Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10142003 - C16 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS , '' Contra FROM: MAURICE M. SHIU, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR11.......... , . oc DATE: October 14, 2403 /& County 1 SUBJECT: Contra Costa Airports—Authorization to Negotiate Ground Lease Terms and Development of 4.4 Acres of County-Owned Land Near the Buchanan Field Airport, Pacheco Area. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. Recommended Action: APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Public Works Director, or his Designee, to NEGOTIATE long-term ground lease and development terms between the County,as Landlord,and one of two parties that previously submitted development proposals of approximately 4.4 acres of land at the corner of Marsh Drive and Solano Way, near the Buchanan Field Airport. Pacheco area(District IV). II. Fiscal Impact: There is no impact on the General Fund. However, a ground lease could also generate significant sales tax for the County's General Fund. The ground lease is expected to generate up to$125,000 per year in revenue for the Airport Enterprise Fund Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE: + —4tPCOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE i✓A PROVE THER I r SIGNATURE(S): j ACTION OF BOAR f I NOMBER 14, 200I'ROVED AS RECOMMENDED XX OTHER MOTE OF SUPERVISORS I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action xx UNANIMOUS(ABSENT NONE ) taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on AYES: NOES: the date shown. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KF:BL:df ATTESTED: OCTOBER 14, 2003 C:\Word Files\BO\2b03\bold-14ParcelC.doe JOHN SWEETEN,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Orig.Div: Public works(Airports Division) Administrator Contact: Beth Lee,Phone(925)646-5722 cc: County Administrator Auditor-Controller By Deputy Community Development Public Works Director Public Works Accounting Federal Aviation Administration SUBJECT: Contra Costa Airports—Authorization to Negotiate Ground Lease Terms and Development of 4.4 Acres of County-Owned Land Near the Buchanan Field Airport, Pacheco Area. DATE: October 14, 2003 PAGE: 2 Ill. Reasons for Recommendations and Background: Parcel C is a 4.4 acre parcel of land owned by the County and located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Marsh Drive and Solana Way as shown on the attached parcel page. The parcel is under the jurisdiction of the Buchanan Field Airport. The easterly portion of the parcel lies within the Runway Protection Zone of the Airport's Runway 19R,restricting development within this area.The parcel lies both in the County and City of Concord limits, with a majority located within the City. On November 19, 1996, The Board of Supervisors authorized a contract between the County and The Sedway Group (Sedway) to perform a market analysis and assist in marketing of the parcel. The analysis determined that the Runway Protection Zone significantly impacted the development potential and vehicle dealerships were the highest and best use of the site.The Sedway contract included preparation,distribution, and analysis of submittals for a Request for Proposals solicitation for development of Parcel C. On October 19, 1999, the Board of Supervisors authorized the County Public Works Director to negotiate ground lease and development terms with one of two development RFP proposals that were submitted for consideration. The preferred ground lease terms were to be brought back to the Board of Supervisors as a separate consideration. Countystaff negotiated with both parties and during this process one proposal was withdrawn. County staff negotiated with the remaining development interest and, for various reasons, a development and ground lease agreement was not consummated. While the Parcel has had limited marketing in the intervening time, County staff has received numerous inquiries but no real development interest up to recently. In August 2003, the County was sent a development and ground lease proposal from one of the two original development proposals proponents.In addition, the other original development interest may have renewed interest in the parcel. As such, it is recommended that the Public Works Director, or his designee,be reauthorized to negotiate with one of the two original development proponents. IV. Consequences for Neizative Action: Delay in approving the proj ect will result in a delay of developing vacant land at Buchanan Field Airport and may negatively impact the Airport Enterprise Fund and.County General Fund. Or iti5n$f'r3 CD s � � u too, t i { �y•� At t� rr { q a`, r, a t4 r r r „4 r, r r 1exrt�+azra±v, ± , r 4�9. �r 10 Exhibit A BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration March 11, 2003 Prepared for Contra Costa County Public Works Department—Airports Division Prepared by Environmental Science Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT INTITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CEQADN0T3AL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST—.--..l ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED.................................ll mmu --------------------.----.—..---------.l% EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS....................................................l3 IAesthetics................................................ ............................................................l3 Ii. Agricultural Resources.........................................................................................l5 III. Air Quality-----.—.-----.--.--._---..---...---.---.--,lb D/. Biology Resources................................................................................................2] V. Cultural Resources .................. ............................................................................30 VI. and Soils ...................... .................................. .......... ...........................32 VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials........................................................................37 VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality..--.-----..~----...--.--.----.,,4l IX. Land Use and —.--.-----.--..~--,_,,,___,,___.~.^_/45 X. Mineral Resources................................................................................................4d XlNoise........................ .... .— ....... .......---.----.—.---.—..—...—...—/47 XII. Population and Housing.----..---.--.—...--....—.—'—^.~---~. 56 XIII. Public Services.....................................................................................................57 Xl\/ Recreation........... 59 XV. .--.------.--.--.—..—._—.------'.--..60 XVI. Utilities and Service Systems—.--.—.-----.,..—.,—..^---.—..—._~.'62 X\/UL Mandatory Findings of Significance....................... ......................... ..................65 APPENDICES A Summary of Mitigation Measures for this Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration E> Aircraft Emissions Estimates C Toxic Air Contaminant Analysis D Federal Protocol-Level Survey Results for California Red-Legged Frog E Routine Delineation ofthe Waters ofthe United States ]P Results ofthe Records Search from the Northwest Information Center G Aircraft Noise Analysis i� - TABLE OF CONTENTS INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW LIST OF FIGURES lRegional Location Map................. ........................................................................3 2 Project Boundaries .................................................................................................4 3 Current Environment a1the Site.............................................................................5 4 Project Site Plan.................... ................................................................................7 LIST OF TABLES AIR-1 Estimated Operational Emissions for the Project...............................................}8 AIR-2 Project Related Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions............................................2l NOI-1 Noise Levels from On-Site Heavy Duty Equipment.......................................... N0I-2 Typical Commercial Building Construction Noise Levels ................................49 N{}l-3 Sound Exposure Levels in the Vicinity of the Airport............ ..........................5] N(JI-4 Increase bzTim above 65dBAfor Project Aircraft..........................................54 iii __ INITIAL STUDY ANIS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) 1.. Project Title: Buchanan Field Airport Development Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Airport: Keith Freitas Assistant Director of Airports Public Works Department•-Airports division (925)646-5722 Environmental Review: Catherine Kutsuris,Deputy Director, Community Development Department (925)335-1210 e-mail: clouts@cd.co.contra-costa.ca.us 4. Project Location: Buchanan Field Airport,Concord,CA APN No. 125-010-023 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Contra Costa County Public Works Department— Airports Division 550 Sally Ride Drive Concord,CA 94520 6. General Plan Designation:PS—Public/Semi-Public 7. Zoning: U-Unrestricted 8. Description of Project: Project Objective. The proposed project consists of the development of vacant land at Buchanan Field Airport(Airport)in Contra Costa County to accommodate demand at the Airport for additional general aviation(GA)aircraft facilities and services. The proposed project may include some or all of the following project elements: construction of additional hangar and service facilities capable of handling aircraft up to and including the Gulfstream V aircraft;additional aircraft parking,ramp and taxi pavement;a new fuel storage facility; and additional office and support facilities, including 74 automobile parking spaces. 1 Need for the Project. Hangar space in the Bay Area for larger business aircraft is extremely scarce. At several Bay Area airports,demand for hangar space exceeds the supply; available facilities may be limited to tie-downs,obliging aircraft owners to wait for hangar space to become available, an option that is not acceptable to all owners or feasible for all aircraft types. The number of aircraft based at the Airport has grown in the past six years and hangar and office facilities are now at capacity. The proposed project would provide additional hangar space and also accommodate a greater range of aircraft types. It is anticipated that the proposed facility expansion would reach capacity occupancy in about three years. The projected increase in the number of aircraft based at the Airport is expected to generate adequate fuel demand to support the fuel storage and servicing facility that would be constructed as part of the development. The fuel facility would be expandable and could also support additional future increases in operations at the Airport. Project Site.The proposed project would be located at Buchanan Field Airport in Contra Costa County. Buchanan Field Airport is located on a 495-acre site in an unincorporated area of north central Contra Costa County. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the project site. The Airport is adjoined by the cities of Concord and Pleasant Hill, and the unincorporated town of Pacheco. The City of Martinez lies to the northwest. The Airport is bounded by Marsh Drive to the west, State Route 4 to the north,Walnut Creek Flood Control Channel to the east,and Concord Avenue to the south. The Concord City limit is approximately 0.8 miles south and 0.2 miles east of the project site along the southern and eastern boundaries of the Airport. Three mobile home parks are located beyond the western perimeter of the Airport, while commercial uses are located to the south and southeast,residential uses are situated to the east, and vacant land lies to the north. Interstate Highway 680(I-680)is located approximately 0.4 miles beyond the western Airport boundary. The proposed project would be located on approximately 6.2 acres in the central portion of the Airport property, along the western perimeter. Figure 2 shows the boundaries of the project site. The project site, which is owned and operated by the County,is now partially paved and partially undeveloped; the paved area is currently used for general aviation aircraft parking(see Figure 3). This area is designated as the"West Ramp"aircraft parking area. There are 49 existing light(under 12,500 lbs. at maximum capacity)aircraft parking spaces in the area. With implementation of the proposed project, about 30 aircraft currently parked in the area would be relocated to other vacant aircraft parking spaces within the Airport. The site also includes an aircraft hangar maintenance facility and aircraft wash rack. The remaining portion of the site is undeveloped and covered mainly with weedy, seasonal grasses. Figure 3 shows the current environmental conditions at the project site. The project site is surrounded by aviation related uses. It is bound by Sally Ride Drive to the west and Taxiway E to the east. Corporate hangars are located to the south while the area to the north is mostly vacant. The site forms part of the area designated for corporate and specialty FBO services under the Airport Layout Plan(ALP). Specifically,the ALP categorizes the site as "active airfield pavement".The proposed project would be accessible from Sally Ride Drive. Prdiect Description. The proposed project would involve lease of the project site from the County for a period of 30 years and construction of an approximately 54,300 square foot, two-story building, which would house 39,500 square feet of hangar space and 14,800 square feet of office, 2 BANTA ROSA \+, VACAVRLE " �a x .rr spm . a ios J IN > 7 t; L p§\ice 4 e 9N 4C ZL i W. \� . PROJECT r ;: s carne zc+s'� {.\Lrn �� ���`�•>r eeNMallo SITE CONCCIRD t+1 a.r wax i § "'� .:", �.. c ,� nr ? �.,� WALNUT { g Project Location �'�� tea'" # eeae GREEe 5 rx,3 ,s,el� '` a�` <`a kRNn) s '+ j s3•," OAKUNa,` BAN RAMON XA"MO a'. ,.�,al f f L 1 4"Ag,6i a `jam` t k rOil FneGrorowi ( s knew e« fr 14 2 * f(j}� 1* It't11 PART -1r l rte({ll a 5 *a�`' 4 1"/ � YQ Ft v 7��,e J a:.rrn, r 1 t 1a J ! w G' M L'7R tlA " '4 exp^ ,ars _^ da r t r t� �a. fPAITK 0 Al � ny �v� 'y. � 1 f Aa�� �4„,,sr - � �`-� � <o r RTS ; ♦'� k m r Caue+t�, A w+"� u ;.♦ � a � Wv p✓+.' BB�BW x r� <�.� �v'tXaB ✓ ,r �. �a�AXnAJh AA A..z e _ A fes✓ w{.'�°i 43`'� ..- ... �.. � i^^^" �� LA �a s�6✓ � dy fk � ` o PO eu..w ° � `�• r.au �` t"` "� ..,, S ::�, tl#.4i3L47 VAttEY Jra �'/ � � -?'(�1. yd sa�'`M' ��, < V �`� S +'4K.{nR��•".`�.Ff.�? k i arm♦ � �q,l-- p J �y�,� m,, �` �,q. �� �'a �d �� t'`�-'..�y,y� ' atsvN+'CM f`- -. � d� �ro a;r "E`, 1:k♦ �.' � �� d,� '�r°`f,`�; '�Q 4 i'�y . CtN.a E v�+sMm i-ter. SUNVALLEY09 Z-1 L 14L MALL t f p y x ilk �A'4P r v~ `l f ?"w c+^teR 9e�' oArrtab�+Jµ_ ♦fir' °5 m x y;�xip ��++(J,��`[��(p,�y i Li.r.I-11✓I. NT."'I Ilk AW, tet°. ` ♦ rr£.r Al ♦ a R YY C F R 6yya b� 1 R 4 il t lY*i iX'FA>r ✓X it � .,,ftto```� a � HILA 4... sr 1 } o- tiAtW.�t� �� .j.yFiv � ♦e � t �pd f� f+ off' _ a .« c 1 db:�eo-o a F�Y Jv AAAIA N y� �'r Op� &t Y` ,♦ V $N� Y a a A p. 00 f/ <N. C 0 22 :. Fs *�y.tr!bYw �•,/,w44> 4 _.7-7..,... Feet _. Jn �`� ap 1.a,1 i� ♦f �'< �r� r qP M Qv cr.@,�r + aN "i Buchanan Field Airport Development Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ■ SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates Figure 1 Project Location @ig ✓ ♦ er a s ti y�+. "'�" '�'•—•� � tit_ � M i"Y k �J ( � � .w VA E 4 1 $ ht..iiw r". [ ! E a . �trrretery a , low 40 11MO (4 �,yq ._,.., ' rwas Pro �;R Project Boundary cow" , t f ti T ¢� Go" a 0 1400 4e ^ Feet � s Buchanan Field Airport Development Project Initial StudyJMitigated Negative Declaration ■ SOURCE: USG5,Walter E.Eagle&Associates,Inc. FIg11rC' 2 Project Boundary n +' A f ZI CC AX 3Y S y R (�L a m shop and service space.The 6.2-acre site would also be developed to contain approximately 300,000 square feet of parking ramp and taxi space as well as 8,000 square feet of fuel storage and servicing facilities (see Figure 4). The provision of a hangar as part of the project would increase the number of aircraft based at the Airport and consequently result in an increase in aircraft operations at the.Airport.The number of aircraft that can be based at the facility would depend upon the type and size of the aircraft,but is expected to be in the order of 12— 15 aircraft. The facility would be capable of servicing up to and including the Gulfstream V aircraft.Based on current demand, an increase of approximately 356 operations per month due the proposed project is anticipated.This translates to approximately 1,872 annual operations or 6 operations per day that can be attributed to the proposed project.In 2401, the activity level at Buchanan Field Airport was 143,649 operations per year(ALUP,2000). The 8,000 square foot fuel storage area would have the capacity to store approximately 52,000 gallons of jet fuel, 32,000 gallons of aviation gasoline,and 1,000 gallons of vehicular gasoline. At build-out,the storage area would house two 20,000-gallon tanks and one 12,000-gallon tank for jet fuel,one 12,000-gallon tank for aviation gasoline and one 1,000-gallon tank for automobile gasoline.The fuel storage facility would be enclosed by an 8 feet high concrete block retaining wall with a sloped berm. Finally,the project would contain 74 parking spaces. The hangar portion of the building would encompass a 330-foot by 304-foot space;the hangar structure would be approximately 38 feet high with two 29-foot tall door openings located along the eastern fagade of the building facing the parking ramp and taxi space.The entrance to the facility would be located along the western building fagade(facing Sally Ride Drive). The proposed project would allow the expansion of services at the Airport to include additional office and aircraft hangar rentals, sale of jet fuel, aviation gasoline,aviation supplies,auto gasoline for rental vehicles,oils and lubricants, and aircraft parts, as well as aircraft maintenance, aircraft charter services,auto rental,and:aircraft cleaning and detailing services.Future activities at the proposed project may also include aircraft sales,leasing and management. The project would be constructed over a period of approximately 8 to 10 months.The project would implement all Best Management Practices typically used for construction in Contra Costa County. This Initial Study addresses potential environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the project,including construction of the proposed development and necessary grading and building permits, as well as any other discretionary actions required by Contra Costa County. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting.As described in the Project Description, above,land uses surrounding the airport include mobile home parks located beyond the western perimeter of the airport,commercial uses located to the south and southeast,residential uses to the east and vacant land to the north.Land uses immediately adjacent to the project site are primarily aviation related. The project site is bounded by Sally Ride Drive to the west and Taxiway E to the east. Corporate hangars are located to the south while the area to the north is mostly vacant. 6 _ X � � a b U .Q O � a / � 1 / / 1 1 S b hNIS3M 1l IISIX3 1 153M 9NI251X3 ..... .. znr....... • c ag' �'✓� U rr�i�x.. O4 � J 6 10. Other Agencies Whose Approval Is Required: Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD)The project sponsor would be required to demonstrate compliance with Regulation 2(Permits),Rule 1 (General Requirements) with respect to portable equipment unless exempt under Rule 2-1-105 (Exemption,Registered Statewide Portable Equipment);demonstrate compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 8 (Organic Compounds),Rule 3(Architectural Coatings);and demonstrate compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 8(Organic Compounds),Rule 15 (Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts).The fuel tanks proposed as part of the project would be required to demonstrate compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rules 55 and 7. California Department_of Fish and Game(CDFG)A pre-construction survey would include the examination of ground squirrel burrows on the project site,as well as within a 500 foot radius of the site, for occupancy by burrowing owls. If burrowing owls are found to be using burrows on-site or within a 250 foot radius of the site during breeding season and 150 feet of the site during other times,consultation with USFWS and CDFG would be initiated to determine the most appropriate and feasible measures(see Mitigation Measure BIO-1). In addition,CDFG may require the project proponent to enter into a Streambed Alteration Agreement prior to project implementation due to the fact that project construction will result in the fill of portions of two potentially jurisdictional drainage ditches(see Corps approval requirements below). Contra Costa County Health Department-Hazardous Materials Division The California Health and Safety Code requires a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for facilities that handle more than 55 gallons of lubricating oil or other liquid hazardous materials. The Hazardous Materials Division of the Contra Costa County Health Department would administer and approve this plan for the proposed project. The project would require completion of Contra Costa County's Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites Statement of Certification of Compliance for review by the County's Health Services Department prior to initiation of construction. Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB)The project would require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification or a waiver from the RWQCB prior to project construction or earthmoving activities. The project sponsor would notify the RWQCB prior to beginning and upon completion of construction. The applicant will need a stormwater General Construction Permit(including a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)from the RWQCB. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(Corps)The proposed project will result in the permanent fill of portions of two excavated drainage ditches(for a total estimated fill of 0.021 acre)which may be subject to Corps jurisdiction as seasonal wetlands. This activity would require a permit from the Corps under sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act.This activity could take place under NWP 39,Residential, Commercial, and Institutional Developments and would be subject to conditions specific to that permit, as well as the General Conditions applied to all NWPs. Under NWP 39,no pre-construction notification would be required. However,depending on construction details and the presence of water in the ditches during construction,authorization under NWP 33, Temporary Construction, Access, and Dewatering,may also be required and this NWP does require pre-construction notification of the Corps. As noted above,the project would require a 8 Section 401 'Water Quality Certification or waiver from the RWQCB in order to proceed under NWP 39 and would require post-construction notification of the Corps. Depending on the elements of the project that are finally selected for construction, a Land Use Permit may be required. Relationship of Proposed Project to Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Study: The Contra Costa Board of Supervisors adopted the Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan Study ("Master Plan")in 1990. The potential environmental impacts of the Master Plan, and of certain associated access and circulation improvements proposed, were evaluated in an Environmental Impact Report(EIR)certified in 1990. The Master Plan was evaluated for purposes of National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA)compliance in an Environmental Assessment(EA)and Finding of No Significant Impact(FONSI)issued by the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA). The 1990 Master Plan comprises projects proposed both to improve existing facilities and address existing operational constraints at the Airport and to accommodate projected increases in aviation activity at the Airport through 2010. Airfield improvements recommended in the Master Plan include a new taxiway as well as widening and/or realignment of existing taxiways and enhancement of existing airfield operational capabilities through the establishment of a precision instrument approach on Runway 19R,nonprecision instrument approaches on Runways IL and 32R and installation of other navigational,control and lighting systems. Landside development projects include a new 25,000 gross square foot(gsf)airline passenger terminal,additional aircraft parking apron,a 120,000 gallon capacity aircraft fuel storage and distribution facility and a new Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting facility. While certain of the 1990 Master Plan projects were designed to remedy then existing facility limitations or to enhance the efficiency of Airport operations,the need for many of the Master Plan projects was determined by the demand forecasts and aviation activity projections for future years upon which the plan was based. Forecasting in aviation is a complex,inexact and uncertain procedure because the demand for aviation services is subject to a very large number of factors that interact in complex ways and because the economic,regulatory and technological factors that determine how demand will be met are equally complicated and difficult to predict,the more so the farther the forecast horizon extends into the future. Thus,the Master Pian projected that in 2000 total aviation activity at the Airport would be 266,600 operations under the"constrained"forecast and 272,600 operations under the "optimized"forecast. In fact, total actual aviation activity at the Airport was about 237,000 operations in 1999 and only 143,649 operations in 2001,due mainly to the relocation of a major helicopter operator. Equally important, whereas the Master Plan projected that by 2000 there would be at least 5,100 air carrier passenger operations and 126,000 air carrier enplanements annually at the Airport,and an additional 4,300 commuter passenger operations and 32,000 commuter enplanements annually,in actuality no air carrier or commuter airlines operated at the Airport in 2000.1 i Under the"optimized"forecast,the passenger activity projections were higher: 8,800 air carrier operations(217,000 enplanements)and 6,600 commuter operations 49,000 enplanements). 