•}.+v.u,U XII.--11./KYAU -ate' • la.a:r�iv Ci - a.. .w t: .c n casar•a ao a.^no.�-y ccsrx ucv-u im 1 ( s 85042]01 1• s, r:_,: East Con r r^ �• t+�aaaGr: Intra Costa County ua:.::)-.,oG. Hal Wight Iy s;>„t�„•„ 171 John Glenn Drive :t.c::r: Concord ` x.o:aar: Contra Costa _m,u:: 94S27 s.. >m.,: 685-0722 �t.,-._o, .. C—:;; Centra Costa ...c_ <siur: Baron u.ao.��r'.I.Gc•:�. Various 22 s+c• TIS `_sia•_ o •lc .•• '_'` U.C•o..I Armstrong Road ss. r.r°°`'`!•>;'.'^: Bryon ' Existing Byron tt_-J 11.•:• sa.ae S. ar,5tate Rt, 4 x:c,Ai roor( ..,.Southern Pac!' ..n Italian SScugh tzoe�--rn .. G: at._Ga.n:I:u C:Gat• at. O aa.^r_ C.�...['.ai C._O:::a'•: 34. /L _• •� •-- _ ©. I'•[C.c Ca. !m Oa. ataa'+f Ft.. C. Ar',asi.'��—+1: f.- Oa. X Lam•.=Tll - acw •••. (T,1"Z•7 v.: C.lCun_ts ILu YGw L=.q}..• { �'7 1 U, a,C••r!o!v.: p._wt•f l.0;lta�y !C. /• � - 1�_t,n Ce 1 xv. tl._acac, tl. L t CT.—ua.K: fu.nl U._hv:•ata)la: sa._T].l.:r • t..__rtal?:c. ac 13._C s L P__ U._a_..^ L3._oc.r 3.. X c-_,rA;roort Development • L T- aT.-fl L�_ - Ls._] ' al._a..•.a.aunl.+t a.X s..^r.ur u;:,r Ic. X .Iraru<>:taco a. c.al«:c.s.ar1G 3-.`sec,l _l. O..�_L�+ale.Cc!/4l.iatlol {;.�-Yt a•n]• L1.�LIW tunes T..X G=.a It_-s._( C. td�_+::ray s« <ear S. Tea:a.•`s� D. X •sas:�:.•.a_-�.. 1 ca. c.__r_-r,r 14._31. _ _-s.c.u::o 33. r_.r ..... ?CC-`C us:R.i r..•>1 f s:.:.t u:a:f Agricultural Residential, zoned A-I 1 U. M---0�--0'= The project is the preresed construction of a near public use, general aviation airpert to serve eastern Centra Costa County. Approximately 500 to 700 acres would be acquired for airfield, aircraft pariine and runway approach protection purposes. Two intersecting runways would be re;uired; the ; ! longer one having an initial length of 3.!00 feet wit'a poCen:ial extens;cn to i 6.000 feet. Initial develoo::ent would provide soace for about IjJ based air- craft with potehtial de-and a.., t00 based aircraft in 20 years. `� " O T c:•=•-o gLV"i:.l ° 17: LO( > _ REv_.f To •v sem: �t�( y _____�_.— I �'• -sr S s� `:lc: �l` Z� f=V • • 1 - I ::Tc ilii=�s Iu I (woos) - ID CSR 'A L I F 0 RY / A W I N E N E R G y 'C ti ' November 18 , 1985 arnt Energy ation Mr. Jim Cutler Contra Costa County Department of Community Development P. O. Box 951 Martinez, CA 94553 Re : Draft EIR, County File ffPW-85-43 East Contra Costa County Airport ' Dear Mr. Cutler : Altamont Energy Corporation ( "AEC" ) reviewed the above referenced EIR which involves an expanded airport on the site of the Byron Airpark. As you know, AEC is in the Land Use Permit application process for a windfarm development on Section #21, ' T1S, R3E. We have reviewed our proposed development (County File L.U.P. #2127-85) with respect to Figure 10 of the above referenced EIR. Figure 10 diagrams "Maximum Allowable Height" restrictions for Section 21 (denoted "Proposed Souza Property Windfarm. " AEC has found that 29 wind turbines plotted 'in the NE ' portion of our proposed windfarm would be disallowed by the 235 feet above MSL maximum height restriction. O Due to the restrictions described abo e , Altamont Energy Corporation objects to the proposed 9tive " ect. Be ' Thon ExPresident ' TRM:lhg cc. A. Souza Lincoln Avenue 201 atael.CA 94901 G- :c e:415-459-4420 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ' TO: Jim Cutler, Chief DATE: November 21, 1985 Comprehensive Planning ' FROM: Barry Cromartie SUBJECT: ALUC Comments on East Planner Contra Costa C,punty.Airport County File #P`'V 85-43 The following issues, identified by ALUC Commissioners Grace Ellis a-nd Joe Campbo 1, are considered significant and should be addressed more comprehensively in the East Contra Costa County Airport Environmental Impact Report: Page # Summary of Comments 7 Under Hydrology Mitigation Measures, on site pond as proposed will ' Oattract birds. These birds represent potential hazards. Have these impacts been addressed? If so, what alternatives/mitigation measures are proposed. 22 O Under Wind Turbine Proposals location of the proposed wind ' turbines pose a potential hazard. What constitutes a safe versus unsafe buffer in locating these wind turbines?- What are the short < 3O and long term consequences of such turbine placement? 36 4 Under Utilies, it is strongly .recommended that undergrounding of , O utilities should be required. C= o �O BC:plpl3a -A► =o .cn C=3 _.1 G-° CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT a_ To: Date: Community Development Department November 26,..1985. A. A. DeHaesus, Director From: Subject: Dan Beraman ✓ -�^ Draft Environmental Impact Report Assistant Health Services Director rPLd 85-43 Environmental Health East Contra Costa County Airport The draft E. I.R. addresses water supply and wastewater disposal in general terms. The report also indicates that a terminal building would house airport offices, a pilot' s lounge, restrooms, perhaps a coffee shop and other related uses. The high-forecast based aircraft numbers and the corresponding aircraft ' operations projects indicate 400 based aircraft and 160,000 aircraft operations 0 in the year 2005. This all tends to indicate that the project will create signi- ficant demands for potable water and wastewater treatment and disposal . The development of the domestic water supply and wastewater treatment and dispo- 22 sal systems must meet the requirements enforced by the County Department of Health Services, California Department of Health Services-Sanitary Engineering 1 Branch, and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region. These approvals should be obtained prior to the date initial construc- tion activities are scheduled. DB:JB:rm 1 G-9 r ;iu; e3 Contra Costa Resource Conservation District 5552 Clayton Road - Concord, California 94521 • Phone (415) 672-6522 ' •�; ' November 21 , 1985 Contra Costa County RECEIVED ' DEC 2 1°85 Mr. Anthony A. Dehaesus, Director Redevelopment Agency -, CCC Community Development P.O. Box 951 ` s (Martinez, California 94553-0095 Subject: DRAFT EIiVIRONJIENTAL IMPACT REPORT EAST COPiTRA COSTA COUNTY AIRPORT COUNTY FILE "PW 85-43 STATE CLEARI14GHOUSE #85042304 i Dear Mr. Denaesus: -� At the request of the Contra Costa Resource Conservation District, SCS techni- cal staff has reviewed County File #P,1-85-43, East Contra Costa County Airport and has the following comments: ..3 OThis proJect does not appear to be compatible with the Countv General 1 Plan as depicted on page 40 of this report. It is sited in an area designated as Agricultural Residential -instead of some other area of compatible land use designation. The development of an airport in this locale will generate a considerable amount of pressure to develop sur- ' rounding and nearby properties to the detriment of the agricultural 0 communities that currently exist. The growth-inducing impact curtailment neasures listed on page 10 of the report indicate naivete on the part of the preparers to ccver up the accelerated grovith potential of East County. There is no way to ' limit growth by the methods proposed, due to certain values held to be constitutional and manv of the other political forces that will cone to play once the initial development takes place. The Hydrology Section appears to be adequate, yet there are a fete ' Oquestions that do arise. A peak flow of 2,600 cfs for Brushv Creek is too low for a 100 year storm on 06,800 acre watershed. The figures may be correct for an average 2 year peak or 10 year