9 For purposes of this Initial Study,the proposed project is treated as a project generally consistent with,but independent of, the Master Plan and thus requiring separate evaluation and consideration for approval by the County. As discussed,the Master Plan was completed 12 years ago and the facility limitations and forecasts of future activity that then determined the plan's purpose and need are now subject to review and revision. In addition, it is doubtful the Master Plan, even if not in need of updating and revision,can be construed to provide for the proposed project. While the Master Plan noted generally that"[a]dditional space will be needed for expansion in the future" and also that the "emphasis in westside general aviation development should be on hangars [including `executive' hangars and corporate and/or specialty hangars]", there is insufficient specificity in the Master Plan to apply its provisions to the present development proposal or to suggest that the proposal was in any meaningful way contemplated when the County adopted the Master Plan. Iii addition to the general nature of its consideration of development,the Master Plan plainly did not contemplate development on the proposed site;rather,the Master Plan designated the proposed project site as"active airfield pavement". For these reasons,the County does not consider this development proposal part of the Master Plan as "a larger undertaking or a larger project",nor does it consider the proposal to be an"individual project"that"is a necessary precedent for action on"the Master Plan as a larger,connected project or that"commits"the County to implementing all or part of the Master Plan(CEQA Guidelines, Section 15165). All of the Master Plan projects can be implemented with or without implementation of the proposal and the proposal can be implemented with or without implementation of any of the Master Plan projects. Because the County does not consider the proposed project to be part of the Master Plan, neither does the County consider the EIR prepared and certified for the Master flan to exempt the project from CEQA review or necessarily to satisfy any of the CEQA requirements that may be applicable to the project. Considered on its own merits,the County has determined that the project is subject to CEQA;that the project may have the potential to result in significant impacts on the environment; and that preparation of an Initial Study is accordingly required. On the basis of the analysis contained in the present Initial Study,the County has further determined that with the mitigation measures proposed as part of the project and identified in the Initial Study, all potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project would be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore,the County proposes to adopt a(Mitigated)Negative Declaration for the proposed project. Relationship of Proposed Project to Buchanan Field Airport Layout Plan(ALP):The site forms part of the area designated for corporate and specialty FBO services under the Airport Layout Plan(ALP). Specifically,the ALP categorizes the site as"active airfield pavement".The FAA has approval authority over the Airport Layout Plan and any modifications to it. The FAA is currently in the process of reviewing the consistency of the proposed project with the approved ALP. 10 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the fallowing pages. Aesthetics Q Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑Geology/Soils ® Hazards/Hazardous Materials ]Hydrology/Water Quality []Land Use/Planning [�Mineral Resources E Noise ❑Population/Housing Public Services ❑Recreation ❑Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 1I DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a ❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact"or"potentially ❑ significant unless mitigated"impact on the environment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,because [❑ all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. Catherine Kutsuris,Deputy Director Community Development Department Date 12 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS CEQA requires that an explanation of all answers except"No Impact"answers be provided along with this checklist,including a discussion of ways to mitigate any significant effects identified. As defined here,a significant effect is considered a substantial adverse effect. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact IngMorated Impact ImRact. I.AESTHETICS —Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ® ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not limited to, trees,rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ❑ [] ® ❑ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ❑ ❑ ❑ Comments a,b,c)The project site is located in the west central portion of Buchanan Field Airport in Contra Costa County. The Airport is designated as"Public Semi-Public"by the Contra Costa County General Plan to reflect its aviation use.The project site is bordered by Sally Ride Drive to the west and Taxiway E to the east. Corporate hangars are located to the south while the area to the north is mostly vacant, with some aircraft tie-down areas.Long-range views of Mount Diablo to the east are visible from the site and also to residents of the nearby mobile home park along Marsh Drive. The tank farm of Valero refinery is visible to the north. Westerly views of the distant hillside are also visible from the project site. The proposed project would result in a visual change to the project site because it would result in construction of an approximately 30 foot-tall two-story, 51,000 square foot building and associated surface parking on a currently vacant,but paved site that is being used for aircraft parking. However, the project would be located in an area that has already been developed for airport uses. The architectural style and scale of the proposed project would be compatible with the general character of the surrounding area, and other existing"warehouse-type"buildings. The project would be visible from public right-of-ways that include Sally Ride Drive,Marsh Drive, Buchanan Field Road and Center Avenue.The proposed project would be constructed within the already-developed area of the airport. Because the proposed development would occur within the existing airport footprint,further development would visually relate to the existing structures surrounding the project site and would not obstruct predominant visual elements of the area that include views to Mount Diablo,the East Bay hills and the vast expansiveness of the adjacent open 13 or lightly developed areas. The architecture of the proposed building would compliment the architecture of other existing buildings in the vicinity. In addition, the project would not substantially interfere with views of other businesses in the vicinity. While the project would result in a change to the visual quality of the project site, the proposed building and parking would not degrade the visual character of quality of the site or its surroundings. The proposed project would not be located near a California Scenic Highway. State Route 4 (SR-4)from the eastern portal of the Caldecott Tunnel to I-580 is designated as a California Scenic Highway,but is about 0.75 miles northwest of the project site at its closest point.The segment of SR-4 north of the Airport and the segment of SR-242 east of the Airport are also designated as scenic highways in the Contra Costa County General Plan. However, since these segments are more than a mile from the closest points on the project site,the proposed project would not substantially affect the scenic value of these highways. d) The proposed project would include fixed exterior lighting typical of aircraft hangar and parking spaces to highlight the ramp and parking areas as well as the surface parking lot. Lighting would also be located at parking entrance points,to promote safety. All lighting installed at the project site would match existing lighting at the existing hangars and would be in compliance with all applicable FAA regulations and local building codes. The applicant would be required to submit a detailed exterior lighting plan to the County for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. All exterior lighting would be "task-oriented"(i.e. directed on-site)and would not result in excessive glare. Therefore,the project would not result in adverse light or glare impacts to the surrounding area. Sources Project Description and Plans Site Review 14 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No act Inco[Dorated Impact Impact II.AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES --Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use? ❑ © ❑ 0 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? ❑ c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 Comments The project site is designated by the California Department of Conservation as Urban and Built-Up Land,which is residential land with a density of at least six units per ten-acre parcel, and includes land used for industrial and commercial purposes and urban infrastructure. The project would therefore have no impact on agricultural resources.The proposed project would not convert any prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance. No part of the project site has an agricultural zoning or is under a Williamson Act contract.The project would not result,directly or indirectly, in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. a) The U.S. Department of Agriculture classifies most airport property as Urban Land although some portions of the property have specific soil classifications.The proposed project will not involve conversion of prime farmland,unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance. b) No part of the project site property has agricultural zoning or is under a Williamson Act contract. e) The project would not result,directly or indirectly, in the conversion of farmland to non- agricultural use. Sources California Department of Conservation,Contra Costa County Important Farmland 2000,2000. Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County General Plan:Land Use and Transportation Element, July 1996. Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County General Plan: Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element,July 1996. is Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No linpact Incorporated fact impact 111.AIR QUALITY--Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ❑ ❑ b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ® ❑ ® �] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ Comments The study area for the analysis of air quality is the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin(Bay Area). Air basin is a geographic area defined by the California Air Resources Board for air quality planning purposes. Bay Area comprises all of Alameda,Contra Costa,Marin,Napa, San Francisco,San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties and the southern portions of Solano and Sonoma Counties. Because air quality can be both a local and a regional issue,potential effects to the entire air basin are considered during impact analysis in addition to local impacts to surrounding land uses. Air quality is regulated through federal, state,and local ambient air quality standards and emissions limits for individual sources of air pollutants. Federal and state air quality standards have been established for six ambient air pollutants,primarily to protect human health and welfare.The six "criteria air pollutants" for which federal and state ambient standards have been established are ozone(03), carbon monoxide(CO),nitrogen dioxide.(NO2),sulfur dioxide(SO2),suspended particulate matter(PM-10 and PM-2.5),and lead.2 Pursuant to the 1990 federal Clean Air Act Amendments and the California Clean Air Act,air basins have been classified as either"attainment" or"non-attainment" for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the national and state standards had been achieved.3 The.Bay Area is considered to be 2 Eased on numerous epidemiological studies and other health-and engineering-related information,in 1997 the EPA decided to maintain current PM-10 standards and establish new standards for fine particulate matter(PM-2.5). 3 Since monitoring for PM-2.5 began in 1998,air basins will not be classified with respect to the new national PM-2.5 standard until 2000 or later. 16 "nonattainment"with respect to the state and national ozone standards and the state PM-10 standard. The Bay Area is "attainment"or"unclassified"for all other state and national standards. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD)is the agency empowered to regulate air pollutant emissions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.BAAQMD has published CEQA Guidelines,which identify thresholds of significance for determining if a development plan or project would be considered to have a significant impact on air quality. a,c) As mentioned earlier,the Bay Area is currently designated as a nonattainment area for the state and national ozone standards and for the state respirable particulate matter(PM-10)standard.The San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-Hour National Ozone Standard and the Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan have been prepared to address ozone nonattainment issues.No PM-10 plan has been prepared or is required under the State Air Quality Planning Law. Both the federal and state ozone plans rely heavily upon stationary source control measures set forth in BAAQMD's Rules and Regulations.The overall stationary source control program that is embodied by BAAQMD Rules and Regulations has been developed such that new stationary sources can be allowed to operate in the Bay Area without obstructing the goals of the regional air quality plans. With respect to the construction phase of the project,applicable BAAQMD regulations would relate to portable equipment(e.g.,Portland concrete batch plants, and gasoline-or diesel-powered engines used for power generation,pumps,compressors,pile drivers,and cranes),architectural coatings,and paving materials.To ensure compliance with applicable BAAQMD requirements,the project sponsor would be required to demonstrate compliance with BAAQMD regulations. Specifically,these include: Regulation 2(Permits), Rule 1(General Requirements)with respect to portable equipment unless exempt under Rule 2-1-105 (Exemption,Registered Statewide Portable Equipment);demonstrate compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 8(Organic Compounds),Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings);and demonstrate compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 8 (Organic Compounds),Rule 15 (Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts). With respect to the operational-phase of the project,the proposed stationary sources that would be subject to BAAQMD's Rules and Regulations are the fuel storage tanks. The project sponsor would be required to demonstrate compliance with applicable BAAQMD requirements. Specifically,these include Regulation 8 (Organic Compounds), Rule 5 (Storage of Organic Liquids); and Regulation 8,Rule 7(Gasoline Dispensing Facilities). Long term emissions associated with the proposed project would primarily be from the increase in the number of aircraft using Buchanan Field airport,related activities such as fueling and maintenance of aircraft as well as minimal increase in emissions from project related motor vehicle trips. Emissions from area sources such as space heating and landscaping are also expected to be minimal. BAAQMD has established a project level significance threshold of 80 pounds per day and 15 tons per year for Reactive Organic Gases(ROG),?nitrogen Oxides(NOx)and carbon monoxide(CO)emissions. Projects that lead to an increase in emissions greater than the significance thresholds would be considered to have a significant impact on the air quality of the 17 region and could conflict or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan for the region. Aircraft emissions from the project were estimated using expected project-related aircraft activity data provided by the applicant and the FAA-approved aircraft engine emissions factors (See Appendix B).The increase in average daily motor vehicle trips due to the project would be approximately 36 trips per day. Motor vehicle emissions were estimated using California Air Resources Beard's(GARB)URBEMIS emission inventory model. Project related emissions are summarized in Table AIR-1. The table also shows BAAQMD's significance thresholds for projects. As shown in the table,operational emissions associated with the project would not be expected to generate criteria pollutant emissions greater than BAAQMD's thresholds of significance. Therefore project emissions would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans for the Bay area. b) The project would be located in the San Francisco Bay Area,a region that experiences occasional violations of ozone and particulate matter(PM-10)standards.PM-10 is particulate matter that is 10 microns or less in diameter(a micron is one-millionth of a meter). It represents the fraction of particulate matter that can be inhaled into the air passages and can cause adverse health effects. Prior to the mid-1990s,the Bay Area also experienced occasional violations of the eight-hour average carbon monoxide standard. The regional monitoring network no longer records violations of the carbon monoxide standard but the region is designated as a"maintenance"area since it previously had"nonattainment status". TABLE AIR-1 ESTIMATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS FOR THE PROJECT Significance Project Threshold Emissions (lbsJday) Reactive Organic Gases(ROG) 5.2 80 Nitrogen Oxides(NOx) 4.3 80 Carbon Monoxide(CO) 22.7 550' This number is a screening threshold The project would affect local pollutant concentrations in two ways. First,during project construction,the project would affect local particulate concentrations by generating dust. Over the long term,the project would result in an increase in regional emissions due to related aircraft and motor vehicle activity associated with the operations that would occupy the project site. The increase in motor vehicle trips due to the project would be minimal and would not substantially increase carbon monoxide concentrations along the local road network. Evaporative emissions from the fuel tanks are also expected to be minimal given that the design and construction of the 18 tanks would be in compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 8,Rules 55 and 7. There are no other stationary sources proposed at the project site. The project would be constructed over a period of approximately 8 to 10 months.Demolition of existing pavement,grading and excavation would occur over the first two months. Project construction would generate substantial amounts of dust(including PM-10)from"fugitive" sources, such as earthmoving activities and vehicle travel over unpaved surfaces,and lesser amounts of other criteria pollutants from the operation of heavy equipment construction machinery (primarily diesel operated)and construction worker automobile trips(primarily gasoline operated.). Construction-related dust emissions would vary from day to day,depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil,and the weather. As a result,local visibility and Plbl-10 concentrations may be adversely affected on a temporary basis during the construction period. In addition, larger dust particles would settle out of the atmosphere close to the construction site resulting in a potential soiling nuisance for adjacent uses. For construction-phase impacts,the Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD) recommends that significance be based on a consideration of the control measures to be implemented(BAAQMD, 1999). generally,if appropriate treasures are implemented to reduce fugitive dust,then the residual impact can be presumed to be less than significant. Without these measures,the impact is generally considered to be significant,particularly if sensitive land uses (e.g.,residential)are located in the project vicinity. In this instance,residential uses are located to the west of the project site,and thus,without appropriate dust mitigation,the effect could be significant. Construction activities would also result in the emission of other criteria pollutants from equipment exhaust,construction-related vehicular activity and construction worker automobile trips.Emission levels for construction activities would vary depending on the number and type of equipment, duration of use,operation schedules,and the number of construction workers. Criteria pollutant emissions of ROG and NOx from these emission sources would incrementally add to the regional atmospheric loading of ozone precursors during project construction. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recognize that construction equipment emits ozone precursors,but indicate that such emissions are included in the emission inventory that is the basis for regional air quality plans. Therefore, construction emissions are not expected to impede attainment or maintenance of ozone standards in the Bay Area(BAQMD, 1999).The impact of ozone precursor-emissions would therefore be less than significant. With respect to the operational-phase of the project,the proposed fuel tanks would be subject to BAAQMD's Rules and Regulations.Emissions associated with the proposed project would primarily be from the increase in the number of aircraft using Buchanan Field airport and the associated increase in motor vehicle trips.Emissions from area sources such as space heating and landscaping are expected to be minimal.As explained in lila, operational emissions from the project were estimated using emission factors from the FAA approved EDMS model and the emission inventory:model LJRBEMIS. The results shown in Table AIR-1 indicate that long term emissions associated with the project would not exceed the BAAQMD's thresholds of significance. 19 Therefore project emissions would not lead to or contribute to an existing air quality violation and no significant environmental effect would occur. d) Construction activities could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, principally PM-10,from fugitive dust sources.The nearest sensitive receptors are the mobile homes located to west of the project site beyond the western perimeter of the airport. However, with the implementation of a dust abatement program(Mitigation Measure AIR-1, above),this impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Carbon monoxide emissions from the project related traffic would be well below the screening threshold of 550 pounds per day recommended by the BAAQMD(see Table Alit-1).Therefore this would be a less than significant impact on sensitive receptors located along roadways leading up to the project site. Besides criteria air pollutants, the California Air Resources Board has identified a number of toxic air contaminants(TACs)that can be released from mobile and stationary sources. Pollutants are considered TACs if they are suspected human carcinogens,or if they can produce non-cancer health outcomes from either acute or chronic exposure. Carcinogenic and adverse non- carcinogenic human health effects potentially associated with exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs)emitted a result of project construction and/or operations are a potential public health issue. Although TACs are believed to have health impacts,ambient air quality standards for the pollutants have not been established. There are hundreds of different types of TACs, with varying degrees of toxicity. The potential health risks from exposure to emissions of TACs related to the Buchanan Field Airport Development Project were evaluated(See Appendix C for details of the toxics analysis). The incremental risk of contracting cancer and the risk of adverse health effects from exposure to non-carcinogenic substances emitted from the project are reported. The following discussion focuses on TACs that are a part of the VOCs and not PM-10 because of the lack of existing information on aircraft particulate emissions. ARB has published weight fractions of specific air toxics found in aircraft VOC emissions in their report—Identification of VOC Species Profiles. TACs from VOC emissions associated with increased aircraft activity due to the project at Buchanan Field are reported in Table AIR-2. These emissions were estimated using the ARB speciation profiles for aircraft as well as projected increases in aircraft activity at Buchanan Field due to the proposed project.These emissions are products of incomplete combustion(PTCs)from combustion sources,or they are evaporative emissions. Table 2 also shows the trigger levels for the listed TACs, as established by BAAQMD.TAC emissions from the proposed project would be well below the applicable BAAQMD trigger levels for each pollutant. These trigger levels correspond to a cancer risk of 1 in a million,assuming conservative dispersion conditions. Assuming that emissions at the trigger levels would result in a cancer risk of one in a million,the total incremental risk from carcinogenic toxics due to the project was estimated by scaling the TAC emissions from the project to the BAAQMD trigger levels. The incremental risk was estimated to be 0.162 in a million. Using this same approach for non-carcinogens,the HI from project-related non-carcinogens would be 0.039. These values are 20 well below the 10 in a million threshold for carcinogens and the HI of 1 for non-carcinogens recommended by the BAAQMD. Therefore the TAC emissions and related health risk impacts of the project would be less than significant. TABLE AIR-2 PROJECT RELATED TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT EMISSIONS Emissions SourceBAA{ MD Trigger Level" Emissions by Pollutant Category (lbs per year)b Carcinogens Acetaldehyde 72 0.31 Benzene 6.7 0.13 1,3 Butadiene 1.1 0.12 Formaldehyde 33 1.01 Non-Carcinogens Acrolein 3.9 0.15 Chlorobenzene 13,500 0.00 Ethyl Benzene 193,000 0.01 Hexane 83,000 0.00 Naphthalene 270 0.07 Phenol 8,690 0.02 Propionaldehyde NA 0.06 Styrene 135,000 0.03 Toluene 38,600 0.04 Xylenes 57,900 0.03 a Trigger levels correspond to a risk of I in a million for carcinogenic TACs and a Hazard Index of 1(one)for non-carcinogenic TACs. b Estimates based on weight fractions of specific air toxics from aircraft and on-road motor vehicles specified in ARB report: Identification of VOC Species Profiles,August 1991,and unpublished revisions to those profiles. NA=Not Available SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates,2003. Mitigation Measure AIR-1: During construction,the project sponsor shall require the construction contractor to implement the following dust abatement program. This program reflects BAAQMD recommendations for construction sites,such as the project site,that are smaller than 4 acres in size. Only about 1 acre of the project site is currently unpaved. • Water all construction areas at least twice a day. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave,apply water three times daily,or apply(non-toxic)soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. 21 • Sweep daily (with water sweepers)all paved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily(with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. With implementation of these mitigation measures, particulate emissions related to project construction would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. e) The proposed project would not include development of the types of land uses generally associated with potential odor impacts. Sources Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD),Proposed Final San Francisca Bay Area Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the National Carbon Monoxide Standard,July 1994. Bay Area Air Quality Management District,Bay Area `97 Clean Air Plan, October 1997. Bay Area Air Quality Management District,BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines:Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, December 1999. Bay Area Air Quality Management District,Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan, December 2000. California Air Resources Board, California Surface Wind Climatology, 1954. California Air Resources Board,State and National Area Designations Maps of California, 2000. Emissions Dispersion Modeling System(EDMS) 22 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues(and supporting information sources): (tact Incorporation Im ap ct impact IV.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES--Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and.Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal, etc.)through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption, or other means? ❑ ] z ❑ d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [, ❑ ❑ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ❑ © ❑ f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation flan,Natural Community Conservation Ilan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ Z Comments a) The.project site is located in the valley formed by Walnut Creek, with the confluence of Grayson and Walnut creeks located approximately 1 mile to the north.The site is currently occupied by an existing asphalt lot that is used for aircraft parking and an undeveloped area covered in non-native grassland.'There are buildings to the south,undeveloped non-native grasslands to the north and west,and airport runways to the east. Topography is generally flat, with an abrupt drop in elevation of approximately six to ten feet at the northern end of the project site. The non-native grasslands on-site are dominated by Italian ryegrass(L,olium multiflorum),wild barley(Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum), and ripgut brome(Bromus diandrus), with cut-leaved geranium(Geranium dissectum)and hairy vetch(Vicia villosa ssp. villosa)also prevalent.Two ditches that drain the asphalt area run along the northern edge of the project site. Vegetation in the 23 lower lying area between the ditches is dominated by non-native grasses,as well as the native salt grass (Distichlis spicata), with spearscale(Atriplex triangularis), alkali mallow(Malvella leprosa), and curly dock(Rumex crispus)also present. Wildlife observed in the vicinity of the proposed project site include Pacific chorus frog, western fence lizard(Sceloporus occidentalis),black-tailed jackrabbit(L.epus califomicus),California ground squirrel(Spermophilus beecheyi),red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoenicius),Western meadowlark(Stumella neglecta), and mourning dove(Zenaida macroura)(ESA 2002).These are all common species typical of the open grassland and wetland habitat types found on-site.There were several active ground squirrel burrows in the grasslands located in the northwestern portion of the site. Due to the site's history of development,past and ongoing vegetation management practices,and the lack of suitable habitat, it is unlikely that the proposed project will have direct or indirect adverse effects on any special status¢plant species. Many of the plants listed by the California Natural Diversity Data Base(CNDDB 2002),as occurring in the area are restricted to habitat that either never occurred or no longer occurs on-site. In addition,a number of species are noted as having been extirpated from the area(CNPS 2002). Vegetation in the area has been subjected to repeated and ongoing disturbance. Current airport vegetation management in the project area includes mowing at least twice annually and the application of herbicides and broad-leaf pre- emergents for the control of noxious weeds(Kenton Coyle,personal communication,2002).These practices are likely to preclude the establishment of most,if not all, special status plants that might occur in the area. The combination of grassy areas with mammal burrows and seasonal wetlands provides potential habitat for four special status wildlife species known to occur in this portion of Contra Costa County(CNDDB 20112): California red-legged frog(Rana aurora draytonii,a federally threatened species), California tiger salamander(Ambystoma californiense,a federal and state species of special concern),western pond turtle(Clemmys marmorata marmorata, a federal and state species of special concern), and western burrowing owl(Athene cunicularia hypugea,a federal and state species of special concern). The ditches that provide aquatic habitat on-site typically dry out by June and vegetation within them is managed annually with herbicides and every several years by manual removal(Kenton Coyle,personal communication,2002). Therefore,the habitat they provide is not optimal for aquatic organisms,although Pacific chorus frog(Pseudacris regilla)adults and larvae,as well as mosquito fish(Gambusia sp.) were observed in the two ditches along the northern edge of the project site. A federal protocol-level survey was conducted for California red-legged frog(CRLF) in May 2002 and results concluded that CRLF were not present on-site(ESA May 2002a). The 4 Species are accorded"special status"because of their recognized rarity or vulnerability to habitat loss or population decline. Some are formally listed and receive specific protection defined in federal or state endangered species legislation.Other species have no formal listing status as threatened or endangered,but are designated as"rare"or"sensitive"on the basis of policies adopted by state resource agencies or organizations with acknowledged expertise,such as the California Native Plant Society. 24 results of the survey are includes as Appendix D of this document. Given the similarity in habitat requirements between CRLF,California tiger salamander(CTS),and western:pond turtle(WPT),it is considered highly unlikely that these last two species are present on-site.In addition, if CTS were using habitat on-site,their larvae should have been detected during surveys for CRLF. Although WPT have been documented from the Walnut Creek Flood Control channel on the eastern side of the airport(Hall 1997),none were detected during the initial site survey,the surveys for CRLF,or during the wetland delineation,which combine for a total of six site visits where aquatic habitat was examined. The combination of grasslands with mammal burrows present provides potential habitat for western burrowing owl.However,these birds prefer to use burrows in areas with short vegetation and the grasses in the proposed project area are generally not mowed until lune or later(Kenton Coyle, personal communication,2002).The fact that grasses are kept long until well into the burrowing owl breeding season, which can run from early April to mid-June in California(Haug et al. 1993),would make it unlikely that burrowing owls would nest in the project area. In addition, burrowing owls are not known to inhabit Buchanan Field(CNDDB 2002;Kenton Coyle,personal communication, 2002;Fall :1997).Finally, although protocol4evel burrowing owl surveys have not been carried out,all ground squirrel burrows on-site were inspected during each site survey conducted in 2002.Evidence of an occupied burrow typically includes excrement,regurgitated food pellets,feathers,and prey remains at the mouth of the burrow(California Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993). No evidence of occupation was documented during the May 2002 surveys and this fact, combined with the marginal suitability of the surrounding habitat,make it unlikely that this species is using the project site. However,there is potential for occupation of the site by burrowing owls in the future due to favorable changes in the surrounding habitat.Therefore,this would be considered a potentially significant impact. As required under Mitigation Measure BIO- 1,'a final survey for evidence of occupied burrows would be conducted prior to construction;this would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. There is no habitat attractive to special status migratory bird species, such as a riparian corridor,in the immediate vicinity of the project site and there are no trees suitable for nesting birds on-site. However,on-site grasslands provide foraging habitat for special status raptors, such as white-tailed kite(Elanus leucurus,a California fully protected species).The project would result in the reduction of foraging habitat for such birds but, since the project site does not represent a highly productive source of prey,nor does it constitute a sole source of locally available foraging habitat, this impact is considered to be less than significant. Non-native grassland is often used by ground-nesting birds,such as California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia,a California species of special concern)and meadowlark (a native species protected under Sections 3503 and 3800 of the California Fish and Game Code).Although there is no documented evidence of special status ground nesting birds using the project site for nesting purposes(CNDDB 2002;ESA.April 2002,May 2002a and b;Fall 1997),the project has the potential to"take"the eggs,nests,or nestlings of native ground nesting species. Since the amount of nesting habitat available at the project site is small(approximately 2.8 acres),is subject to regular disturbance in the forth of vegetation management,and does not constitute the sole source of locally available nesting habitat,this impact is considered to be less than significant.Pre- 25 construction nesting bird surveys would further mitigate this impact(see Mitigation Measure Bio-1 below). Mitigation Measure B10-1: A pre-construction survey for actively ground-nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist not more than two weeks prior to commencement of construction activities. If nests with eggs or nestlings present are found on-site,buffer zones of at least 100 feet shall be established and no activity shall take place within those buffer zones until young have fledged. The pre-construction survey would include a final examination of ground squirrel burrows on-site, as well as those within a 500-foot radius of the site,for occupancy by burrowing owls. The 500- foot radius around the project site is surveyed to identify burrows and owls outside of the project area that may be impacted by factors such as noise and vibration during construction (California Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993;CDFG 1995). If burrowing owls are found to be using burrows on-site or within 150 feet of the area of project impact during breeding season or 250 feet during non-breeding season,CDFG shall be contacted to determine the most appropriate and feasible measures. Mitigation for potential impacts shall follow established agency protocol at the time of impact. This may include measures such as avoidance,minimization,relocation of individuals, establishment of new burrows on airport property, or purchase of mitigation credits in an approved mitigation bank. Specific mitigation measures may include: • establishment of no-activity buffer zones around occupied burrows(150 feet during the non- breeding season and 250 feet during the breeding season(California Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993;CDFG 1995)); • passive relocation of burrowing owls; or • replacement of burrows destroyed during project implementation at a 1:1 ratio or as specified by the Department of Fish and Game. Implementation of this mitigation measure would ensure that any potential project impacts on ground-nesting birds,including burrowing owl,are less than significant. b) There is no riparian habitat,nor are there any other sensitive natural communities(other than wetlands,which are discussed below)identified locally or regionally,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,present on the proposed project site. c) There are two excavated drainage ditches at the northern edge of the project site,a third that feeds into the northernmost ditch from the northeast,and a fourth along the western border of the project site. One of these is isolated,the others connect to a larger drainage system that parallels Marsh Drive to the west and ultimately discharges into Grayson Creek approximately 0.5 mile from the site. Standing water and obligate hydrophytic vegetation, including cattail(Typha latifolia)and tole(Scirpus sp.)were observed in the ditches along the northern edge of the site in late April and early May 2002(ESA,2002). The other two ditches were dry and did not support obligate hydrophytic vegetation. A routine wetland delineation of the site was conducted on May 9,2002 26 (ESA,May 2002b, included as Appendix E of this document). The three criteria5 used by the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps)to determine wetlands were met for the two ditches running along the northern edge of the site. In addition,though these are artificial features, it cannot be conclusively argued that they are ditches excavated in uplands and therefore not subject to Corps jurisdiction(see section a of this checklist and Chapter 4 of Appendix E for further discussion). Therefore, these ditches would likely be subject to regulation by the Corps as seasonal wetlands and may also fall under California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG)jurisdiction. The ditch feeding into the northernmost of these did not meet all three criteria and therefore would not be considered jurisdictional by the Corps.Finally,while the northernmost 25 feet of the ditch along the western perimeter of the site would likely be considered jurisdictional, the section directly adjacent to the project site would likely not be. The proposed project will result in the discharge of fill in portions of three of the ditches discussed above, including 425 feet of the ditch along the western perimeter of the site(not jurisdictional) and 125 feet of each of the ditches paralleling the northern edge of the site(these are likely jurisdictional). See Figure 4 of Appendix E for locations of these features. This activity will likely require permits from the Corps and the Regional Water Quality Control Board(RWQCB)under sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act, and may require permitting from CDFG under section 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code.Fill of 125 feet of each of the potentially jurisdictional ditches would result in a total regulated wetland fill of 0.021 acre.This activity could take place under NWP 39,Residential, Commercial, and Institutional Developments, which would not require pre-construction notification of the Corps, since impacts are well below the notification threshold for that permit. However,depending on construction details and whether or not water is present in the ditches at the time of construction,the project may also require authorization under NWP 33, Temporary Construction, Access, and Dewatering, which requires pre-construction notification for any level of impact. In addition,the project would require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification or waiver from the RWQCB in order to proceed under both NWPs and would require post-construction notification of the Corps under NWP 39. The project proponent shall obtain Section 401 Water Quality Certification or a waiver from the RWQCB and shall consult with CDFG regarding the potential need for a Streambed Alteration Agreement prior to project construction or earthmoving activities. This process may result in the imposition of specific conditions upon, and mitigation measures for,project activities, including in- kind mitigation for the loss of wetlands. The project proponent shall comply with all agency requirements, which may include,but will not necessarily be limited to: + implementation of Best Management Practices during construction; • worker education; + post-construction documentation; and off-site mitigation and/or in-lieu compensation. 5 The three criteria used by the Corps to determine wetlands are: 1)the presence of vegetation adapted to saturated or inundated soils;2)the presence of surface or groundwater hydrology that results in the permanent or periodic saturation of soils;3)the presence of soils that formed under conditions of permanent or periodic inundation. 27 Conditions imposed by the permitting agencies are designed to minimize adverse impacts on wetlands. Potential project impacts on federally protected wetlands would be less than significant provided that the area of fill remains below the Corps permit threshold of 0.10 acre,401 certification is obtained and consultation with CDFG is initiated prior to project implementation, the project complies with all permit conditions, and Post-Construction Notification is provided to the Army Corps of Engineers within 30 days after project completion. d) The site is not part of an established native resident or migratory wildlife corridor. Due to the developed nature of most of the proposed project site and the highly disturbed nature of the undeveloped portions of the site,the project will not substantially interfere with native wildlife movement or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e) The project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. f) No intact natural communities remain in the vicinity of the project site and there exist no Habitat Conservation Plans,Natural Community Conservation Plans,or other local,regional,or state habitat conservation plans that apply to the project area. Sources California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol. Available online: http://www2.ucsc.edu/—scpbrg/sectionl,html. California Department of Fish and Game. 2002. California Natural Diversity Data Base. Data request for the Vine Hill,Walnut Creek,Benicia,Briones Valley,Clayton,Diablo,Honker Bay,Las Trampas Ridge,and Oakland East 7.5 minute topographic quadrangles. California Department of Fish and Game. Memorandum re: Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. October 17, 1995. California Native Plant Society. 2002.Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. Data request for the Vine Hill,Walnut Creek,Benicia, Briones Valley,Clayton,Diablo,Honker Bay,Las'Trampas Ridge,and Oakland East 7.5 minute topographic quadrangles. Environmental Science Associates(ESA). April 2002.Field Survey. Environmental Science Associates. May 2002a.Buchanan Field, Concord,California: Federal Protocol- level California Red-legged Frog Survey Results. Environmental Science Associates. May 2002b.Buchanan Field, Concord, California: Routine Wetland Delineation. Hall TC. 1997. An Ecological Study of Wildlife Hazards at Buchanan Field Airport. Sacramento,CA: US Department of Agriculture. 28 Haug EA,Millsap BA, Martell MS. 1993.Burrowing owl (S'pe©tyto cunicularia). In: Poole A, Gill F eds. 1993. The Birds of North America, No. 61. Philadelphia: Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington D.C.: American Ornithologists Union. Kenton Coyle,Supervisor of Airport Operations for Contra Costa County,personal communication, April 18, 2002. Poole A, Gill F,eds. 1993. The Birds of North America,No. 61. Philadelphia: Academy of Natural Sciences;Washington D.C.: American Ornithologists Union. US Fish and Wildlife Service.April 2002. Official species lists for the Vine Hill,Walnut Creek,Benicia, Briones Valley, Clayton,Diablo,Honker Bay,Las Trampas Ridge, and Oakland East 7.5 minute topographic quadrangles. 29 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Inca pr orated impact Irnoact V.CULTURAL RESOURCES--Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 515064.5? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 515064.5? ❑ [Q z ❑ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ❑ ❑ N ❑ d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Comments The proposed project would be located in an urban area and would entail construction of a new aircraft hangar and office space as well as associated surface parking on a site that is currently paved and being used for aircraft parking. The immediate vicinity has been subject to continuous development over the past century,but is not within or adjacent to any historic district. The primary impact to cultural resources and, more specifically, to archaeological and paleontological resources in the ground,could occur as a result of construction-related activities from excavation and other ground-disturbing activities. Excavation into a significant resource could compromise the significance of an historic or archaeological site,disturb the integrity and context, unearth human remains,impair the scientific value of the resource,or otherwise damage non-renewable resources. However,ground-disturbing activities associated with the construction of the proposed project would be confined to developed areas at the airport where an archaeological reconnaissance has determined the area devoid of cultural materials,at least as evidenced by good ground surface visibility. In addition, a search of the State of California Office of Historic Preservation records,base maps,historic maps, and literature for Contra Costa County on file conducted by the Northwest Information Center(KWIC) revealed no known identified historic cultural or archaeological resources at the site.A search of the state and federal inventories showed no presence of any historic-period buildings or structures.Rased on this, the NWIC has determined that there is a low possibility of identifying Native American and historic cultural resources in the project area and has not required further archival and field studies to be conducted at this time. The results of the NWIC record search are included as Appendix F of this document. a) As currently proposed,no standing historical resources(buildings or structures)would be directly affected by the proposed project. The NWIC found no record of any identified historic cultural or archeological resources at the site and the potential for encountering any was determined to be low. However,potentially undiscovered subsurface historical cultural or archaeological resources could be damaged and/or destroyed by ground disturbing activities during the construction process.Use of the County's construction best management practices(to be implemented as part of the proposed 30 project)would ensure that potential impacts to cultural or archeological resources encountered during construction are less than significant. The BMP's include: + If archaeological or paleontological resources are uncovered during the project excavation or construction,excavation or construction work would be halted until a qualified cultural resource consultant has evaluated the situation,assessed the significance of the find,and provided mitigation recommendations, if warranted. Cultural resources include,but are not limited to,railroad ties,foundations,privies, shell and bone artifacts, ash and charcoal. Any identified cultural resources found would be recorded on DPR 523 (historic properties)forms. + In the event that human skeletal remains are uncovered during construction activities for the proposed project, the County would require that the project sponsor immediately halt work and contact the Contra Costa County Coroner to evaluate the remains. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the County would contact the California Native Heritage Commission,pursuant to subdivision(c)of Section 7450.5 of the Health and Safety Code,and all excavation and site preparation activities shall cease. b) Ground disturbance activities associated with the proposed project would have the potential to cause adverse changes to the significance of any currently unknown unique archaeological resources in the area. However,compliance with the County's Best Management Practices discussed under checklist item a)would ensure that any impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. c) Construction of the proposed protect would involve ground-disturbing activities. Because significant fossil discoveries can be made even in area designated as having low potential, excavation activities at the project site could:possible unearth significant paleontological resources. However,compliance with the County's Best Management Practices discussed under checklist item a)would ensure that any impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant. d) Subsurface excavation involved with the project could potentially disturb or destroy human remains from both prehistoric and historic time periods,including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.However,compliance with the County's Best Management Practices discussed under checklist item a)would ensure that any impacts to prehistoric and historic remains would be less than significant. Given that the project would comply with the County's Best Management Practices during construction, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts on cultural resources. Sources Project Description and Plans. Results of the record search by the Northwest Information Center,October 2002(Appendix F). 31 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No lmtract Incorporated Impact Impact VI.GEOLOGY AND SOILS--Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i)Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ❑ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? E] ❑ 0 ❑ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ Z ❑ iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,or collapse? ❑ ❑ 1Z ❑ d) Be located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to life or property? ❑ ❑ 21 ❑ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? ❑ Comments a.i,ii) The Concord fault is considered to be an active fault in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Act of 1972. The Concord fault extends along the Walnut Creek Channel immediately to the east of the airport and is within a delineated an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone(EFZ)6.The project site is approximately 2,000 feet southwest of the EFZ and no active or potentially active faults are known to exist on the site.? Consequently,the potential for surface fault rupture is low and the impact is considered less than significant. 6 Alquist-Priolo Zones designate areas most likely to experience fault rupture,although surface fault rupture is not necessarily restricted those specifically zoned areas. 7 An active fault is defined by the State of California as a fault that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 10,000 years). A potentially active fault is defined as a fault that has shown evidence of surface displacement during the Quaternary(last 1.6 million years),unless direct geologic evidence demonstrates inactivity for all of the Holocene or longer. This definition does not,of course,mean that faults lacking evidence of surface displacement are necessarily inactive. Sufficiently active is also used to describe a fault if there is some evidence that Holocene displacement occurred on one or more of its segments or branches(Hart, 1997). 