storm flow. It` s not convincing that the present design completely addresses the down- stream inpacts that will develop due to the vast amount of impervious surface this project will create. The mitigations suggesting the installation of a clari..fier for the fueling area run-off are very � . good and should be incorporated into any approved plan. A concern r G-10 CONSERVATION - DEVELOP-MENT —SELF-GOVERr:.I,nENT . Mr. Anthony A. Dehaesus -2- November 21 , 1985 which was not addressed, was in the development of the Los Vaqueros 0 and Kellogg Forebay Reservoirs. Will the airport lie within an area of inundation if there were an unanticipated canal or dam failure? The Vegetation and Wildlife section seems to be adequate, yet the im- pact of bird strikes on departing and arriving aircraft has been 6 omitted. This should be a major concern, due to the vast amounts of airport area to be set aside for wildlife protection. The Archaeology section appears to be adequate and the proposed miti- gations should be adopted. The Land-Use section is sufficient, yet the potential for the overall reduction of agricultural land in East Contra Costa County and parts of Alameda and San Joaquin Counties is downplayed, even though there are a number of mitigations aimed at reducing controlling the incompati- ble uses of nearby property. The Socioeconomics and Housing section fails to recognize the need for Oadditional commercial services associated with airports. Restaurant and overnight lodging facilities will be necessary, the need for auto- mobile rental and servicing will increase, and the proposed runways will have the capacity to accommodate a number of the smaller passenger air- craft currently in use by commercial air taxi services. Cumulatively, these factors could impact the area significantly, to the detriment of the agricultural activities that currently exist. ' O The primary -concern is that over the long-term the development of this $ airport will contribute to a decline in agricultural lands, not only in East Contra Costa County, but also in-parts of Alameda and San Joaquin Counties. The approval of this project will generate a considerable amount of pressure to develop more and more land, forcing agricultur- al processes to move to less desirable environments, and in the-'end ' costing us more for less in terms of production, energy, and quality of life. We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on the above document. Please feel free to call on us if you have any questions or if we can be of assistance. Sincerely, S. Bradley mson President cc; SCS Concord F.O. G-11 BOARD OF 01RECTORS ` WALTER COSTA,Pres.d—i , East B a ), TED RADKE.Vete Pre aero LYNN BOWERS.Secretary JOHN O-DONNELL.Traas er Regional Park District JAMES H DUNCaN MARY LEE JEFFEROS S�^` --- HARLAN KESSEL t 11500 SKYLINE BOULEVARD,OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94619 TELEPHONE(415)531-_9.300 -_- DAVID E.PESONEN General Manager November 27, 1985 a - c Mr. Jim Cutler Contra Costa County Planning Dept. P. Q. Box 951 Martinez, CA 94553 Subject: DEIR East Contra Costa County Airport (C.F. P.J85-43) Dear Jim: The EBRPD has reviewed the subject document and remains concerned about the loss of 35 acres of vernal pools involved in the project. The Omanagement of the remaining 165 acres of vernal pools is also in doubt, 2 as the DEIR fails to mention the vital role of grazing in the maintenance of vernal pool habitat and the potential conflicts between grazing and other airport management objectives (e.g. bird control) . �3 Finally, the District notes that the discussion of alternatives does not , compare the relative environmental impacts of alternative sites to those of the project. If such a comparison were made, the County might be able to identify an alternative which did not adversely impact vernal. pool , habitat. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment. , Very truly yo rs, T. H. Lindenmeyer Environmental Coordinator Planning and Design TL:lm ' cc: D. E. Pesonen L. Crutcher P. Koos R. Cameron R. Doyle c G-12 = ' ' I L,LtiTP-" �.1U11 1 U.?1: ':. Of.PT. OEc 13' 2 o5 N 185 December 12, 1985 Contra Costa Count Y Planning Department 651 Pine St Martinez, Ca. ' RE: Airport in Byron ' Gentlemen: I am protesting the proposed loc- ation of the Airport in Byron. I feel that they are interfering with Windmill Farms, are not locating O close to Public Transportation, not ' locating close to Bethel Island, Oakley and Brentwood, and are too close to the mountains -for safe air craft flight. As an owner of an Air park, I ' feel that I am qualified to make the above statements, and protestations . Sincerely, ' Stewart Erskine Owner Delta Airpark ' 484 Anvilwood Oakley, Ca. 94561 G-13 LAFCO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION County Administration Building, Eightl oor- 00� OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY � 651 Pine Street, �lartineae'CA ;moi 53 Telephone (4I5) 3 2-4090 i CM v —� DEWEX_E. MAN&LD EXECO IVE FJCER October 29 , 1985 -c— TO: Jim Cutler, Chief Comprehensive Planni 7 ' FROM: Dewey E. Mansfield,_ E:�ecut' ve Officer SUBJECT: East Contra Costa County A rport Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Thank you for the opportunity to review the East Contra a Costa County Airport DEIR. On pages 42-43 , the DEIR points out that LAFCO would be responsible for approving boundary changes and sphere of 3, influence amendments_ to provide urban services to this Oproposed facility. The Draft DEIR does not point out or map the existing urban services districts ' spheres of influence for agencies which could serve the proposed airport. These boundaries should be addressed or mapped in the Final EIR (FEIR) . The discussion of providing utilities to serve the Oairport (pages 93-96 ) is handled in very abbreviated form. , The FEIR should carefully review the potential to. serve an airport in this area with urban services , especially sewer and water. It should also discuss the feasibility of alternatives mentioned in the document and identify potential spheres of influence for agencies which would ' provide those services . The growth inducing impacts of Oexpanding urban services, either on site or by annexation, , should be carefully reviewed. Specific mitigations need to be included to minimize the affects on adjacent agricultural lands. ' if the aforementioned alternatives for providing utilities include on-site facilities , the County Health ODepartment -should specifically continent on the quality and quantity of ground water in the area and the potential for ' ground disposal of sewage effluent. Dune Longshore.Concord City Council•Susan McNulty.Public Member DEM/mr}om Po.cm.County Supervisor•Tom Torlakson,County Supcnisor•Gayle B.Uilkcma,Lafayette City Council Ed Del Bcccaro,Alternate:Public Mcmber•Rick Harmon.Alternate:San Ramon City Council•Robert Schroder.Alterrute:County Supervisor -l a a .i Z�ACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 1919 WEBSTER STREET - OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 - (4151 835.5500 i ' FLOYO C. MARKS REG:ONAI MANAGER EAST SAY REGION November 22, 1985 C__ z o Mr. James W. Cutler — Chief of Comprehensive Planning Contra Costa County Planning Department - P. 0. Box 951 Martinez, -CA 94553-0095 C=7 �•-i E.J7 7. Re: Contra Costa County Airport Byron Hot Springs Contra Costa File PW 85-43 Our