32 Recent studies by the United States Geological Survey(USGS)indicate there is a 70 percent likelihood of a Richter magnitude 6.7 or higher earthquake occurring in the Bay Area in the next 30 years. The Contra Costa County Community Development Department estimates that the probability of an earthquake of magnitude 5.0 to 6.0 on the Concord fault is greater than 50 percent, and between 15 percent and 50 percent for an earthquake of magnitude 6.0 to 7.0, respectively. The project site could experience a range of ground shaking effects during an earthquake on one of the aforementioned Bay Area faults.It is likely that the most significant ground shaking would be generated by a major earthquake on the Concord fault,due to its close proximity to the project site. Earthquakes and ground shaking in the Bay Area are unavoidable and would be expected to occur at some time during the life of the project. Any potential damage associated with ground shaking in an earthquake would be dependent upon the design and construction type of buildings and facilities,the magnitude of the earthquake,the character, duration and intensity of related ground motion, and the epicenter of the earthquake.The alluvial soils of the Diablo Valley are considered to possess only a moderate potential for damage as a result of ground motion. Although some structural damage is typically not avoidable during an earthquake,building codes and construction ordinances have been established to avoid building collapse and major injury during a seismic event. The proposed project would be constructed in compliance with the engineering recommendations in accordance with the seismic requirements of Zone 4 of the 1997 UBC and the California Building Code (Title 24)additions. In addition to compliance with UBC standards, the applicant would be required to comply with the requirements of the Contra Costa County Community Development Department prior to excavation,grading,or construction activities on the site. Specifically,normal practice of the County requires a geotechnical investigation as a condition of approval. The investigation will include a)subsurface exploration, b)evaluation of liquefaction potential,and c)recommendations for site grading,drainage and foundation design.This report is subject to peer review by the County,and construction of improvements is required to comply with the provisions of the approved report. The required submittals would ensure that the buildings are designed and constructed in conformance with the requirements of all applicable building code regulations, pursuant to standard County procedures. Considering that the proposed project would be constructed in conformance with the UBC and the Contra Costa County Building Regulations Code,the risks of injury and structural damage from a known earthquake fault or ground shaking would be reduced, and the impacts would be less than significant. a.iii) Seismic shaking can trigger ground-failures caused by liquefactions Liquefaction and associated failures could damage foundations,disrupt utility service,and cause damage to roadways. Liquefaction potential is highest in areas underlain by Bay fills,Bay mud, and unconsolidated alluvium with earthquake intensities greater than MM VI(Modified Mercalli intensity of VI)or equivalently,peak ground accelerations on the order of 0.5 to 0.6 g's are anticipated (Peterson, 1999). The depth to groundwater also controls the potential for liquefaction in this area; the shallower the groundwater,the higher potential for liquefaction.Liquefaction hazards may be 8 Liquefaction is the process by which saturated.,loose,fine-grained,granular,soil,like sand,behaves like a dense fluid when subjected to prolonged shaking during an earthquake. 33 present at the project site,based upon subsurface materials, groundwater depth,anticipated ground shaking intensities. With regard to liquefaction potential,the Safety Element of the General Plan divides Contra Costa County into three categories. "generally high", "generally moderate to low",and"generally low" The map is not detailed enough to provide site specific information and the project site seems to be located partly within the"generally moderate to low"category and partly within the"generally high"category.The liquefaction snaps available from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)are based on data from the California Geological Survey and provide more recent information on seismic hazards.The most recent ABAG liquefaction map and materials map for the area shows that the project site would be located in an area where the liquefaction potential is considered to be"high".The Safety Element includes a number of policies indicating that at-risk areas require evaluation of liquefaction potential and effective mitigation of the hazard posed to new development. This map is used as a"screening criteria"by Contra Costa County during the processing of land development applications. The County requires rigorous evaluation of liquefaction potential in areas of"high potential",and less comprehensive investigations are demanded in the"moderate to low"category. Accordingly,a detailed,quantitative geological investigation with deep borings up to 250 feet as required by the County for projects located in areas with high liquefaction potential will be conducted for the project site as a condition of project approval prior to construction.The investigation would include an adequate seismic evaluation to assess potential seismic hazards,including liquefaction potential as well as any hazards from shallow groundwater.The evaluation would provide site-specific seismic parameters that characterize earthquake shaking conditions and that would then form the basis of specific design standards and recommendations for project structures(including storage tanks).Design of structures would also be subject to the Uniform Building Code(UBC)and California Building Code. Chapter 16 of the UBC contains seismic design standards specifically for aboveground fuel storage tanks. Compliance with these standards would reduce the risk of injury and property damage due to seismic hazards as well as the risk of upset to fuel storage to a less-than-significant level. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act was developed to protect the public from the effects of strong ground shaking,liquefaction, landslides,or other ground failure, and from other hazards caused by earthquakes. This act requires the State Geologist to delineate various seismic hazard zones and requires cities,counties,and other local permitting agencies to regulate certain development projects within these zones. Projects under jurisdiction of the Act include those for human occupancy or land subdivisions.9 Before a development permit is granted for a site within a seismic hazard zone, a geotechnical investigation of the site must be conducted and appropriate mitigation measures incorporated into the project design. However,no seismic hazard maps have been issued for Contra Costa County as of this date. CDMGAs discussed under the checklist items a.i and a.ii above,the County requires a geotechnical investigation of the site as a condition of project approval. An adequate seismic evaluation to 9 A structure for human occupancy is any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use of occupancy,which is expected to have a human occupancy rate of more than 2,000 person-hours per year. 34 assess potential seismic hazards,including liquefaction potential would be conducted in connection with the geotechnical investigation. The seismic evaluation would develop site-specific design criteria necessary for design of structures for this seismic region. Compliance with the guidelines and recommendations of this geotechnical investigation would reduce the risk of injury and property damage resulting from potential liquefaction hazards to a less than significant level. a.iv) The project site is located on relatively level topography in an urbanized area and therefore,the potential for landslides is considered less than significant. b) In order to minimize wind or water erosion on the site during construction,the contractor would be required to submit a construction period erosion control plan to the Building Inspection Department for approval prior to the issuance of grading and building permits,consistent with standard County practices. The pian would be in effect for a period of time sufficient to stabilize the construction site throughout all phases of the project. Long-term erosion potential would be addressed through installation of project landscaping and storm drainage facilities,both of which shall be designed to meet applicable regulations. These standard measures typically include the following: + Construction operations,especially excavation and grading operations,shall be confined as much as possible to the dry season, in order to avoid erosion of disturbed soils;and • Final project landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Thus, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts with respect to erosion or loss of topsoil. The proposed project site is currently developed and being partially used for general aviation aircraft parking,and does not support agriculture. The site is not overlain by developed,high productivity topsoil and therefore,the project would not contribute to a loss of topsoil considered as significant. c,d) Landsliding(section VI-iv),liquefaction ground failures including lateral spreading(Section VI-I through iii), soil subsidence, and soil collapse have been determined to be less than significant. The proposed project design would incorporate foundation recommendations from the project geotechnical evaluation,comply with applicable County regulations, and be constructed to applicable UBC standards. These recommendations and standards would consider behavior of problematic geologic materials and provide adequate engineering approaches to overcome adverse effects of construction on these sails. Therefore, the potential for risk to life or property due to expansive soils is considered less than significant. e) Because the project site is located on airport property in an urban area,the proposed project would connect to the existing central sewer system, which provides wastewater collection service for the area. Therefore,the project would not result in any significant impacts associated with soils incapable of adequately supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems since neither septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal are found in the project vicinity. 35 Sources Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG),Bay Area Liquefaction Map, 2000 California Department of Conservation,Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 117: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, 1997 California Building Standards Commission, California Building Code,Title 24,Part 2, 1995 California Department of Conservation,Division of Mines and Geology,Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of California, 1999. Contra Costa County California Government Information,Building inspection Department, http://www.co.contra-cosLa.ca.ust,accessed May, 2002. Contra Costa County,General Plan,July 1996 International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code,ICBG,Whittier,California, 1997. Project Description and flans Peterson,M. et al,Seismic Shaking Maps of California,DMG Map, Sheet 48, 1999. U.S. Geological Society(CTSGS)Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities(WG99), Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region: 2000-2030—A Summary of Findings, Open-File Report 99-517, 1999. 36 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No lWact cgjTgMted Impact Impact VII.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS-Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ❑ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ ® ❑ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ ❑ g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ to h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ® ❑ ❑ Comments a) Once operational,the proposed project would involve routine transport, use,storage and disposal of hazardous materials. The project would generate three new fuel truck trips snaking deliveries of aviation gasoline,jet fuel and vehicular gasoline to the project site.These truck trips would be required to comply with the Department of Transportation(DOT)'s requirements regarding the transportation of hazardous materials. Compliance with the DOT's requirements would reduce the impact of transportation of fuel to the project site,to a less than significant level. 37 Hazardous material use at the project site would be limited to aircraft maintenance and fueling activities. The secondary containment area, which includes a 16-foot wide sloped berm and concrete retaining wall,is proposed to be built to encompass the fuel tanks to contain inadvertent fuel releases and minimize impacts related to uncontrolled spread of released fuel. The secondary containment has been sized and designed to provide adequate capacity to contain the contents of all the fuel tanks, in case of a simultaneous failure, with adequate freeboard for rainfall events. Secondary containment would reduce impacts related to upset and spillage of fuel to a less than significant level. The project sponsor is to provide an analysis of the probability of an accident occurring at the fuel facility,including a worst-case scenario and a most likely case scenario to the Contra Costa County Health Department. In addition, in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code 25503.5,the project sponsor would prepare and implement a Hazardous Materials Business flan(HMBP)for the project. The project sponsor would also ensure proper labeling, storage, handling, and use of hazardous materials (in particular,the fuel)in accordance with local, state and federal hazardous materials regulations. Through the HMBP,the project sponsor would ensure that hazardous materials are safely stored,employees are properly trained in the use and handling of these materials,and that each material is accompanied by a material safety data sheet. The Hazardous Materials Division of the Contra Costa County Health Department would administer and approve this plan for the proposed project. At least one copy shall be maintained on-site at all times. The purpose of the plan is to provide on-site managers,environmental compliance monitors, and regulatory agencies with a listing and detailed description of hazardous materials stored and handled at the project site,their management,spill prevention,and spill response/cleanup measures and disposal methods.Elements of the plan shall include,but not be limited to,the following: • Discussion of hazardous materials management,including delineation of hazardous material and hazardous waste storage areas, access and egress routes; • Spill control and countermeasures, including employee spill prevention/response training; and • Notification and documentation procedures. Compliance with the measures in this plan would mitigate the impact from the routine use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials at the project site to a less than significant level. b) Construction activities would require the use of certain hazardous materials such as fuels, oils, solvents and glues. Inadvertent release of large quantities of these materials into the environment could adversely impact soil, surface waters,or groundwater quality.However, the on-site storage and/or use of large quantities of materials capable of impacting soil and groundwater are not typically required for a project of the proposed size and type. The use of construction best management practices typically implemented as part of construction would minimize the potential negative adverse effects of release to groundwater and soils. These could include the following: • Follow manufacturer's recommendations on use, storage and disposal of chemical products used in construction; • Avoid overtopping construction equipment fuel gas tanks,; 38 • During routine maintenance of construction equipment,properly contain and remove grease and oils. • Properly dispose of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals. Over the operational phase,the proposed project would provide long-term storage for jet fuel, aviation gasoline and vehicular gasoline in five tanks with a total combined capacity of 65,000 gallons. This is considered a significant quantity of hazardous materials. The presence and use of these materials involves a potential for spills and leaks, and would pose public health and safety hazards through release of emissions or risk of upset.As described above,the proposed secondary containment structures have been sized and designed adequately to reduce the impact of an accidental failure of the tanks. The project sponsor would also prepare and implement a Hazardous Materials Business Plan in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code requirements. Further,a Spill Prevention Control and Counter measures plan would also be prepared and implemented for the five aboveground storage tanks in compliance with the requirements of the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act. Compliance with the spill control and counter measures in the event of an accidental release would reduce any hazards from upset and accident conditions to a less than significant level. c) There are no schools within a quarter mile of the proposed project nor are there any proposed within this radius. d) There are several hazardous materials sites listed on the Cortese list that fall within the airport boundaries. These include four listings on John Glenn Drive which dead ends on the southeast side of the airport property. The proposed project would involve construction of new facilities on the opposite side of the airport property and would therefore not disturb these contaminated sites. To avoid hazards to the public or the environment in the event of encountering unanticipated hazardous soil,the following mitigation would be required to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: The project sponsor will complete Contra Costa County's Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites Statement of Certification of Compliance for review by the County's Health Services Department prior to initiation of construction. If contamination is encountered during construction,excavated soils would be segregated and sampled relative to the profiling requirements of the accepting landfill, and disposed of in accordance with policies of the accepting landfill and applicable regulations. e) The proposed construction would not conflict with height interference. Specifically the project components would be outside the clear zone for the runways and would not conflict with the obstruction clearance criteria established by the FAA in the Federal Aviation Regulations,Part 77. The proposed project would involve the construction of an 8,000 square feet fuel storage area which would store up to approximately 52,000 gallons of jet fuel, 12,000 gallons of aviation gasoline,and 1,000 gallons of automobile gasoline. At buildout,the storage area would house two 20,000-gallon tanks and one 12,000-gallon tank for jet fuel,one 12,000-gallon tank for aviation gasoline and one 1,000-gallon tank for automobile gasoline. The fuel storage facility would be enclosed by an 8 feet high concrete block retaining wall with a sloped berm. As stated above,fuel 39 truck drivers and construction crews transporting hazardous materials would be required to comply with the Department of Transportation's requirements regarding the transportation of hazardous materials to avoid a release in the event of a traffic accident. The Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan shows that the project site lies in Safety Zone 4. Policy 5.3.4a applicable to the Safety Zone 4 states that"aboveground storage of more than 2,000 gallons of fuel or other hazardous materials is prohibited in existing or planned residential or commercial areas." Since the proposed project does not propose to construct any residential or commercial areas and would be limited to aviation-related uses,and since there are no existing residential and commercial areas within Safety Zone 4 that might be impacted by the project,this restriction would not apply to the fuel tanks proposed as part of the project. Therefore,the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. This impact would be considered less than significant. f) The Buchanan Field Airport is a publicly-owned airport, and it is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. g) The proposed project would not create any interference with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. h) The fuel storage tanks pose a significant potential for upset,explosion or fire. Fuel vapors may be present in the proper proportion with air to support combustion. The project sponsor shall enforce strict control over all sources of ignition where such vapor air mixtures may be present. Despite the risk of fire,the project site is within an urbanized area of contra Costa County and not located adjacent to forests or areas covered in tall dry brush anis grassland vegetation..Any new structures built on the site would be required to comply with all applicable Fire Code and fire suppression systems,as routinely required by the County. Therefore,the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks associated with wildland fires. Sources Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan,May 2000. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List(Cortese List)April, 1998. Shutt Moen Associates, Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan,2000 40 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact lrnpact VIII.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY --Would the project. a) 'Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-Site? ❑ ❑ Z ❑ d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a mariner that would result in flooding on-or off-site? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ® ❑ Z ❑ f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ El g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ [� ❑ i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ❑ ® ® [( j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ 41 Comments a) Construction of the proposed project would require limited excavation, soil stockpiling and grading. Sediment from project-induced on-site erosion could accumulate in the downstream drainage facilities, interfere with flow,and aggravate downstream flooding conditions. Although the scale of proposed construction for this project involves grading and other activities that could result in temporary erosion and transportation of sediments to storm sewers and other facilities, compliance with standard federal and county practices would reduce or eliminate potential water quality impacts associated with construction surface water runoff,resulting in less than significant effects. Depending on the nature of construction activities, groundwater may flow into excavations that extend below the groundwater table. Common practices employed to facilitate construction include either de-watering the excavation(remove groundwater by pumping)or shoring the sides of the excavation to reduce groundwater inflow. If de-watering methods are used,groundwater would be pumped out of the excavation to the surface and then discharged,typically to either the storm drain or sanitary sewer. Water extracted during de-watering may contain chemical contaminants(either from pre-existing sources or from equipment)or may become sediment-laden from construction activities. The extracted water would be required to meet any applicable storm drain or sanitary sewer wastewater quality standards. b) Shallow groundwater underlying the project site is of poor quality,and is not considered part of this regional groundwater basin. Groundwater underlying the site is therefore not used as a water supply. As part of the proposed project, the new fuel distribution facility has the potential to adversely affect groundwater quality,due to the installation of new product lines and dispensers. Adherence to the Airport's Surface'Water Pollutant Prevention Plan(SWPPP)Best Management Practices (BMP's)for chemical storage would reduce the potential to degrade water quality of groundwater resources, or contaminate public water supplies,to a less-than-significant level. A 16-foot wide sloped berm and concrete retaining wall is proposed to be built around the fuel tank enclosure to minimize the effects of a fuel spill. Construction of project components would necessitate varying amounts of excavation that could encroach upon shallow groundwater at various locations at the Airport. Grading activities are not likely to degrade water quality or groundwater resources. Impacts to groundwater supplies during construction would be less than significant. c) During construction,the existing site drainage pattern would be temporarily altered Clue to grading and excavation. However,in accordance with standard Contra Costa County practices,the project sponsor would be required to provide adequate watercourse drainage facilities(Ord. 89-27). Because the project site is flat with no surface water flow impediments, drainage would be directed to the existing storm drainage facilities. It is likely that new storm water drains will be constructed at the project site. Thus,no long-termm alteration of the existing drainage pattern,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site,is expected. Completion of the proposed project would not require the alteration of a stream or river course. 42 d,e,f) The majority of the project site is currently paved. The project proposes to repave this area in order to accommodate heavier aircraft and also pave additional area totaling approximately 48,000 square feet of vacant land. In accordance with standard county practices, and in order to minimize any short-term(construction-related)or long-term impacts on surface water quantity(i.e. storm water)or quality,the project sponsor would be required to comply with applicable standards and regulations of Contra Costa County, the requirements of the federal NPDE5 program and the FAA. In order to ensure compliance with the NPDES program,a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)would be,required to be developed by the applicant for the construction phase of projects, such as the proposed project,that disturb greater than 5 acres of area. However,the Airport's existing SWPPP includes Best Management Practices (BMPs)that address any impacts from storm water pollution issues during construction and this would be applicable to the proposed project. Post-construction the project would be covered by the Airport's existing SWPPP.The existing Airport SWPPP for aircraft service facilities includes compliance measures to protect storm drains,respond to spills,prevent non-stormwater waste from entering the area watercourses, and prevent solvent and non-solvent cleaners, aircraft fluids,and certain aircraft wash water from entering stormwater. BMP's outlined in the Airport's SWPPP and FAA Order 5050.4A would be applied to the proposed facilities to reduce water quality impacts. The project proponent will obtain Section 401 Water Quality Certification or a waiver from the RWQCB prior to project construction or earthmoving activities and notify the RWQCB upon completion of construction. The project proponent will comply with all agency requirements imposed as part of approval of this waiver. With the implementation of SWPPP BMP's and enforcement of regulations governing use of hazardous materials,projected increases in stormwater runoff and in contaminant loading in that runoff under the proposed project would not significantly affect surface water quality at the Airport. g,h) Within Contra Costa County,the FEMA 100-year flood plain establishes the base flood elevation for new construction. The project site does not lie within the 100-year flood plain as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FNMA)flood hazard mapping. The project is approximately 700 feet from the boundary of the 100-year flood zone northwest of the project site, with undetermined base flood elevations and flood hazard factors. Structures to be built as part of the proposed project would not be in the flow of potential future flooding, and therefore would not impede nor redirect flood flows. i) This project site is located above sea level and is not located in close proximity to levees or dams. Therefore,people and structures at the project site would not be subject to loss,injury or death from flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. j) Inundation by seiehe,tsunami and mudflow would not occur at the project site, which is 26 feet above mean sea level. There are no water bodies upstream from the project site(e.g.,reservoirs, pends,canals,etc.)that might experience flood waves in the event of an earthquake. The proposed project site is not located in an area subject to inundation from seiche. The potential for mudslides to occur is low due the developed urbanized nature of the surrounding area, flat topography, and relative lack of exposed slopes. 