File 85-04-140 Dear Mr. Cutler: ' We are continuing to review the Environmental Impact Report covering the subject airport project planned for east Contra Costa County. This is to let you know that we are still concerned about the impact of the airport project and our existing and future gas and electric facilities within O ' the project area. Specifically, we should- mention that we have an electric transmission line project known as the California-Oregon Transmission Line planned for the area which the airport will be located. This project may create an impact on the airport project. We are continuing to solicit comments from the various departments and will give you further information regarding activities within the airport project area and the disposition of our unoccupied easements. Sincerely, wportews Land Supervisor Regional General Services ' G-15 QtZ � Q5'" '( CC±Lttt O o =� On lVuv'�fiT, �Ur� 2C.: , �� i �y Cin t�-� Cos ^uf �4tl�i1f1U1Cr�, :Orl It.-=�-C.�. Lti {LC: �1er- CtlC � CY'L . T1t G S� CLzt'� C rtrs�ior' env Q�1r�`lt��'LCGZ� �rntrJaC� r ���`L^r'%_ c ' t�_r z- bco..Y ci. K5 a n c e_. -th C. b c "��c, h d 5 c X- �:GYIGlEt,� -, C- bUl Y c- cc L' \ic co Mr--,1et-A--c� V,JoG K-L Y of r6k C' r"1e . PZ;s L CGit-rt uc/ At rpc7r.L ifery cto7s -, r 1 G�F'1 G hO V=e. .Coti-)cz.r-r)���c � t hi:5 �uUN II - cU5L y -re. r� r ci Cc ccs Cou"n;E. A v i6± cor- A Jv 5©r C-Orn,,)-1 - -bce tru- >�-C r po r ,-- Aa\lc:Qry -T. �t.�► �"�y"� U'J O i'���.G� V E.'Y v �r-� G n ._�1� � ��r�G t,-C,�"�--� Y h•i fe YY'-)4zcl the G-1 6 1 . 1 --he.: ar-A �- *FerCo6 - hctd -the off,-. LLUA� tv -LD ;3p--"K 1ec)r 1 the Advisory rmCorri-� c CQt-)CI —L4 CorL7b-C Ccc v-u-� Dccuy-d OF a-t b(-jrCrl\ Air-PC�r-< 1 J L"� -i�Y ��l� -�O LLOvJ(,►'1 C� 1�C�-t jGi1� : � Z� w C'�.� have -tj1� Leas- QrncLLru't o� GnvY)-1C-YL ' UTA -Lh� oLr� ; 6-nd, 5 Tri �-LC � 1 crvdcp. After r�:'.G�d.t..t,,c ,: t,r^u C!nvcccnmc L—LT- - ' -�.cL -eria- re7por-� e.s he i Flo - _ �c V ���C�- t� ?�o r���5 i C!E.r�cE W� �l b� Y'G��.�.�rC_d ' +o be. rcicCa ca; ?) Verna-( -PaoLs vv cl'Fmb/ c- Ge- cLL ,aLcne -PocL5 are gLLL tc foi nn-)on, Lh1C!lCh - 1 Du--,Iz- th.Q G r-cc t C,--ry�cU Va(/Uq -) a nd, 3) ND r-a ne,r _ CV- enda.;�Cr t�cCt 6�CCt� c�-r. �tczrzL:5 1 CL} �5 �C:l�s C� �a.t't>`✓�s Cr"� (I..ilc�'�'�GLCs . �G.C;.2 L 1 1 T e're- �W"Q5 a. Conco, -El")� a,� r pert . mE �c=�� 6G�t }pcdbLc�ry Gni C�, 4)ovvcvc-r 5 YYk5 bee-n ThGY c LS l O LntcY T C 1-cnCe Cv1C� G-17 - bie. CLVpt-c6dNe:�> 6uicl O'cpar-LLcre-::, are -t�lcjy r-:5 e-n 0- Sacc-Ll ha:-2-,-cqrc-) 0± tt,-Lc cz-Er-port . exr-c-LLerd: p&, b hove. a[wo-(+5 been VVCtL Ul Cccj,-z--r6} �&in-rj, and vn&:�ttnq� G.Yl -4,J-1 LLQ'? e j -j tIAC- y-q--ct--t, C-5 VE" Coprprchef�- -the, —jCOVEC± cy �5 ws \w&orD-. N- :hco-h , CA q)-t�509 G-13 / Appendix H STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN. Governor ' DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RECEIVED BOX 7310 C -AN FRANCISCO. CA 90120 M f(� (, y ' 1 bI 923.0444 WIR 1 a 1986 BUCHANAN FIELD ' March 4 , 1986 CC004-44 . 37 SCH #85042304 CCO04086 I Contra Costa County Hal Wight , Planning Dept . 171 John Glenn Drive ' Concord , CA 94527 ,_Re : FEIR - East Contra Costa County Airport Dear Mr . Wight : ' Caltrans has reviewed the above-referenced document and forwards the following comments : ' 1 . The FEIR does not respond adequately to_ . our comments of November 7, 1985 on the DEIR. Page 6 , the first response , first sentence indicates that there are no current or projected turning movement counts for the intersection of Byron Highway and State ' Route 4 . These counts are necessary. Please see item 2 for more discussion. ' 2. On page 7, the remaining portion of the first response