43 Sources Contra Costa County, General Plan: Conservation Element,July, 1996. Contra Costa County Code, Title 10 Public Works and Flood Control, Division 1010 Drainage, Ordinance 89-27. Flood Insurance Rate Map,Federal Emergency Management Administration 44 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated -!=act ftact I.X.LAND USE AND PLANNING--Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ® ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ® Z Comments a) The project would be constructed on existing airport facility property. The construction of the proposed would not divide an established community. b) The project does not conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.Local land use plans have been revised to accommodate the proposed Buchanan Field Airport Master Plan. The consistency of the proposed project with the Airport Master Plan has been discussed in the Project Description.The proposed project would not conflict with any land use policies or regulations of Contra Costa County.The project site is zoned "unclassified"and is located on airport property.This type of development is a permitted use under this zoning designation. c) Since the proposed project would be constructed on land that has been used for purposes associated with aircraft operations,there are no habitat conservation plans that exist in the area. Sources Project Plans and Description Contra Costa County General Plan and Zoning Code 45 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant leo Impact Incorporated fact Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES_-Mould the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? ❑ ❑ ❑ z b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? ❑ Q z Comments a,b) The proposed project would be located in a developed area of the Airport. In its existing condition, the site is mostly occupied by a paved aircraft tie-down area. The remaining portion of the site is currently vacant. The project proposes to locate a corporate aircraft hangar, associated office and service facilities as well as surface parking at the site. Based on the map of Mineral Resource Areas in the County General Plan,the project site has no known existing mineral resources. The project would not require quarrying, mining,dredging,or extraction of locally important mineral resources on site,nor would it deplete any nonrenewable natural resource. Sources Project Description and Plans. Contra Costa County General Plan Site Visit 46 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact hmact XI.NOISE--Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? D ® D D b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? D ❑ z ❑ c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? D ❑ ® D d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? D ® ❑ [] e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ❑ D ❑ z f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ® ❑ [] z Comments The primary sources influencing the ambient noise environment at and around the project site are aircraft operations associated with the Airport and motor vehicle traffic on the adjacent local roadway network. Common sources of noise from ground-based operations at airports include engine maintenance run-ups, taxiing aircraft,operation of ground and auxiliary power units,preflight run-ups,takeoff roll and thrust reverses. The noise impacts associated with the project would be two-fold.First,the project could expose sensitive receptors to noise above applicable standards by introducing land uses that are incompatible with the existing noise environment. Second,the project itself could lead to an increase in ambient noise levels thereby affecting existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. The primary effect of the proposed project would be an increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project(particularly sensitive receptors)due to the increased aircraft and motor vehicle activity. The project would be consistent with the applicable land uses compatibility standards, as the project is an airport-related use and would be compatible with the existing airport noise environment. Some land uses are considered more sensitive to ambient noise levels than others,due to the amount of noise exposure and the types of activities typically involved. Residences,motels and hotels,schools, 47 libraries,churches,hospitals,nursing homes,auditoriums,and parks and other outdoor recreation areas generally are more sensitive to noise than are commercial and industrial land uses. Noise-sensitive land uses are located to the west of the project site. The nearest sensitive receptors that could be affected by the project are the mobile Domes located along Marsh Drive,approximately 600 feet from the site. a) The project would lead to short-term impacts on the ambient noise environment during construction activities.The Contra Costa County General Plan considers short-term impacts from construction activities to be considered significant if construction noise levels exceed 60 dBA Leq during the daytime or 55 dBA Leq during the nighttime outside of a residence. Construction-related activities would temporarily increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity over the approximate six-month period. Construction-related noise levels at and near locations on the project site would fluctuate depending on the particular type,number,and duration of use of various pieces of construction equipment. Equipment could include water trucks,dozer- tractors,scrapers,motor graders,hydraulic excavators,compactors,wheeled loaders,all-terrain forklifts,cranes,compressors,and miscellaneous equipment.Noise levels for the operation of such equipment are shown in Table NOI-1. The effect of construction noise would depend upon the level of construction activity on a given day and the related noise generated by that activity,the distance between construction activities and the nearest noise-sensitive uses,and the existing noise levels at those uses. Table NOI-2 shows typical noise levels generated by construction of commercial buildings. As shown in the table the noisiest phases of construction would generate approximately 89 Leq at 50feet. Pile driving would not be a necessary component of the construction of this project.The receptors nearest proposed construction activity would be the mobile homes located approximately 6001 feet west of the project site along Marsh Drive. Noise from stationary sources attenuates at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dBA for every doubling of distance. Assuming an attenuation of 6 dBA,these residences could occasionally experience the noise levels up 67 dBA Leq,depending upon the proximity of equipment at a given time. These predicted noise levels could occur for short periods of time and,if not mitigated,would exceed the standards of the Contra Costa County General flan for residential receptors and would be potentially significant.Mitigation Measure NOI-1 below would be incorporated into the project to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Noise impacts from construction-related traffic depend upon the existing ambient noise levels and sensitivity of the land uses along access roads. On a daily basis,construction traffic would be about 10 worker vehicles, and an infrequent truck moving equipment or delivering fuel. This is a very small fraction of normal area traffic,and noise generated by these vehicles would be almost impossible to distinguish from the other existing noise sources. Therefore,construction-related traffic noise impacts would be less than significant. 48 TABLE NOI»I NOISE LEVELS FROM ON-SITE HEAVY DUTY EQUIPMENT Equipment Description Noise Level,dRA(Leq)with Controls s(at 50 feet)s Water truck 75 Tractor 75 Scraper 80 Motor grader 75 Smooth drum compactor 74 Backhoe or other misc.equipment 75 Sum of all sources 83 At one mile 43 a Estimated levels obtainable by selecting quieter procedures or machines and implementing noise-control features requiring no major redesign or extreme cost(e.g.,improved mufflers,equipment redesign,use of silencers,shields, shrouds,ducts,and engine enclosures). b Representative noise level data was taken from Bolt,Baranek,and Newman,Noise from Construction Equipment and Building Operations,Building Equipment and Home Appliances,December 1971. TABLE N01-2 TYPICAL COMMERCIAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS Phase Noise Level(L,n,)a Ground Clearing 84 Excavation 89 Foundations 78 Erection 85 Exterior Finishing 89 Pile Thriving 90-105 a Estimates correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest piece of equipment associated with a given phase and 200 feet from the other equipment associated with that phase. SOURCE: U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,December 1971. 49 Over the operational phase,the increase in operations at the airport due to the proposed project and activities associated with the operation of the expanded Fixed Base Operation would add to the noise impacts of the airport on surrounding land uses. Increases in motor vehicle traffic due to the project would be minimal and would be limited to less than 40 trips per day,with about 10 trips during the peak hour. Generally a doubling of traffic volume increases the roadside noise level by 3 dBA. Given existing traffic volumes of Sally Ride Drive,peak hour trips along that and other roadway segments in the project vicinity,the increase in traffic due to the project would be negligible. Therefore,the increase in noise level from the addition of these trips would not be perceptible and this impact would be less than significant. Aircraft noise is regulated at the federal, state and local levels. The following paragraphs discuss the regulations and standards applicable to Buchanan Field Airport and the proposed project. Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act and Federal Aviation Regulations,Part 150 Contra Costa County had prepared and adopted an FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program for Buchanan Field Airport. The program identifies land use compatibility thresholds, existing and forecast noise exposure conditions and an airport noise compatibility program. The airport noise compatibility program includes noise impact reduction measures and noise abatement procedures and measures to remedy existing noise problems and prevent future incompatibilities. The program identifies 65 Day Night Level(DNL)as the maximum allowable ambient noise level in residential areas including mobile home parks. State of California Airport Noise Standards The State of California's Airport Noise Standards identify the 65 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)contour for aircraft operations at an airport as the significant Noise Impact Boundary. Within the Noise Impact Boundary,the airport proprietor is required to ensure that all land uses are compatible with the aircraft noise environment or the airport proprietor must secure a variance from the California Department of Transportation. Under most circumstances,residences are considered to be an incompatible land use within the Noise Impact Boundary(i.e.,exposed to noise levels of 65 CNEL or greater from aircraft sources). Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Policy Plan The Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission(ALUC)has adopted a comprehensive land use plan that establishes restrictions on land uses within designated ALUC impact zone boundaries, as required by the California.Board of Transportation. A public agency owning an airport within the boundaries delineated in an ALUC Plan is required,prior to modification of its airport Master Plan,to refer the proposed change to the ALUC. The ALUC considers a CNEL of up to 55 dB as normally acceptable for new single, family,duplex and mobile home residential uses while noise exposures between 55 and 65 dB CNEL are considered marginally acceptable. The Airport Land Use Plan(ALUP)includes current noise contours for Buchanan Field Airport and is based on an activity assumption of 230,000 total annual aircraft operations. Current noise contours show that some of the mobile homes located to the west of the project site(nearest 50 sensitive receptors)are located between the 55 and 60 dBA CNEL contours. The ALUP also includes composite noise contours developed to show the impact of anticipated future development (assuming 320,000 annual operations at the airport)which show that the 55 dBA CNEL contour would virtually remain the same to the west of the airport.For the purposes of evaluating impact of aircraft noise on nearby sensitive receptors,the significance criterion used is a 1.5 dB CNEL increase in an areas exposed to noise levels of 65 DNL or greater. In California,Caltrans' Division of Aeronautics Airport Land Use Planning Handbook explicitly recognizes this significance criteria based on FAA Order 5050.4A and the recommendations of the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise(FICON)althoughCaltrans also acknowledges that"noise increases of several decibels may also be significant in quieter environments(ones below 60 CNEL)" Annual operations at the Airport vary from year to year. In 2000, annual operations at the airport were 237,000. Of the 237,000 operations approximately 5,400 were jet operations. In 2001,the annual operations were significantly less at 143,649 operations due to the relocation of a major tenant—a helicopter training company. The proposed project would increase operations at the Airport by an additional 1,872 operations per year(most of which would be jet operations),about a 1.3%increase in total operations and an approximately 34% increase in jet operations over 2001 conditions.The project would not only increase the activity at the Airport,but would also change the existing fleet mix to include larger and more technologically advanced aircraft such as the Gulfstream V. The FAA's Area Equivalent Method (AEM)was used to assess the change in the 65 dBA CNEL contour due to the additional operations generated by the project. AEM provides insight into the potential increase or decrease of average noise resulting from a change in aircraft operations and is used as a screening procedure to simplify the assessment step in determining the need for further analysis with the Integrated Noise Model(INM). It is a mathematical procedure that provides an estimated noise contour area of a specific airport given the types of aircraft and the number of operations for each aircraft. The noise contour area is a measure of the size of the landmass enclosed within a level of noise as produced by a given set of aircraft operations. Based on an earlier methodology developed by the old Civil Aeronautics Board,the FAA applies a decision criterion of 17% increase in the cumulative noise contour area as the threshold of significance for AEM within a 65 DNL contour.The FAA has determined that a 17 percent increase indicates that the proposed action could result in a DNL 1.5 dBA or greater increase at a noise sensitive area and that further analysis is required. Conversely,if the screening process shows less than a 17 percent increase,it may be concluded that there are no significant. The AEM analysis was conducted using current operations at the airport and percent fleet mix from the INM input files that were used to generate noise contours in the ALUP. Results of the analysis are included in Appendix G.The analysis determined that the addition of the project-related operations to the Airport would increase the area within the 65 CNEL contour by approximately 2.6 percent.This would be well below the FAA threshold of 17 percent required to produce a 1.5- dBA change in noise level due to the project at noise sensitive receptors within the 65 DNL contour. Therefore, the impact of project-related aircraft operations on sensitive receptors within the 65 CNEL contour for the Airport would be less than significant. 51 In addition to affecting the average noise level in the vicinity of the Airport,the increase in aircraft operations due to the proposed project would also affect the frequency and magnitude of noise from individual overflights in the Airport's airspace. Single event noise is the total noise emitted by one overflight or aircraft.Each single event will have a total noise level over the duration of the event called SEL(sound exposure level)and a peak, which is the highest noise level reached by that event. Single event noise level numbers are often higher than DNL numbers,because DNL represents an average noise level over a period of time,generally a whole year.Time Above is an expression of the amount of time noise exceeds a threshold level. 65 dBA is the approximate level of noise to interfere with conversation in an outdoor environment and is therefore used as the threshold normally.The threshold however can be set at any noise level. Generally time above is expressed in minutes per day that the threshold is exceeded. The Integrated Noise Model was used to estimate the TA and SEL levels for the different types of aircraft expected to operate at the proposed project.The aircraft types were provided by the project applicant.Table N01-3 below provides the SEL levels at 500 feet and 1,000 feet from the end of the runway.The nearest sensitive receptors to the ends of the 4 runways are located at least 1,000 feet away. SEL levels for project-related aircraft would range from 92.3 to 106.8 dBA at 500 feet and from 90.6 to 105.4 dBA at 1,000 feet from the end of the runway. The values shown in Table N01-3 denote the total noise level associated with an aircraft overflight over the duration of the event. Noise at this level would not be audible at any instant during the duration of the event. The SEL for the noisiest aircraft(LEAR25)in the existing fleet at 500 feet from the end of the runway is 108.0 dBA for arrivals and 106.9 for departures. As shown in Table NOI-3,SEL values for project aircraft would be less than this level. Therefore,the project would not introduce aircraft noisier than those in the existing fleet into the airport's airspace. Table N0I4 below shows increase in TA over 65 dBA due to a single aircraft operation for each type of aircraft associated with the proposed project. Based on the results shown in Table N014, operations of the noisiest project aircraft(Falcon 50)would increase the time above 65 dBA at the nearest sensitive receptors located 1,000 feet from the end of the runway by approximately 66 minutes over a period of one year.The TA would increase by 8.4 hours over a year at these sensitive receptors due to the 1,872 annual operations associated with the project. This translates to about 1.4 minutes of time per day when the noise level due to project-aircraft operations would be above 65 dBA and would cause interference with speech in outdoor areas within the 65 DNL contour of the Airport.Currently,the time above 65 DNL due to operations of the existing fleet at the airport is 180 minutes per day.Therefore,the project would increase the time above 65 DNL at nearby sensitive receptors by less than 1 percent. This increase would be considered minimal and would not affect the ambient the noise level in the Airport vicinity significantly. 52 TABLE NCII-3 SOUND EXPOSURE LEVELS IN THE VICINITY OF THE AIRPORT Aircraft Sound Exposure Level(dBA)' 500 feet 1,000 feet Gulfstream V 96.3 94.8 Cessna 650 92.3 90.6 Falcon 2000 95.0 93.6 Challenger 601 95.3 94.0 King Air 300 100.1 98.8 Falcon 50 106.8 105.4 Piper Malibu 93.0 91.4 Pilatus PC-12 93.0 91.4 Cessna 550 94.6 93.0 Lear 55 97.0 94.4 Hawker 800 XP 97.0 94.4 Beech Tet 400 97.0 94.4 Hawker Horizon 97.0 94.4 a Values denote SEL levels associated with arrivals.Values for departures were found to be lower. SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates,2002. Mitigation Measure Nt7I-1t To mitigate construction-related noise impacts to a less than significant level, the project sponsor would require construction contractors to implement the fallowing measures throughout the duration of construction activity: • All construction activities would be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. No construction activities would be allowed on weekends, state and federal holidays until after the building is enclosed. • Equipment and trucks used for project construction would utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g.,improved mufflers,equipment redesign, use of intake silencers,ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible). 53 TABLE NOI-4 INCREASE IN TIME ABOVE 65 DBA FOR PROJECT AIRCRAFT Aircraft Time Above 65 DNL(TA) TA due to a Single TA per year due to the project Operation'(mins) (hours) 500 feet 1,0€10 feet 500 feet 1,000 feet Gulfstream V 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 Cessna 650 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 Falcon 2000 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 Challenger 601 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 King Air 300 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 Falcon 50 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.1 Piper Malibu 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 Pilatus PC-12 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 Cessna 550 0.7 0.6 1.0 0.8 Lear 55 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 Hawker 800 XP 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 Beech Jet 400 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 Hawker Horizon 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 a Values denote TA Ievels associated with departures.Values for arrivals were found to be lower. b Time Above per year includes arrival and departure operations for the entire year for each type of aircraft. SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates,2002. Impact tools(e.g.,jack hammers,pavement breakers,and rock drills)used for project construction would be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed-air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed-air exhaust would be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves would be used where feasible, which could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures would be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible. b) The aircraft to be added as a result of the project are typical of aircraft in the current fleet at the Airport or, in certain instances, are quieter than equivalent aircraft now operating at the Airport. Based on the analysis conducted to determine the project's impact on the 65 CNEL contour,the TA and SEL levels at nearest sensitive receptors and discussed under item a), noise levels due to 54 project aircraft would be similar to those currently operating at the Airport. Thus,the groundborne vibration and noise levels from individual aircraft would also be similar to those that currently occur. In addition,the closest residences are approximately 600 feet from the proposed sight and this distance would sufficiently attenuate any groundborne noise or vibration from the aircraft operations. c) The increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels without the project will be less than significant. See discussion previously mentioned in item a)related to aircraft and surface traffic noise. d) Without mitigation,there is the possibility that temporary increases in noise levels above the ambient noise levels in the project vicinity could occur during construction. However,measures listed in item a)related to construction activities would mitigate these effects. Mitigation Measure:Implement Mitigation Measure NOI-1. e) As explained in a),the proposed project would not result in significant impacts on residential areas beyond the limits of the airport. In addition,workers would not be exposed to levels of noise that are greater than those typically encountered by employees currently working at the airport. f) The project is not located near a private airport and thus has no impact on such a facility. Sources California Department of Transportation(Caltrans), Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects,October 1998. Governor's Office of Planning and Research, CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines, 1994. Hares, Cyril,Handbook of Noise Control, 1979. U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, guidance Manual for Transportation,Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment,July 1995. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,Noise Assessment Guidelines,April, 1995. Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Environment and Energy,Area Equivalent Method— User's Guide,November 2001. Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission, Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan,2000. 55 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated httpact impact XII.POPULATION AND HOUSING--Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses or indirectly(for example through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitation the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ E3 Z Comments a,b,c)The proposed project site is located on existing airport property where no housing exists.The proposed project would have no effect on housing and population,either directly or indirectly. The project does not create any new housing,induce substantial population growth(directly or indirectly),displace substantial numbers of existing housing,or necessitate new housing construction elsewhere. Source Project.Plans and Description 56 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No !=act lncgMorated lmoact lrnpaci XIII.PUBLIC SERVICES --Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 d) Parks? ❑ ❑ [❑ ED e) tither public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ Comments a) The proposed project site is located in a developed urban area already served by public services. The Contra Costa County Fire Protection District would provide fire protection and emergency medical response services to the project site. The nearest fire station, Station 9,is located about 0.8 miles southwest of the project site at 209 Center Avenue,Pacheco. The estimated response time to the project site is approximately six minutes. In accordance with standard County practices, the proposed project would be designed in compliance with Contra Costa County's Building Code. The Fire Protection District would also review project plans before building permits are issued to ensure that adequate fire and life safety measures are designed into the project,in compliance with all applicable state and County fire safety requirements. b) The Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department would provide police protection services to the project site. The Sheriff's Department at Muir Station is headquartered at 1980 Muir Road in Martinez and provides police protection services to the unincorporated central county area.The average maximum response time to calls for police protection services at Muir Station is approximatelyl0 minutes. The site is located on airport property, which currently receives police protection services from Muir Station.The potential for police to continue to meet the response time goal is high. As the project would not increase residential population in the area,it would not create the need for new sheriff facilities. c) The Mount Diablo Unified School District(District)operates the public school system in the project area.According to the District,the project site does not lie within any school attendance areas.The project would not result in an increase to the residential population. As such,the proposed project would have no impact on the school district. 57 d,e) The project site is approximately 1/2 mile from Hayden Park,Hillcrest Community Park, and Buchanan Field golf Course. Because these parks are used mostly by residents and the proposed project would not increase the residential population,increased use is not anticipated. Since the project would not create new residential population,there will be no need for new or expanded park facilities. Sources Contra Costa County, General Plan: Open Space Element Park and.Recreation Facilities,July 1996 Mount Diablo Unified School District,http://Www.mdusd.k]2.ca.usl,accessed May, 2002 Ross,John,Mount Diablo Unified School District,personal communication,May 16 2002 Project Description and Plans Snell,John,Contra Costa County Sheriff's Department,personnel communication,May 20,2002 58 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIV.RECREATION--Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ Comments a,b) See response to XIII above.Because the proposed project is an airport related use located at an existing airport,and because the project would not directly cause any increase in the residential population,the project would not affect use of these parks, or otherwise affect recreational facilities. Sources Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County General Plan: Park and Recreation Facilities,July 1996 Project Description and Plans 59 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact act XV.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC--Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (Le.,result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? ❑ ❑ Z ❑ b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? ❑ ❑ E ❑ d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ Comments The project would be accessed via Sally Ride Drive,a collector street that provides access to the airport facilities on the west side of Buchanan Field. Sally Ride Drive intersects Marsh Drive, an arterial road which carries traffic through the airport. The proposed project would accommodate an estimated 29 new pilots that would be expected to access the site on average 2 out of 7 days per week,generating 16 trips per day on average, spread over different hours of the day. Additionally,it is estimated that the project would add 5 new line service employees, 3 fuel truck drivers,and 2 office personnel. These new employees would generate about 20 commute trips per day. The total average daily trips to and from the project site therefore would be about 36 trips. a,b) The addition of new trips from the project would result in an increase of 0.5%©in average daily traffic in both directions of Marsh Drive at Center Avenue, assuming that all users of the site use that intersection to access the project site.Even assuming that all employee trips took place in the peak hour would result in an increase of 2%in the a.m.peak traffic on Marsh Drive (7:30-8:30 AM,.Northbound on Marsh)and 3% in the p.m. peak traffic on Marsh Drive(5-6 p.m., southbound on Marsh). These increases in traffic are not substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the local street system; nor would they have any substantial affect on existing intersections operations. The project would not exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service(LOS)established by the County's Congestion Management Agency for designated roads. 60 c) The proposed project would allow for more aircraft types to be accommodated at Buchanan Field, therefore increasing air traffic that this hanger might facilitate. However,the proposed project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns that result in substantial safety risks. d) The project does not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. The project design allows for nonhazardous and unobstructed traffic flow. e) The project will not result in inadequate emergency access.Emergency access to the facility is available via Sally Ride Drive as well as from the surrounding apron and taxiways. f) The project proposes to provide 74 parking spaces.This would provide adequate parking capacity for the 29 pilots, 5 new service employees and 2 office personnel that are expected to use the project site. Sources Project Plans and Description Uy,Fil, Contra Costa County Public Works Department,personal communication,May 22,2002 61 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated impact Impact XVI.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS--Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ❑ ❑ ❑ Z c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ® ❑ ® ❑ e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? ❑ ® ® ❑ f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g) Comply with federal, state,and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ Comments The project site is located in an area already served by all public utilities and service systems, including water,sanitary sewers, storm drains,electrical,and natural gas. However, it is likely that on-airport modifications would have to be made to existing systems to accommodate the proposed project. a) Sanitary sewer service for the airport is provided by the Central Contra Costa County Sanitary District. Due to the low number of expected additional operations,additional wastewater generation would be minimal.The only new source of wastewater for the project is the bathroom/shower facility in the new hangar.No substantive change in wastewater quality would be expected. b) The Contra Costa Water District(CCWD)supplies treated water to the Airport. Using the estimated personnel increases and typical water use rates,the project would require approximately 45,000 gallons per year of additional water. This includes water to wash additional aircraft and a new water supply for the bathroom/shower facility. This is a minor increase in water demand; 62 existing water distribution facilities in the vicinity of the airport would be adequate for the proposed development. Wastewater collection in the City of Concord and vicinity of the Airport is provided by a municipal sewerage system and then the effluent is treated by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD). Because the CCCSD plant has just undergone a hydraulic expansion, its capacity is sufficient to accommodate future growth expected through 2010. Using the projected personnel increases and typical wastewater generation rates,the project would produce approximately 35,000 gallons of additional wastewater each year.This includes wastewater from washing additional aircraft in the wash rack and from the bathroom/shower facility the in the new hangar.This would be a minor increase in wastewater;existing wastewater facilities in the vicinity of the airport should be more than adequate to accommodate the proposed development. Because the water and wastewater increases are so minimal,the project would not require the construction of any new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. The project's impact on existing water and wastewater treatment facilities would be a less than significant. c) Storm water drainage often occurs through natural land features. This is the case at Buchanan Field where the existing open grass-covered portion of the project site serves as a drain for storm water in that area.The proposed project would cover approximately 48,000 square feet of area that is currently unpaved. This new paved area would increase storm water run-off severity at the project site.This would require the installation of on-airport storm drains as part of the project to direct run-off from the facility downspouts and the impervious parking lot.Modification of on- airport storm drains would ensure compliance with the Airport's existing Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(or SWPPP). These new drains can be connected to the existing storm sewer network,and because the increase run-off will be minimal,the capacity of the existing network should easily handle the increased volume. Off-airport storm drains are adequate to handle projected surface water runoff from proposed building area developments and airfield parking. d) If sufficient distribution capacity in existing water,wastewater,and storm water drainage facilities is not available to serve the proposed project,the project sponsor would be required to provide any infrastructure improvements and pay required installation and hook-up fees to the affected service providers to ensure provision of adequate service,prior to service connection. e) The Contra Costa County General Pian indicates that the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (CCCSD) wastewater treatment plant has recently undergone a hydraulic expansion. The expansion has increased capacity to accommodate future growth expected through 2010. The wastewater treatment provider that will serve the project will have adequate capacity for the projected and existing wastewater treatment demand. f) The Airport's solid waste is taken by Pleasant Hill Bayshore Disposal Service to Keller Canyon Landfill in Bay Point. Using the projected personnel increases and typical solid waste generation rates,the project would produce approximately 3,000 kg/year of additional waste. Keller Canyon Landfill covers 2,600 acres of land; 244 acres are permitted for disposal.The site currently handles 63 2,500 tons of waste per day,although the permit allows up to 3,500 tons of waste per day to be managed at the facility. The additional waste generated by the proposed project is considered a minimal disposal increase and would not appreciably affect landfill capacity. g) During construction,the project sponsor would comply with the guidelines of the County's construction and demolition debris recycling plan. Although implementation of the proposed project may result in the need for additions or modifications to existing on-airport utility systems,these improvements are well within the normal scope of development activities required for a construction project and would not result in any significant adverse impacts on existing utility systems. There are several measures that, although not required, are highly encouraged. The project sponsor would be encouraged to implement conservation measures through the use of water-conserving plumbing fixtures,building insulation,and low energy non-hazardous lighting in project design and construction. The project sponsor would also be encouraged to install a closed loop aircraft wash rack recycling system to reduce water use and wastewater generation. Sources Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County General Plan: Public UtilitieslService Element,July 1996. Tchobanoglous,George and Frank L.Burton, Wastewater Engineering Treatment, Disposal, Reuse, 3rd Ed.,Irwin/McGraw hill,Boston, MA 1991. Peavy,Howard S.,Donald R. Rowe, and George Tchobanoglous, Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, McGraw-Hill, Inc.,New 'York, 1985. 64 Potentially significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No impact lncpMg ted impact impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife papulation to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ® L1 0 E Comments a) The proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment with respect to plant or animal habitats as the proposed project site is located in an urban area where no known significant species or habitats currently exist. No important examples of major periods of California history or prehistory exist on the site. Sources: Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County General Plan: Land Use and Transportation Element,July 1996. Contra Costa County, Contra Crista County General Plan: Open Space, Conservation and Recreation .Element,July 1996. Project Description and Plans. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.) 11 Q 0 D Comments b) The proposed project involves development of an airport-related use on Airport property and would be consistent with the Contra Costa County General Plan.All potentially impacts for the project would be mitigated to a less than significant level and would therefore not significantly contribute to any cumulative impacts. 65 Source Project Description and Pians. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? Comments c) The project would not result in any potential environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings upon implementation of the identified mitigation measures. While the proposed project does entail some use, storage or handling of fuel and gasoline,the facilities would incorporate design features that would reduce any impacts. In addition,the identified mitigation measures would reduce any residual impacts to a less than significant level. Sources Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County General Plan:Land Use and Transportation Element,July 1996. Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County General Plan. Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element,July 1996. Project Description and Plans 66 Exhibit Mitigated Negative Declaration & Mitigation Monitoring Program vo o f tp ccs v c7 a� o 0- 0 v " ot a ,� �� <•CS O i �'�c7 O CO o 1 y++ 0, a �d ttU bf1 Or- v l / 3 c» � va 1Y Ory a� t i6 d, Gin 0ru'ca - vy' tLf ✓ i CCS tl> c�7 t �°3 G9 G7 r 0 % .� � its tt5 t13 � 01 tJ> ° co to � �� �+� "i� o C) o •— to- ouy''ccs d cY `p ^" WG ' as t G y Q '06 r � g� Ef z rn > ' tCLS G> E 0LL. 2 4K O) o E 9! ma -00 E cl E E :5 0, 0 0 0 Ca as tm CL y *6 0 (7D ttS E o E 0 0 CU M C:� m ca CL U) a CD 0 W -0 P m m 72 "15 '6 a M 0 a) `' t� o '-C> C- M > cD = ca Co , co 2 RL 0 CCS tm CL— (n (�Dw =3 E CL (v W A2 cru w cm U) 0 o E E m U3 •:t_l w W LLI a) (D c (D co as N a C,3 E w LU CL -i Z. 0 ;z E z 0 w a.0 U) E uj co 0 0 (D w E te E 0 2 t CL ;f0 0 -j U- — L) W> LU U- _0 0 1--. LU W a -1 0 LnCL to UA z On 1L .I._j 0 a UJ. IL rL a. owl 0 Ca 0 -2 LU . 72Z tm z a) p 0 'U =m 0 0 0 c o w 00- 0 0-cn C, x m M co �5 CD -0 2 =t) o CL = - 0 cn 0 a) -= >, 0 z 0 E m 0 m o E = Q) cz 0 m :Ej = z cm -6 a) w w CD a) E iv Z = Cc M — , -- cm 0 U"> m 2 LU p w a) 2 > CN m nw 0 W "m M 7E5 — = — c 0 u, c of 0 m CL. 0 Ln a) o 0 0) 0 03 lu =3 -L' > = W 0 = 0)E w CU = " = (a -0 ins M Ca o 'o cl- (D tm 03 o m o im >1 a (n 8 q -W m u) E Co (Df us w m �,: P .m U- LL- .- 0 .0 0 F 0 E E �1: q E va) cu CR 0 0 .0 — E ow 0 Z 16 m w w 0 E f® It 0 0 tm ' C%S 2 M-T Z5 - .= m Cy u5 0 0 CU W a) I- cr cl. ca. E E CD cn o o E W E 2 E E o os d> _0 ui 0 TL "d .0 0 w CD CL E Ln U'� cl, E tn — = = X CL M w m -0 Q) Cl) U) —w w cm - c 0 0 z _c_- 0 (D :07 2 0 U,s -0 0 0 -0 CL Z E 6 m "Dn o E -0 0 < -j 0 0 gz 6 m u u to A-0 t)z spa I S- IF—I ;b:lb 0 cu OR 0- r �4 '-d Sp, Q ccs 30, w ul 0 I'- S11 tog 0 SEA LU ba 0 Civ a ° '51 I or- 0 & Ld p 4� 36g cd L1. is U-1 0 4gCerts o -0 4 CSS Z co Oo cn- 46 Zn co 'ZI � - tn -0 (D I cts (3) -6 L) 1� _R ed to t u cz3 t cd � � aJ cei C+ Aj 0 ' 45 { . ) ' to w s t in. It , . ° cs 0- l i cA 1 c Aca y 0 0 COO o t v 0 cam• y•0 1 G x CPto 0 ,0 W Nr a> cc2 .r by 0 �y "' - 5:s, � r v cs cu0 . r ,C .'' cn G� lur) toa ` ctsca Ap y, r cv ui ea c8 ►3� 01 .• to L '' cea c1 � �,s� lopa� y c7 �.?, .G t..? l I � I VS Q � Cl3 Rj —_ ca as � 1 C LO tm d u�i 0 w 0 `' c M o o CL M -ISo + ctT O .... — - a ay rA z C) Rz ai c a3 •,CL In E Ln E v O j Co 0) E ami cv c ' i btu 2 � � a � a aCQ _`6 E E (' E W i .0 S 0. > m � ' 0 o Con CL ami 0 a�a CL CL� CoJ L5 C�1 Fes— u; E cu EL US ami . 4 C J I ::3 to In al E d I �-a ce CL 0 A`� U- a) w 0 Z 4-4 O �+, v0i t. CL p 0 WCL � 2 j (L CLIr a. O 4 a7 as E Z CD I-- tu � 21• .5 -0 mn = � m . a0) avn i _ 0CL _= : M t 0= o = cru ¢ a DC7 :.w w r, o, � - v � c > �- o cs o cn 00 as as s? >.. o � o � o 0c o c m 8 �"- a �> Z > `os d 0cn u'ia' M �sv_s •r� � ca _ a> E rn cu zCD -LIS E +; ' Eve � caa' 0 c' c .� ua's xcc c, F an cy tJ7 tom- v t� ua E w w cl o w uj ; t F- w rQn CO V O 6 y >t H to z u�� i 0 4L> ' <c LU c> r O C caI z I LU 1 0. i � 0Ir ui W U. 0 i i Col J j C UJ C1 W M E- CL c�a Z 0 Q z z0 ` t.� w M m i CO cs u o U) crs ui v� I cn FW us Z 0 0 i 0 " >' V5 U- c 0 Q 00 0 ! � � v LLI VS Il{45 � C7 0 C7 2 r� u s C'8 a. E E E E APPENDICES APPENDIX A Summary of Mitigation Measuresfor this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative .declaration APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES III AIR QUALITY Mitigation Measure AIR-1: During construction,the project sponsor would require the construction contractor to implement the following dust abatement program. This program reflects BAAQMD recommendations for construction sites,such as the project site,that are smaller than 4 acres in size. • 'dater all construction areas at least twice a day. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand,and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave,apply water three times daily,or apply(non-toxic)soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep daily(with water sweepers)all paved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers)if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure BILI-1: A pre-construction survey for actively ground-nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist not more than two weeks prior to commencement of construction activities. If nests with eggs or nestlings present are found on-site,buffer zones of at least 100 feet shall be established and no activity shall take place within those buffer zones until young have fledged. The pre-construction survey would include a final examination of ground squirrel burrows on-site, as well as those within a 500-foot radius of the site,for occupancy by burrowing owls. The 500- foot radius around the project site is surveyed to identify burrows and owls outside of the project area that may be impacted by factors such as noise and vibration during construction (California Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993;CDFG 1995).If burrowing owls are found to be using burrows on-site or within 150 feet of the area of project impact during breeding season or 250 feet during non-breeding season,CDFG shall be contacted to determine the most appropriate and feasible measures. Mitigation for potential impacts shall follow established agency protocol at the time of Buchanan Field Airport Development Project A-1 initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES impact.This may include measures such as avoidance,minimization,relocation of individuals, establishment of new burrows on airport property,or purchase of mitigation credits in an approved mitigation bank. Specific mitigation measures may include: • establishment of no-activity buffer zones around occupied burrows(150 feet during the non- breeding season and 250 feet during the breeding season(California Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993; CDFG 1995)); • passive relocation of burrowing owls;or • replacement of burrows destroyed during project implementation at a 1:1 ratio or as specified by the Department of Fish and{`came. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. The project sponsor will complete Contra Costa County's Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites Statement of Certification of Compliance for review by the County's Health Services Department prior to initiation of construction. if contamination is encountered during construction,excavated soils would be segregated and sampled relative to the profiling requirements of the accepting landfill,and disposed of in accordance with policies of the accepting landfill and applicable regulations. XI. NOISE Mitigation Measure NOI-1:To mitigate this impact to a less than significant level and to show compliance with the General Plan Noise standards,the project sponsor would require construction contractors to implement the following measures throughout the duration of construction activity: • Standard construction activities would be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. No construction activities would be allowed on weekends until after the building is enclosed,without prior authorization of the County. • Equipment and trucks used for project construction would utilize the best available noise control techniques(e.g.,improved mufflers,equipment redesign,use of intake silencers,ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds,wherever feasible). • Impact tools(e.g.,jack harnmers,pavement breakers,and rock drills)used for project construction would be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed-air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed-air exhaust would be used;this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves would be used where feasible,which could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures would be used,such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible. Buchanan Field Airport Development Project A-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration APPENDIX P Aircraft Emissions Estimates 6 C6 y m�No���°r7i0� �r enb es�ar�t �e gw A�a$�"_'n7^on`�'man o N�y-i oui�n�®o oa Ogg rgCV�g{-y m ((VV �N�yy.yy. cm vo;0p0p Q�`eppnn eNV t��wwyy 8p ® �i N9r9O p �. M66 b 0 0 O O B $6[S O G B O t 5 O ]O V O O C~J O®O O t j�?F O L~` O O 6 6 O O G O C C 6 666 6666 a6b 6660 I. Ci SCS PJG CI CCt Nv9O 6O�t:l G066 6 CC6 C66O 6 '�+ vt OKY atl m 0m VY u'; O.•n .+MO NOmOOab b o N.h b .•.wO bbm OPS 4ti+nOh v1�O 0 0 0 a 0 © e 0 0 CC �"ti.n 80 8 000 0 00 0vi0 o bpi 8 ci08�+± 0ac58 0 � 8 +ss v, ao�y�eomm�'iW om N�o����:oa�r4 vni r-svo�o 55�� + O��Sysi gg ' v. I Wig �N, 06 o �c�' �a�� �`8�80 �;25�',a c `�' 025 uP'',o o U }� eio 8 s6 cryryi8 ac cNNi��yy ei ryo oryrya ryryo o{a��p�yyyy(olI mayy ryo oryry((VV o6 o 6 6660 6�6Y 86 V.y0 ry00 �y(oV a �1c(aY ciN `tN•CN` M1 h F P-h h N t' fN`•H R!4 h P t' h�t` F i' ("`4' !'t h f` t�h F w F N t�F�F�F INw P W V�bvF F h h kNh t` h fN•h t'•YNw t`•h f`•F e Lei ..h+D 6 0 0 O M to Pi t16 0 GV Cr9 pO b OC+S 0 Ou" a 6 ('J roi b tJ 6 d c7d O Ci pd d CJd t7 CJ dp0p�bj d Cad 0+3 r9�OCs6 01300 d ���Cyyyi OO pb � � Wigg-gg t� "`•- •- g •- '✓� � K K=t'v ��� "_o c�d�{ _�' ;rg;�}�g{' C 'US Lib Dao o C5 n epi oo -• sES AN � a25 8cio 6 66 vi 666 d66.- .=6 6666 oodd eJ ci c+ci ri U d 6 r: 6 6 6 r: «d of 8 6 0 .-.xi ri chi s -,i ci a eT rs ai cs c v a P I q. V t+ .may 6 Q,�,�w C;`6 M ''G b ••a h m m N^C fJ.-: ^C t`I B C.>C "6 N V 6 Ci v.. "' pvGryl 6 PJ O 6 O O Pi® O�V G Q 3'O G C $$6 D Toxic Air Contaminant Analysis APPENDIX C TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION Besides criteria air pollutants,the California Air Resources Board has identified a number of toxic air contaminants(TACs)that can be released from mobile and stationary sources. Pollutants are considered TACs if they are suspected human carcinogens,or if they can produce non-cancer health outcomes from either acute or chronic exposure. Carcinogenic and adverse non-carcinogenic human health effects potentially associated with exposure to toxic air contaminants(TACs)emitted a result of project construction and/or operations are a potential public health issue. Although TACs are believed to have health impacts, ambient air quality standards for the pollutants have not been established. There are hundreds of different types of TACs,with varying degrees of toxicity. TACs are often part of both volatile organic compounds(VOCs)and particulate matter(PM). TAC species that are included as VOCs are substances such as benzene,formaldehyde, and toluene. TAC species that are contained in PM include toxic heavy metals,such as lead, cadmium, and mercury, as well as large organic molecules that can form in the combustion process. These include substances such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(soot). This section evaluates potential health risks from exposure to emissions of TACs related to the Buchanan Field Airport Development Project. The incremental risk of contracting cancer and the risk of adverse health effects from exposure to non-carcinogenic substances emitted from the project are reported.For toxic air contaminants linked to potential increases in cancer due to long- term exposure,the measurement of risk is generally calculated based on exposure over many years (e.g., 8 hours per day over 40 years for workers;continuous exposure over 70 years for residents),and is typically reported as an additional number of cancer cases,compared to the risk that would exist without exposure to the pollutant in question. This risk is reported as X chance in I million(or X cases per I million persons),where X is the number of additional cases of cancer that could be expected due to the pollutant in question. Typically,the reported risk level corresponds to the location,referred to as the"maximally exposed individual (MEI),"where the highest calculated risk from toxic air contaminants from a facility would occur. Risks from toxic air contaminants diminish at locations that are further from the facility than the MEI. The following discussion focuses on TACs that are a part of the VOCs and not PM-10 because of the lack of existing information on aircraft particulate emissions. APPENDIX C TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT ANALYSIS EXISTING TAC CONCENTRATIONS Ambient air levels of TACs are measured at several stations in the region by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). The station nearest to the Buchanan Field Airport is in Concord. Table I summarizes measured concentrations of TACs at the Concord monitoring station for the year 2000, which is the most recent year for which certified data are available. These measured levels generally reflect TAC levels in the project area,although there may be some higher levels close to ground-level sources of TACs. However,residences and other sensitive receptors are usually not located close to such sources. Table I also shows the carcinogenic health risks from exposure to existing(2000)concentrations. The health risks were estimated by applying the cancer unit risk factors to the measured concentration of each pollutant. The Unit Risk Values are established by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA). The total risk at the Concord monitoring station is estimated to be 170 in a million. Over half of the cancer risk is due to benzene and 1,3 butadiene, which are emitted principally from motor vehicles. These risks compare with the Bay Area average of 167 in a million(BAAQMD 2001). However, the risks do not include the entire risk from TACs,mainly because not all of the species contained in diesel