provides some information. It estimates that 60-80 project-generated peak hour trips would enter the State Route 4/Byron- Hwy. intersection in 2005 and continue northbound . This movement would conflict with eastbound traffic on State Route 4 . We recommend that an evaluation of cumulative traffic conditions (existingcounts and - through traffic growth and project-generated traffic and traffic from all other proposed/approved local developments ) at that intersection be made , and that mitigation measures , such as signalization , if needed , be proposed . ' 3 . Response 2 also does not adequately address the above-noted intersection. An intersection analysis is necessary to determine ' whether a road system will work. Volumes on road sections do not provide the information we need . 4 . Sections 15126 and 15130 of the CEQA law requires an evaluation ' of both project and cumulative impacts and proposed mitigation for those impacts . This document has not addressed these issues . ' H-1 CC004086 Page Two , March 4, 1956 Should you have any questions regarding these comments , please contact Charlotte Cosulich of my staff -at (415 ) 557-9431 . Sincerely yours , BURCH C. BACHTOLD District Director ' By ' �J-c z tB WALLACE J. ROTRT District CEQA Coordinator ' ;y H-2 ! - Appendix I (j r t ' CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT „S NOTICE OF DETERMINATION J s 111 4 ' J. P,. Ci.SIQC . C :nty Clerk UJUN T Y EY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT J::A.0 `""'Y t 651 PINE STREET P.O. BOX 951 MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-0095 Telephone: (415) 372- = Contact Person Project Description and Location: ' EAST 'CO.-',"T RA COSTA COU--'-TY 7iP FORT County File #PW 85-43: The project is the proposed construction of a ne%v public use, general aviation airport to serve eastern ' Centra Costa County. Approximately 500 to 700 acres would be acquired for airfield, aircraft parking and runu•av approach protection purposes. Two. intersecting runways weuie be recuired; the longer one having an initial length of 3,300 feet with potential extension to 6,000 feet. Initial development would provide space for about 150 based ' aircraft with potential demand of 400 based aircraft in 20 years. The proposed site is in southeast Contra Costa County, 2.5 miles south of Byron and 1.0 miles west of County Route J4, bounded roughly by Armstrong Road and Byron Hot Springs Road. An existing . ' privately owned airport, Byron A_ irpar-:, occupies part of the site. Brushy Creek traverses, the.site. The Project was (Denied) (Withdrawn). 0 The Project was Approved on ' Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act: EDAn Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified. 0 The Project was encompassed by an Environmental Impact Report previously prepared for A Negative Declaration was issued indicating that preparation of an Environmental Impact Report was not required. 0 Copies of the record of project approval and the Negative Declaration or the final EI R may be examined at the office of the Ccntra Costa County Community Development Department, County Administration Building, North Wing, Fourth Floor, corner of Pine and Escobar Streets, Martinez, California. The Project will not have a significant environmental effect. The Project will have a significant environmental effect. Mitigation measures for identified significant impacts were made a condition of approval, and are included in the attached documents. 0 A statement of overriding considerations was adopted. 0 Findings were adopted pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Date ' - By / Community Development Department Representative AP 20 5/85 I-1