particulate matter(diesel PM)are represented. Diesel PM is a mixture of over 30 different toxic chemicals,and only a portion,mainly polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), may be reflected in the measurements reported in Table 1. The BAAQMD has estimated that the carcinogenic health risks from exposure to diesel PM in 2000 in the Bay Area region was about 450 in a million (BAAQMD 2001). These region-wide risks were estimated by deriving concentrations of diesel PM from ambient measurements of a surrogate compound. Most of the diesel PM risks are from exposure to exhaust from diesel trucks where the emission sources can be relatively close to receptors. A group of pollutants that have not been routinely monitored in ambient air are polychlorinated dioxins and furans, which are referred to as dioxins. Monitoring of dioxins has recently begun at stations in Crockett,Livermore,Oakland,Richmond,San Jose,and San Francisco,but data are not yet available. Buchanan Field Airport Development Project C-2 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration APPENDIX C TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT ANALYSIS TABLE I AVERAGE AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS MEASURED IN CONCORD,ARNOLD INDUSTRIAL WAY,IN 2000 Concentration Cancer Risk Unit Risk (Chances in Compound (ppb)b (gg/rn3)b (/1g/rn3)-Ib,c one million) Gaseous TACO Acetaldehyde 0.73 1.34 2.70 x 1076 3.6 1,3-Butadiene 0.14 0.32 1.70 x 10-4 54.5 Benzene 0.43 1.40 2.90 x 1W 40.5 Carbon Tetrachloride 0.10 0.64 4.20 x 10-s 26.9 Formaldehyde 1.90 2.37 6.00 x 10-6 14.2 Perchloroethylene 0.05 0.34 5.90 x 10`6 2.0 Methylene Chlorideb 0.25 0.88 1.00 x 10-6 0.9 MTBE 0.59 2.16 2.60 x 10-7 0.6 Chloroformd 0.15 0.74 5.30 x 10-6 3.9 Trichloroethylened 0.40 2.19 2.00 x 10-6 4.4 Particulate TACsa (ng/m3)b Chromium(Hexavalent) 0.11 1.12 x 10-4 0.150 16.8 Polycyclic Aromatic 0.54 5.44 x 10-4 1.10 x 107s 0.6 Hydrocarbonse Nickel 3.27 3.27x 10-3 2.60 x 10-4 0.8 Lead 7.04 7.04 x 103 1.20 x 10-s 0.1 Total Risk for All TACs 170 a All values are from BAAQMD monitoring equipment,except those in italics, which come from the average of the five CARB monitoring sites(San Francisco,San Jose,Fremont,San Pablo,and Concord). GARB values are from 2004 except for the Concord and San Pablo sites,where sampling was suspended in 2000. The concentrations used from these two sites are the means of daily samples collected during the period March 1, 1999,through February 29,2000. In calculating average concentrations,samples less than the limits of detection(LOD)were assumed to be equal to one-half of the LOD. Risks are calculated for the carcinogenic TACs for which routine sampling was performed by the BAAQMD and CARR,except for ethylene dibromide,ethylene dichloride,and vinyl chloride, which were excluded because none of these compounds were detected in any of the air samples taken in the Bay Area. b ppb is part per billion,(Ag/m3)is microgram per cubic meter or millionth of a gram per cubic meter,(ng/m3)is nanogram per cubic meter or billionth of a gram per cubic meter. c Unit Risk is the probability of contracting cancer if one is constantly exposed to an average concentration of one microgram per cubic meter of the specific substance. d Concentrations were below the detection limit. One-half of the detection limit was used to calculate cancer risks. e The PAH concentration represents the sum of the fallowing species collected as PM-10:benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,benzo(k)fluoranthene,dibenzo(a h)anthracene,and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene. Buchanan Field Airport Development Project C-3 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration APPENDIX C TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT ANALYSIS SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA There are no established quantitative,emissions-based significance thresholds for TACs.To ensure good ambient air quality for the state,the ARB has set emission limits known as trigger levels for TACs. Regulating TAC emissions in the nine county San Francisco Bay Area air basin is the responsibility of the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD uses these trigger levels in evaluating toxic air contaminant emissions and risk levels of sources within the San Francisco Bay Area. If the emissions from a source are less than the listed trigger-levels, it is assumed that the source would not fail a risk screen. If the emissions are equal to or greater than one or more of the trigger-levels,a risk screen should be completed to determine the source's exemption status.The trigger levels are based on the quantity of a particular TAC that may contribute to an additional cancer risk of I in a million, for toxics with carcinogenic effects. For toxics with non- carcinogenic effects,the trigger level represents a Hazard Index(I-II)of one. The definition of HI is given below. Due to the absence of clear emissions based thresholds,the significance evaluation of health risks from a project is usually based on the chance of contracting cancer from exposure to the TACs or of having adverse health effects from exposure to non-carcinogenic TACs. CANCER RISK. Cancer risk is defined as the lifetime probability of developing cancer from exposure to carcinogenic substances. Cancer risks are expressed as chances in one million of contracting cancer. Incremental cancer risks are determined for each TAC. The incremental risk for a mixture of compounds is determined by summing the risk from each substance involved in the exposure. The accepted significance threshold for the maximum lifetime cancer risk has been established by several regulations and agencies to be an increase of 10 in one million. This includes the regulation under AB2588,as well as Proposition 65,both of which regulations require public notification if the incremental risk equals or exceeds 10 in one million. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines also recommend that the cancer risk significance threshold for a project be an increase of 10 in a million. NON-CANCER HEALTH RISK. Non-cancer adverse health risks are measured against a HI,which is the ratio of the predicted exposure concentration to a threshold level that could cause adverse health effects, as established by OEHHA. If the overall HI exceeds one,then the impact would be significant. The HI significance threshold of one is defined in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and is consistent with the value requiring public notification in the AB2588 regulation and in Proposition 65. Buchanan Field Airport Development Project C-4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration APPENDIX C TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT ANALYSIS PROJECT IMPACTS As discussed earlier,TACs are often part of both volatile organic compounds(VOCs)and particulate matter(PM). ARB has published weight fractions of specific air toxics found in aircraft VOC emissions in their report—Identification of VOC Species Profiles. TACs from VOC emissions associated with increased aircraft activity due to the project at Buchanan Field are reported in Table 2. These emissions were estimated using the ARB speciation profiles for aircraft as well as projected increases in aircraft activity at Buchanan Field due to the proposed project.These emissions are products of incomplete combustion(PTCs)from combustion sources, or they are evaporative emissions. TABLE 2 PROJECT RELATED TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT EMISSIONS Emissions Source BAAQMD Trigger Level a Emissions by Pollutant(lbs Category per year) Carcinogens Acetaldehyde 72 0.31 Benzene 6.7 0.13 1,3 Butadiene 1.1 0.12 Formaldehyde 33 1.01 Non-Carcinogens Acrolein 39 0.15 Chlorobenzene 13,500 0.00 Ethyl Benzene 193,000 0.01 Hexane 83,000 0.00 Naphthalene 270 0.07 Phenol 8,690 0.02 Propionaldehyde NA 0.06 Styrene 135,000 0.03 Toluene 38,600 0.04 Xylenes 57,900 0.03 a Trigger levels correspond to a risk of I in a million for carcinogenic TACs and a Hazard Index of I (one)for non-carcinogenic TACs. b Estimates based on weight fractions of specific air toxics from aircraft and on-road motor vehicles specified in ARB report: Identification of VOC Species Profiles,August 1991,and unpublished revisions to those profiles. NA 4 Not Available SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates,2003. Table 2 also shows the trigger levels for the listed TACs, as established by BAAQMD. TAC emissions from the proposed project would be well below the applicable BAAQMD trigger levels for each pollutant.These trigger levels correspond to a cancer risk of 1 in a million, assuming conservative dispersion conditions. Assuming that emissions at the trigger levels would result in a cancer risk of one in a million,the total incremental risk from carcinogenic toxics due to the project was estimated by scaling the TAC emissions from the project to the BAAQMD trigger Buchanan Field Airport Development Project C-5 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration APPENDIX C TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT ANALYSIS levels. The incremental risk was estimated to be 0.162 in a million. Using this same approach for non-carcinogens,the H1 from project-related non-carcinogens would be 0.039. These values are well below the 10 in a million threshold for carcinogens and the Hi of 1 for non-carcinogens recommended by the BAAQMD. 'Therefore the TAC emissions and related health risk impacts of the project would be less than significant. Buchanan Field Airport Development Project C-6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration APPENDIX D Federal Protocol-Level Survey Results for California fed-Legged .frog APPENDIX D FEDERAL PROTOCOL-LEVEL SURVEY RESULTS FOR CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG, BUCHANAN FIELD AIRPORT, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS )?qge 1. INTRODUCTION 1 A. Project Description 1 B. Study Area Location and Description 2 H. ESA SURVEY METHODS 3 111. SITE ASSESSMENT 5 A. California Red-legged Frog Range and Sightings Within Five Miles of the Project 5 B. Habitats Within the Project Area and Within One Mile 5 IV. ESA SURVEY RESULTS 5 V. REFERENCES 7 LIST OF APPENDICES D.1 Data Sheets D.2 Photos of the Study Area LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Regional Location of the Study Area 2 Figure 2: Survey Area Detail 4 Buchanan Meld,Concord—California Red-legged Frog Protocol Level Survey Results BUCHANAN FIELDCONCO"� CALIFORNIA FEDERAL PROTOCOL-LEVEL SURVEY RESULTS FOR CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG I. INTRODUCTION The current protocol-level survey for California red-legged frog(Rana aurora draytonii)was conducted in support of a proposed airport improvement project at Buchanan Field in the City of Concord,Contra Costa County. The County of Contra Costa contracted with Environmental Science Associates(ESA)to conduct federal protocol-level surveys for California red-legged frog(CRLF),a federally threatened species. This survey was performed in support of the project California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)permitting process based on the presence of suitable habitat in two parallel drainage channels. This report includes the findings of the May 2002 surveys. The aquatic habitats in the two parallel channels on Buchanan Field are considered to provide moderate quality habitat for CRLF,however,the current protocol-level survey dict not detect CRLF in any life stages. It can be concluded from this survey that CRLF are absent from the two drainage channels the survey area. Survey conditions were considered optimal for detecting CRLF,with no physical or environmental conditions that would impede frog identification. Additionally,based on reports from the California Natural Diversity Database,no CRLF population sources were identified within five miles of the study area. Based on available surrounding habitat and the nearest identified occurrence of CRLF, it is considered unlikely that CRLF could migrate from nearby water sources into the study area. A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The County of Contra Costa has proposed to fill two parallel drainage channels located on the west side of Buchanan Field. Both channels are small,trapezoidal V-ditches that convey water from grasslands and paved portions of the airfield to Grayson Creek,located roughly 0,25 miles to the west. Under one alternative,the proposed project would fill one or both of the drainage channels to accommodate airport facilities. A regional location map that shows the site location is presented as Figure 1. B. STUDY AREA LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Buchanan Field study area is located in the City of Concord,0.5 mile southeast of the intersection of State Route 4 and Interstate 680(Figure 1). The project area watershed includes undeveloped grasslands at Buchanan Field and paved tarmac and airplane storage areas. Residential,commercial,and Buchanan Field,Concord—California Red-legged Frog Protocol Level Survey Results 1 • • • • ! • i r _ • • ! • ♦ • i IV Ow X- t ? Y �,�`� ����, �►' Vit,;,, � �' k-�� h$ r/ ♦rtF. yl e j p1r•�.. 1 ,M. • .et<ttr�r• � t �'#i" +. ° �f,!' � 'P 8&a:. fir). � t� fjj��t'''���..+•r s •������'� �r %. ,',•,.:. � � 7' £ �:.. �*` i 3•. •tY i� � •%i` LTi'? �,e F� � ��:,�,'�� '"�C� `t+,y•,`}� . Wo 4 e#E1sc•�il �•r"/115 .<>>...�► '+'�'' yf3l`�+T s d �d ��►�'# `i`� i''�!`F,�jtOr`la''� f �°E°y2• z' �Ete qA��y � 7j, poqrl-o 411ml 41m, Q • _ AIN, �>+N'i•w 1*�.," la1s��•>�,d!l���" � tt��„ j '� "�� t tf K°- �w:;,d Iva �^�'. �•p�y.y.��"F� ;y}y_� '�jtgp ��� y 'yam} A� ��',p�,q � --------------- S ":V.6e'. - � �T\� `��L}4.B'"`t�4'sR•tR���.. 8�. �R bPY�^+ WY.'•e'er..: ta:'LJ 1 11 i • • t e t ' . industrial areas surround the airport,though there are extensive undeveloped grasslands in the nearby airport vicinity. The UTM coordinates of the site are ZonelOS E582505 N4205185 (NAD 83). The project site is location on the Walnut Creek U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute quadrangle. The two linear drainage channels run east to west and are located on the western portion of Buchanan Field. These features measure 115 in and 70 in in length. The rough dimensions of the drainage channels is roughly 3.0 m in width and 1.0 in deep, with a seasonally flooded channel bottom that measures roughly 1.0 m wide by 0.15 m deep. The drainage channels are subject to annual vegetation management to control the growth of cattails (Typha latifolia),sedges(Scirpus sp.)and other emergent vegetation. Upland vegetation consists mostly of saltgrass(Distichlis spicata)and annual ryegrass(Lolium sp.). No trees or other canopy vegetation occurs on the channel banks. Emergent vegetation consisting of sedges and cattails is considered to cover roughly 35% of the water surface. Floating algae covers 10%of the water surface. Photos of the two channels are provided in Appendix B. Figure 2 shows the detail of the survey area in relation to the other nearby features. The project survey area included both drainage channels and adjacent upland environs located on the airport. 11. ESA SURVEY METHODS ESA wildlife biologists,Brian Pittman and Martha Lowe independently conducted daytime surveys of the two study areas on May 5 and May 9,2002,respectively. B.Pittman and M.Lowe jointly conducted nighttime surveys on May 2,2002. B. Pittman conducted the second nighttime survey on May 6,2002. Surveys were performed according to the February 18, 1997 U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service CRLF survey protocol. Both surveyors are familiar with the identification and behavior of the CRLF and other amphibian species. The daytime survey involved scanning the banks and shoreline vegetation for adult and juvenile frogs using 10x42 binoculars. The nighttime surveys involved using binoculars in conjunction with a 6-volt miner's-type head lamp(Wizard H Headlamp manufactured by Nite Lite). The duration of each survey was between 20 minutes and 45 minutes, which allowed for a thorough assessment of aquatic habitats in both channels. Surveys focused upon locating and identifying frogs using distinguishing marks(horizontal eye stripe,red legs and mid-dorsal lateral fold). Other amphibians were noted as were fish and aquatic species. A hand-held CPS unit was used to determine the Universal Transverse Mercator(UTM)reading for the survey area and was plotted on the 7.5 minute Walnut Creek USGS topographic quadrangle(See Figure 2). Buchanan Field,Concord—California Red-legged Frog Protocol Level Survey Results 3 _ _.. _ Figure 2. Location of the California Red-legged Frog Study Area at Buchanan Field 60 E,nE. 581000-E. 582000-E. °83aaomE. WGS84 Zone 105 38500on,E, MALLARD z^ w 7� Z Z L ae } v { Area { �h n l' 1 l 'S\u r ` _ V �r Z - Location - J' Ln z ti.. 6Wf 1 0 O `} i' Z 1 E o 2 e 0 M c Z E Z o E c o N O NO 2,80000mE, 3810oomE, *620;0m E. 583060-E. WGS84Zone 1 O 5 5oaoR,E. TNMN 8 S 1 hAi{ 15•,6° ®777t ifFi A 506 1300 WT-.Rs Panted ftm TOPO!02001 National Oieogaphic Hokbrp(www,topo con} Buchanan Field,Concord—California Red-legged Frog Protocol Level Survey Results 4 111« SITE ASSESSMENT A. CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG RANGE AND SIGHTINGS WITHIN FIVE MILES OF THE SURVEY AREA The California Natural Diversity Database(CNDDB)(2002)reports no CRLF sightings within five miles of the Buchanan Field study area,though several sightings are reported within 7 miles of the site. The nearest locations are shown in Figure 1. Both of the identified sightings are from rural,mountainous areas in the Inner Coast Range. The CNDDB reports no frog sightings in the developed,lower watershed in the City of Concord. The Diablo Mountain Range is known to be rich with CRLF,particularly in grazing lands and associated cattle stockcponds located east of the City of Concord. However, such habitat does not occur in the nearby project vicinity. B. HABITATS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA AND WITHIN ONE MILE Grayson Creek is an urbanized perennial stream located roughly 1/4 mile downstream from the study area. This stream varies in its available habitat,but in general is characterized by a broad flood control channel lined with dense cattails and other emergent vegetation. A CRLF habitat suitability analysis was not conducted for Grayson Creek as part of this assessment,but it is considered unlikely that CRLF would use this creek as a migratory corridor from established breeding sites to Buchanan Field. Based on channel management activities,it is considered unlikely that CRLF occur in downstream tributaries. The two drainage channels at Buchanan Field and downstream waterways lacy canopy tree species. Habitats within one mile of the project area include developed residential,commercial,and industrial areas in all directions,interspersed with annual grasslands habitat on the airport(see Figure 2). IV. ESA SURVEY RESULTS The aquatic habitats in the two parallel channels an Buchanan Field are considered to provide poor to moderate quality breeding habitat for CRLF;however,the survey findings did not detect CRLF in any life stages in the study area. The aquatic habitat in these channels may be suitable to support breeding CRLF populations,however,these channels lack deep-water cover,an important habitat component for CRLF. During the four-day assessment of wetlands and uplands in the survey area pacific chorus frogs(Hyla regilla)were the only amphibians identified.. Surveys were conducted during optimal weather conditions,as stated in the survey protocol. During all survey events,weather conditions would be considered warm sunny days and nights. Winds were between five and twenty miles per hour during three of the four surveys, and consistently below 10 mph. Habitat conditions during each survey are described on the aquatic survey data sheets provided in Appendix A. Buchanan Field,Concord--California Red-legged Frog Protocol Level Survey Results 5 One fish species was identified in low numbers in the drainage channels, mosquito fish(Gambusia sp.). Water clarity was generally poor during surveys,but the bottom of each channel was visible during surveys. It can be concluded from results of this survey that CRLF are likely absent from the survey area. Survey conditions were considered optimal for detecting CRLF,with no physical or environmental conditions that would impede frog identification. No potential CRLF population sources were identified within five miles of the study area. As a result,based on surrounding habitat and the nearest identified occurrence of CRLF,it is considered unlikely that CRLF could migrate from upstream stream reaches or nearby ponds into the study area. Buchanan Field,Concord—California Red-legged Frog Protocol Level Survey Results 6 V. REFERENCES California Natural Diversity Database.2002. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento,California. USFWS. 1997. Federal Listing for the California Red-legged Frog as Threatened. Federal Register Volume 61.Number 101. May 27. Buchanan Field,Concord—California Red-legged Frog Protocol Level Survey Results 7 APPENDIX D.1 DATA SHEETS (4) Buchanan Field,Concord—California Red-legged Frog Protocol Level Survey Results Aquatic Survey Data Sheet Site: st [Moped MO.*% Begin TotalUe -L Tuna: # Time: min I1n2 3 4 ,ti Lw w _ ,� OL, t'�Yrrfat: 'i M�.NPS FS OLM SaRtea.m North UTk East UTM: o R GPS Map 345fi78 SOS 11piaic Map: {� 1Nath il'CM: East t17`Mt: 10 15' �j r GPS Map 345878 11 a(air)t* Dwane*(air)to t��(air)to traif � km Public dirt road: C km Public pavers toad: � kin Weadw. Chw Overcast R" Wind: 0 5-2} Air Temp„ o C lWater remp.: C Pt.Cloudy j CWudv SraOW 4 Nrrsl(mah) '46 i►20 [(at 1_m) •� P (0.5 m Dalt) F [ed itat: Natural D Lake River Woodland MeedowiWeti. Drainage: Parrrraraent 1 2 3 4 5 D>fcta Pond Stream Grassland Spring C1 0 1t rrV Avear. Aver Depth: rr Max. �rt Water Flow None Mead(7-11) gth: �o rm Wk4tft; m 1(3 m cut) m Depth- m sec.t3 m Fast(47) StewOI I) et Clear Turbid Mid-day Ernesger>t Floating idity t 2 3 4 5 Staaoe: % Vegetation: % Verletation: Water- Natural Grated ..,_.tagged(last 15 yr.) Substrate. Slittt?rg. �2 rnm ,,,,_:_=mm ,_,7S•3W trim : t7r)kara Agrtcul. -0&0Other i t3edrock 2.75 rasm i mrr WMnaruetation: Fistaang T Fists Presem: Species am �^ � Yes Yes s No 7 Approx.Number: 4 St+ecres Aduft Subad. Unkrron Larvae Masses Tot,Eggs LINA tt Survey Method(*) Other isuai Hatay# Votrrdter Aural TCS feet Grp et Seine Paso " Visual Mand. V*UctW Aural 'TCS PAhoioyy A Lal@ Net Sfft Photo " Visual Hund VaJohor Aural TCS PWN*W At Dip Net Seim Photo " Visual Hand vouctw Aural TCS PaftAny A Dip Net Seine Photo " Visual Maned vauctaenr Aural TCS Pedhta W A 0io Net sine Photo " Visual Mend vdxdaer Aural TICS Pathology Aquatic Survey Data Sheet site.: � — t#ate: 8egsr► Tutatl Obsewt:r(s): Time: 16 ,45 Time: 3 min 2 3 a r r•t r ��I! r c,vt Ct7zvner: '�4 Mil. --� NPS Fs`I M SOR CA 14 L �,v r v St. Co. Pvt. Oth. Cowtf. 11 JEWolon: orth UTM: East tlTM. 10 'Vf4i �� �. It CPS Mats 345878 11 PNC Map; / f North UTM: Fest UTM: 10 TV 13` � J � v t. � t GPSM 345573 !t {air)to Lllstartce(alr)to Distance(air)to M0000d trail: #art Ptd dirt maid: 4 lair Public raved mod: ` wn Weatlter:r O 21 winck 0 5.20 Air Temp.: .2 � Water Temp.: C Mc ttv Cloudy sty+6 Hail(mph) e 5 >2il (at 1 rri) F (0.5 m out) i` Habitat: Natural Allsted Damon: Lair* ftKw Woodland Meadowf wea. Omnage: Permanent t 2 3 4 5 # Pond Stream Grassland SW74 SAO Aver. s.. ,liver€"th: �p '' Max �� ' wader�iirrww Nonr t enat#a: m width: m (3 m cut) 1a: Death: `"rn seeci3 m Fast(4) Slow 010 11) Water t3earr Turbid M443y Floa:,ng Turbidity 1 2 3 r4 5 St ade: 'lb Vegetatlas: , 96 Veoetauon: (,' 96 Water. Natural Graded togged(taut IS yr.) Sut>strafe: Sllt/Org. .r 2 mm _ 75.300 mm shed: Urban Agtx ul, other Seorock 2.75 mm 3,30D mm Predwmnant Veaetation: Fishing Tacw i~ish art sent: Ispectes am Yes !Tres) No 9 Aporox.Number Starter Adults Subad. LIN~ Lame Masses Tot.Eggs ONA M Survev methaa(s) Other Visual Hand Voucher Auras TCS Pauxkw DNet Seine Photo " Visual Hand Voucher Aural TCS Patkh AM A DID Net S e Photo " Visual Hand Voucher Aural TCS Patholov AlCtlo Net Seine Photo N Visual Hand Voucher Aural TCS Path Al OVID Net Seine Photo N Visual Hanot V*rJw Aural 'SCS patheil ogy Al Dip Net Seine Photo " Visual Hand Voucher L Aura[ TCS Pathology -Aquatic Survey Data Sheet Site. +rte: ITOW observer($). (' A 2_0z.z Tkm. 2.02—o ITIrm------ 1Dmb # 2 3 4 P� Y t t mC�Y Vinws i t *� M NPS f ii' {�M 6W J St Co, �. „ m North UTM: Emet UTk 10 LO, r'c� 3 It GPS Map 3 4 S tt T a 11 Map: North UTM: Eau'UTi-: 10 7`.S' Is. I t � " CPS Mai► 345675 11 t Isu alr{ak} Minos(air)to pwance(sk)to qmd M* tuXl Pins dot mad* ft s M#Kt km main WIn& 0 - EAA_kTwM.: Ct �v' StXow&Hair(ash) S 2D t nsl (0,3 r .otA? _ F Fv: ARe 0 t. m Rkw woodland m"dowrwad.1 2 3 5 Pond Steam;Rorer, Aver Oeptts abetFiadnr Nona - #)nX � 1X1 rnout) 1X1 pec ta: f17 semi i�aet(< Slier►(>#t)tear 1 i�G"Ay t# 2 3 4 5 Staacle: 'Ji Vegetatksn: '1i Ve Otatio:.,...`N Owed t oWed(IW#S yr.) Sutura: SlUClrg. .r 2 m m �75.3wmmUrbar} Agrictlt. i!!?uer Bedrock �=7Stnlrt e100mrnant Fishing Taoide: Rib Pteslst:: Sp06"mid yea xINo Yau (o 1 7 Atm.Ntunber so"" Adutts $ Uf*n n Lump Mas3es Tct.E DNA It Sur+rawcbtler y �c r: Visual Hark# 'VVCt'w fi s ,Cor n Aursi $ f A 010 Net Sema * vow Henri. Valxdaler Aural TCs PwXtdagy _ A OWN* Sema Photo " Visual Hand Voucher Aural TCw Pattao ow A ftf4* Sdift pto tea Visual Hared 1Uxtw Ausrsi pNWXrs V A DIO twat Ute Phots Vuruei Hared Voucher Aural T+„S Ply At Oto Ne# Saks$ Ph to " Vilmad Hand vbuctw Aural7 tors PattI*w A ()io Nest Sek* Phot$ ........................ Aquatic Survey Data Sheat Site:�� Date, j Begin Tutatdtrver(s): t Titre: �-�r �� rm�e: � 1 2 J 4 I Owner 7 . 1 LA `�" NPS FS aLM BOR St. Co. Pvt. Oth. CouW, Elevation: U m North UTM: E29 UTM: 10 GPS Map 11 Topographic . North UTM: Bast UTM: 10 7.5' t5' GPS Map 345678 11 D*ancx(air)to tstarice(air)to #3ilstarre:(air)to r;Aaoaect tragi: Cera Putt tort toad: cars Public caved mod: C; t brr Weather Overcast Rain► Wind 0 -20 Air Terrrp.: C Water Temp.: 4 0.--C Pt.Cjoudv Mostly CWudv Sr.1,Had�tmchi <5 > {at#t m) F (0S m out) F Habitat, Natural Altered Descn Like Rlver Woodland Meadtw NVed. 0!rautage: PZrrr"Ilt 1 2 3 4 5 it Pond Stream Mand Sorin Site h. 46 Aver. /j Aver Depth: Max lWalt,Flow 19aeee Mi a-i(7-11) Lerwth t h+ Widtn* L- m IM m oulp,o m loeoth, ,t m seecJ3 m W(. SMaw 011) Water Gear Turbid Med cratr dv: Emergentexe Floating Tufbid1 ? 3 4 5 $hale: 9t Vegetation: 9t; Verietation: % Water- Natural Glazed Logged(fast IS yr.) Substrate: S=rg. K <2 mm 75 x 300 mm shed: Urban Aancut. Other aeorock —2.75 mm Wit?mm Fsrecsottttrlant Veaetatlow i"istung Tackfe-`� Fisn Present Species and Yes o 7 es j No ? APOM Number- . t Spwc:es Adults Sul bad. Unlcrnrtr t arvae Mass*& Tot.EM DNA It 3tuv"Cabo Q Qti►er ct c-C Citral Hind Vaud r Aural TCS 0 Pathology A Clip Net She Phow N Visual H nd. vouetiern Aural TCS Prlltaoioyy AlM Net Soiree PtW* 14 vWW Hand vouctw Aural TCS Pet wkw A Clip Net Set* Ptv" u Visual NOW Voucher Aural T C'S Pattec#ow DIP Net Seir+s Plxitp N Vwxd HKjd Varma` Aural TCS psft logy A Clip Net Seine Photo " Visua! Hanna Vtetvtw Aural TCS Pattxaloc3Y APPENDIX D.2 PHOTOS OF THE STUDY AREA Buchanan Field,Concord--California Red-legged Frog Protocol Level Survey Results _ ........ .... ..... _ .. ....................................................... ....... ....... _. ._. _..._.. _. . . _ ................................. Photo 1. View of the northern channel in the CRLF study area,looking west. :; .. }4 t f{Y 2•S�Y.JLL r yh X{ i+ }y ,,. {,��#���3 f :.. ':S."0�• �•. � .. ..� ::fit /nf •'t Ff� bY]rZ 4 'rr. :: �},�: Photo 2. View of the southern channel in the CRLF study area,looking west. {�[ti{:: ........ ..,:}:.. r ::.......... { 4. p •' 4 k' '.::{i!%tit? .:i:: :?i.••.•�• �'4• }��qq{��rfi',y'A}y� ���';��'�+{+��+/�'. '..:}'C-v,}:''}.:�:::: ::::.:... 5•,qr';?�? ffM,.;<.}:�:.;:;,'4}.:::Y�Y:4}:i}`Y�:'' ..%.E'#�'•.''•i:;t'<{i3:;+y 2' �.f;::3t.'.: rO.%,4Y.y•.;::.:. .;:� of Irv}. WKN !:.:�?�?14�+.{£jA. .t+rw sS.f i�Rx �'.4 •:.::s'�L.+ Buchanan Field,Concord—California Red-legged Frog Protocol Level Survey Results ......... ..........._..._. .. ........ ........ ......... ........ Photo 3. Detail view of the southern channel in the CRLF study area,looking west. .....:.:{...::.YYYYYY;:.YY:.YYYYYY:.Y: Y:<:.Y:;.YY::;{.......Y:.Y. A t} rn}4i. •G.} . 4 ... is.}.Y:::i:•S:. { �{ ��{ 0.1 t v;}`•{....::::::is G^}Y:{. ::.�.Srr};{.}.. ppS J .'S} '{G:SSS{S::it::'•:::{:G,;r a..s'�}G •S'!4'�':•`:4,:•it: F .{S n4: •<:Ji:r J{�•JJ. } •fix%. f y. 7 'Vii.}:•:r}:iY:�CiS�. Y r { �Y '::i::ti•::45�':::�J •:LC..•{.i:{Y}..:y; 'k '.Y�-'•7,�v r.}:4:: h's:a>•: '.rte. :y�;,;•..••{ n ak Buchanan Field,Concord—California Red-legged Frog Protocol Level Survey Results APPENDIX E Routine Delineation of the Waters of the United States �� A ���� W� � � Y�� 0� ROUTINE DEI 1NEATIO^` OF `' ^ ~TER^' OF THE UNITED STATES ��� '����� l��7��V�&Y���� ����Y �� &������� ,°�~~��~^, FOR ~�~,~ ~~~,~~,,^^^,^~^, FIELD AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, � ��^���I� ~��`�`I�� �a 1.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................l-1 1.l Objective................................................... ..............................................................l-1 1.2 Responsible Parties..................................................................................................l-1 1.3 Project Description.................................................. 1,4 Defiubioou................................................................................................................l-2 2.0 SETTING.........................................................................................................................2-1 2-1 Project Site................................................ .......................... ...................................2-1 22 Climate and Topography............... ..........................................................................2-I 2.3 Soils ........................................................ ................................................................2-1 2.4 Hydrology—..--.—.—..-------.----.~---.-----.---.—_—.2-2 25 Vezetation........................... ....................................................................................2-2 2,6 Wildlife....................................................................................................................%-] 3.0 METHODS.......................................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Literature Review....................... .............................................................................3-1 3.2 Field Survey and Delineation...................................................................................3-1 4.0 RESULTS.........................................................................................................................4-1 5.0 REPORT AUTHORS AND REFERENCES -----------.--.-------..5-1 5.1 Report Authors.........................................................................................................5-1 5.2 References and Sources Consulted..........................................................................5-1 APPENDICES Ell Figures l. Project Location 2. Project Boundary 3. Preliminary Site Plan 4. Potentially Jurisdictional Wetlands 5. Site photographs E.2 Wetland Delineation Field Data Sheets Buchanan Field Airport Development Project ii Routine Wetland Delineation 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 OBJECTIVE This report was prepared to determine the extent of jurisdictional waters of the United States, including jurisdictional wetlands and water associated habitats,occurring at,and in the immediate vicinity of,the project site located at Buchanan Field Airport,Contra Costa County,California. 1.2 RESPONSIBLE PARTIES Lead Agency Name and Address: Contra Costa County Contact Person and Phone Number: Airport: Keith Freitas Assistant Director of Airports Public Works Department—Airports Division (925)646-5722 Environmental Review: Catherine Kutsuris,Deputy Director, Community Development Department (925)335-1210 e-mail: ckutscd.co.contra-costa.ca.us Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Concord Jet Services,Inc. 550 Sally Ride Drive, Suite 530 Concord,CA 94520 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located on the western perimeter of Buchanan Field Airport(Airport)and located in an unincorporated area of north central Contra Costa County near the City of Concord (see Figure 1). The proposed project would be located on approximately 7.5 acres in the central western portion of the Airport along Sally Ride Drive(see Figure 2). A mobile home park is located beyond the western perimeter of the Airport, commercial uses are located to the south and southeast,residential uses are situated to the east,and vacant land lies to the north. The proposed project consists of some or all of the following project elements: a full service Fixed Base Operation(FBO)or corporate aviation facility at the Buchanan Field Airport (Airport)in Contra Costa County. The proposed project would involve construction of an approximately 54,300 square foot two story building,which would include hangar,office, and Buchanan Field Airport Development Project 1-1 Routine wetland Delineation APPENDIX E 1.0 TN'T`ROLaIJMON retail space, 300,000 square feet of parking ramp and taxi space, and an 8,000 square foot fuel storage area. The fuel storage facility would be enclosed by an 8 feet high concrete block retaining wall with a sloped berm. The project would also provide 74 parking spaces(see Figure 3). The project sponsor anticipates an 8 to 10 month construction period.The project would require limited excavation and would include limited subsurface facilities, such as underground utilities. 1.4 DEFINITIONS Wetlands and other water resources,e.g.,rivers, streams and natural ponds,are a subset of "waters of the United States"and receive protection under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Army Corps of Engineers(the Corps)has primary federal responsibility for administering regulations that concern waters and wetlands. In this regard,the Corps acts under two statutory authorities,the Rivers and Harbors Act(Sections 9 and 10),which governs specified activities in "navigable waters," and the Clean Water Act(Section 404),which governs specified activities in "waters of the United states,"including wetlands. Navigable waters of the United States are defined as those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide or are presently used,or have been used in the past,were so designated, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. A determination of navigability,once made,applies laterally over the entire surface of the water body, and is not superceded by later actions or events that impede or destroy navigable capacity. (33 CFR 329.4) The Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)define wetlands as,"Those areas that are saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for the life in saturated soil conditions.Wetlands generally include sumps,marshes bogs, and similar areas." The term"waters of the United States" as defined in Code of Federal Regulations(33 CFR 328.3[a]; 40 CFR 230.3[s])includes. (1)All waters which are currently used,were used in the past,or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce,including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;(2)All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; (3)All other waters such as intrastate lakes,rivers,streams(including intermittent streams),Thud flats,sand flats, wetlands,sloughs,prairie potholes,wet meadows,playa lakes,or natural ponds, the use,degradation,or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce;or which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce; (4)All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition; (5)Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (1)through(4); (6)Territorial seas, and(7)Wetlands adjacent to waters(other than waters that are themselves wetlands)identified in paragraphs(1)through(6).The terra"other waters of the Buchanan Field Airport Development Project 1-2 Routine wetland Delineation APPENDIX E 1.0 INTRODUCTION United States"is used to characterize waterbodies,such as intermittent streams,that do not meet the full criteria for wetlands designation. Buchanan Field Airport Development Project 1-3 Routine Wetland Delineation 2.0 SETTING 2.1 PROJECT SITE Approximately half of the proposed project site is currently paved and used,in part,for general aviation aircraft parking. The site also includes an aircraft hangar maintenance facility and aircraft wash racy.The remaining portion of the site is currently undeveloped,with grassland and ruderal vegetative cover.Located on Airport property,the project site is surrounded by aviation related uses.The project site is bordered by Sally Ride Drive to the west and Taxiway E to the east.Corporate hangars and offices are located to the south,while the area to the north is primarily undeveloped grassland. 2.2 CLIMATE AND TOPOGRAPHY Contra Costa County has mild temperatures and a Mediterranean climate,with hot dry summers and cool,wet winters.Temperatures can range from 10'F in winter to over 100'in summer months,with an average temperature of 59°F. Precipitation generally occurs in the form of rain and average annual rainfall is approximately 14 to 16 inches(MRCS 1977). The project site is located in a relatively flat alluvial valley,formed by Walnut Creek and its tributaries,that slopes gently to the northwest.The Carquinez Straits lie to the north,the Berkeley Hills lie to the west and the Diablo Range:lies to the east,with Mount Diablo to the southeast. 2.3 SOILS As mapped by the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service(formerly the Soil Conservation Service)Sail Survey for Contra Costa County(1.977),one soil type occurs within the project area. However,the Soil Survey states that another soil type occurs along the lower edges of the Grayson Creek and Walnut Creek floodplains. Both of these soils types belong to the Cunni soil series and are represented by,respectively,the Omni clay loam(0a)and Omni silty clay(0b) soil map units.The Omni series consists of poorly drained,moderately alkaline alluvial soils formed from:sedimentary rock. Both soil types are classified as hydric on the local hydric soils list for the Contra Costa County (NRCS 1993),as well as on the national hydric soils list(NRCS 1995).Depth to bedrock for these soils is generally greater than five feet and depth to the seasonal high water table ranges from two and one-half to four feet. Permeability for both soils is slow and runoff is very slow, therefore these soils are subject to seasonal ponding(NRCS 1977). Buchanan Field Airport Development Project 2-1. Routine Wetland Delineation APPENDIX E 2.0 SETTING A survey of several historical aerial photos shows that the grassland areas within the project area have been subject to disturbance in the past,including mowing and disking as part of vegetation maintenance associated with airport operations. In addition, soils were undoubtedly disturbed during past Airport construction activities, which would have included grading. The natural hydrology in the project area has been altered through realignment,channelization and other flood protection measures along Walnut and Grayson Creeks, as well as the creation of a drainage system for the Airport.Alterations such as these can make the determination of hydric soils difficult. However,the NRCS (1993)states that hydric soil conditions existed prior to these alterations and that the soil types belonging to the Omni soil series should be considered hydric soils. 2.4 HYDROLOGY The proposed project site is part of the Walnut Creek watershed and is located approximately one mile south of the confluence of Grayson and Walnut Creeks. As mentioned above,the natural hydrology of the project area has been altered through measures taken for flood protection and drainage of soils with slow permeability and a tendency towards ponding. Historically,this area would have been subject to periodic flooding and would have supported numerous seasonal wetlands. Surface waters within or immediately adjacent to the site include four excavated drainage ditches (see Figure 4). These ditches convey excess runoff from asphalt areas of the Airport and collect subsurface flow from adjacent upland areas. Three of the ditches discharge into Grayson Creek, the fourth appears to be isolated in that it does not connect with other durface waters. However,this ditch may be connected with others via groundwater. Two ditches held water at the time of the field delineation(early May)but typically dry out by Tune or July(Kenton Coyle,personal communication, 2002),the other two were dry. Surface water drawn from the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta is the main source of water supply for Contra Costa County. However,groundwater is also used for certain purposes and the proposed project site lies within the Ygnacio Valley Basin. Aquifers in this basin are hydrologically connected to the Sacramento River. Groundwater levels at the project site vary seasonally. For Omni soils,depth from the surface to the seasonal high water table ranges from two and one-half to four feet. 2.4 VEGETATION Three different vegetation types are present on the project site: non-native grassland,a mixed alkali grassland,and small areas of freshwater marsh.Cover by non-native grassland dominates the site with the mixed alkali grassland occurring primarily in a low-lying area between two ditches at the northern end of the site. The non-native grasslands are dominated by Italian ryegrass(solium multiflorum), wild barley(Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum), and ripgut brorne (Bromus diandrus),with cut-leaved geranium(Geranium dissectum)and hairy vetch(Vicia villosa ssp. villosa)also prevalent. Vegetation in the lower lying area between the ditches is dominated by non-native grasses, as well as the native salt grass(Distichlis spicata), with Buchanan Field Airport Development Project 2-2 Routine Wetland Delineation APPENDIX E 2.0 SETTING spearscale(Atriplex triangularis),alkali mallow(Malvella leprrsa),and curly dock(Rumex crispus)also present. Freshwater marsh vegetation,dominated by cattail(Typha latifolia)and tule(Scirpus sp.), occurs in the two ditches at the northern end of the project area and at the northernmost end of a third ditch that parallels Sally Ride Drive. Vegetation in the area has been subjected to repeated and ongoing disturbance. Current airport vegetation management in the project area includes mowing at least twice annually and the application of herbicides for the control of noxious weeds(Denton Coyle, personal communication, 2002). Vegetation in the ditches is sprayed with herbicide annually and removed by hand on a semi-annual basis.Vegetation is thus primarily limited to opportunistic species that re-establish annually and to disturbance adapted perennials. 2.6 WILDLIFE A number of common wildlife species use habitat present on the proposed project site.Given the high levels of disturbance on-site and in surrounding areas,most species found in the area are those that tolerate disturbed conditions and human presence. During the delineation and other surveys carried out in 2002(ESA April 2042; ESA May 2002),ESA biologists observed Pacific chorus frog(Pseudacris regilla), western fence lizard(Sceloporus occidentalis),black-tailed jackrabbit(Lepus californicus), California ground squirrel(Spermophilus beecheyi),red-winged blackbird(Agelaius phoenicius),western meadowlark(Sturnella neglecta),and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). These are all common species typical of the open grassland and wetland habitat types found on-site. There were several active ground squirrel burrows in the grasslands located in the northwestern portion of the site. The combination of grasslands with marnmal burrows present and seasonal wetlands provides potential habitat for four special status wildlife species known to occur in the project area (CNDDB 2042): California red-legged frog(Rana aurora draytonii,a federally threatened species), California tiger salamander(Ambystoma californiense,a federal and state species of special concern),western pond turtle(Clemmys marmorata mannorata, a federal and state species of special concern),and western burrowing owl(Athene cunicularia hypugaea,a federal and state species of special concern). The ditches that provide aquatic habitat on-site typically dry out by.Tune and vegetation within them is managed as outlined above. Therefore,the habitat they provide is not optimal for aquatic organisms,although Pacific chorus frog adults and larvae, as well as mosquito fish(Gambusia sp.)were observed in the two ditches along the northern edge of the project site. Federal protocol-level surveys were conducted for California red-legged frog(CRLF)in May 2002 and results concluded that CRLF were not present on-site(ESA May 2002a). Given the similarity in habitat requirements between CRLF,California tiger salamander(CTS), and western pond turtle (WPT), it is unlikely that the latter two species are present on-site. In addition, if CTS were using habitat on-site,their larvae should have been detected during surveys for CRLF.Although WPT Buchanan Field Airport Development Project 2-3 Routine wetland Delineation APPENDIX E 2.0 SEITING have been documented from the Walnut Creek Flood Control channel on the eastern side of the airport(Hall 1997),none were detected during the initial site survey,the surveys for CRLF,or during the wetland delineation, which combine for a total of six site visits where aquatic habitat was examined. The combination of grasslands with mammal burrows present provides potential habitat for western burrowing owl.However,these birds prefer to use burrows in areas with short vegetation and the grasses in the proposed project area are generally not mowed until June or later(Kenton Coyle,personal communication,2002).The fact that grasses are kept long until well into the burrowing owl breeding season, which can run from early April to mid-June in California(Haug et al. 1993),would make it unlikely that burrowing owls would use burrows for nesting in the project area.In addition,burrowing owls are not known from.Buchanan Field(CNDDB 2002; Kenton Coyle,personal communication, 2002;Hall 1997). Finally, although protocol-level burrowing owl surveys have not been carried out,all ground squirrel burrows on-site were inspected during each site survey conducted in 2002. Evidence of an occupied burrow typically includes excrement,regurgitated food pellets,feathers,and prey remains at the mouth of the burrow(California Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993). No evidence of occupation was documented during the 2002 surveys and this fact,combined with the marginal suitability of the surrounding habitat,make it unlikely that this species is using the project site. Buchanan Meld Airport Development Project 2-4 Routine Wetland Delineation •0 METHODS ESA conducted the following tasks as part of this delineation: (1)a review of literature, reaps, and aerial photographs to determine historical and existing conditions of the site; and, (2)a focused delineation of wetlands and other waters of the United States on the site. 3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW ESA reviewed the following sources for information relevant to this delineation: • Aerial photographs of the project site and vicinity; • Previous assessment of the project site(Hall 1997); • Local and national hydric soils lists; and • Standard biological references and field guides,including review of the California Natural Diversity Database(CDFG 2002)and the California Native Plant Society's Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California(CNPS 2002)to determine the potential for rare,threatened, and endangered plant and wildlife species to occur on-site. 3.2 FIELD SURVEY AND DELINEATION ESA biologist Martha Lowe conducted a formal survey of waters of the United States for the project site on May 9, 2002. Data on vegetation,soils,and hydrology were collected at a total of 5 locations.Locations of data points are shown in Figure 4.Representative photographs of the project site and the various habitat types present are provided in Figures 5 through 11. Routine wetland delineation data sheets are included in Appendix B. Data sheets used in this study were adapted to present information suitable for determination of waters of the United States subject to Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG)jurisdiction under Sections 1600-1607 of the California Fish and Game Code. At each data point,vegetation was analyzed within an approximate five foot radius for herbaceous and shrub species and within a 30 foot radius for trees. Dominant plant species were recorded on data sheets.The indicator status of each species was confirmed with the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands(USFWS, 1988). For species not listed by the USFWS,taxonomic literature was used to determine if the species is associated with wetland or non-wetland conditions. Buchanan Field Airport Development Project 3-1 Routine wedand Delineation APPENDIX E 3.0 METHODS Assessment of the hydrologic criterion on-site was based on direct and indirect indicators. Direct indicators used included observations of inundation, saturation, or flowing or standing water. If the data point was situated above the level of inundation or saturation,the criterion was not met; conversely,if it was situated below the elevation of seasonal inundation or saturation the criterion was considered met. Hydric soils were surveyed in accordance with the Corps'Manual(1987). Sail pits were excavated to a depth of approximately 12 inches and soil color was matched against a Munsell color chart. ESA used aerial photographs,correlated with wetland delineation field data sheet information and other field observations,to interpret and map delineation results.Possible jurisdictional area for potential wetlands was calculated using field measurements. Buchanan Field Airport Development Project 3-2 Routine wetland Delineation 4.0 RESULTS A preliminary assessment determined that potentially jurisdictional waters may be present on the project site in the form of four excavated drainage ditches. Due to the presence of typical regional alkali wetland plant species found on-site,as well as the locational position within the floodplains of Grayson and Walnut Creeks, it was not possible to argue with certainty that the "upland area"of the project site did not support wetlands prior to extensive reconfiguration of the area during the long history of airport development and operations. Therefore,while the ditches are all man-made features,,a conclusive argument could not be made that they were ditches excavated in uplands and maintained for the purpose of drainage and,therefore,exempt from Corps jurisdiction. Data were collected at a total of five points. A single data point was located within each drainage ditch and a fifth was located within an upland area for comparison(Figure 4). The total area under potential Corps jurisdiction within or immediately adjacent to the proposed project area is estimated to be 0.055 acre(636 linear feet;2,453 square feet)of seasonal wetlands that occur in three drainage ditches. Ditch A: This ditch is potentially subject to Corps jurisdiction as a seasonal wetland(8,055 square feet;0.018 acre). Data point 1 was located at the eastern end of ditch A,which appears to be an isolated wetland as no outlet was found.(see Figure 4). This ditch receives surface water from sheetflow draining from surrounding uplands, as well as subsurface flow during periods when the water table is high. Vegetation at the data point was dominated by hydrophytic perennial species growing within the channel. While there was no surface water at the data point, soils were saturated at a depth of one inch and depth to free water was six inches. There was standing water in the majority of the ditch,with a maximum depth of seven inches and an average depth of five inches. There was no evidence of surface water flow,such as scour lines,an ordinary high water mark,or a defined channel. Soils at the data point were gleyed and had a sulfidic odor,suggesting anaerobic conditions,and the soil types mapped as occurring at the site are listed on both the national and local hydric soils lists. The three Corps criterial for wetland determination were met for this point and thus Ditch A may be jurisdictional as a seasonal wetland,although it is isolated and,therefore,may not be considered jurisdictional. According to the preliminary site plan(Figure 3)0.010 acre(437.5 square feet; 125 linear feet)of this ditch will be permanently filled as a result of project construction. i The three criteria used by the Corps to determine wetlands are: I)the presence of vegetation adapted to saturated or inundated soils;2)the presence of surface or groundwater hydrology that results in the permanent or periodic saturation of soils;3)the presence of soils that formed under conditions of permanent or periodic inundation. Buchanan Field Airport Development Project 4-1 Routine wetland Delineation APPENDIX E 4.0 RESULTS Ditch B: This bitch is potentially subject to Corps jurisdiction as a seasonal wetland(1,520 square feet;01.034 acre). This ditch may also be considered tributary waters by the Corps(380 linear feet),and thus jurisdictional,because it is ultimately hydrologically connected to Grayson Creep. Surface flaw was extremely low on the date of the delineation and would appear to rarely be much greater since there was no evidence of scour lines, an ordinary high water mark,or a defined channel. Data point 3 was located near the eastern end of the ditch. Vegetation was dominated by perennial hydrophytes,which were growing throughout the channel. While there was no standing water at this data point, soils were saturated at a depth of four inches and depth to free water was six inches. There was standing water in the majority of the ditch,with a maximum depth of 12 inches and an average depth of seven inches. The soil was gleyed and had a sulfidic oder,indicating anaerobic conditions. Thus,the three criteria for determining wetlands were met and this feature is potentially jurisdictional. According to the proposed site plan(Figure 3)approximately 0.011 acre(50}0 square feet; 125 linear feet)of this ditch would be permanently filled as a direct result of project construction. Ditches C and D:With the exception of approximately 25 feet at the northernmost end of Ditch D,these features were presumed to be non jurisdictional. Data paint 4 was located within Ditch C and data point 5 was located within Ditch D. Vegetation at both data points was dominated by facultative hydrophytes and no obligate hydrophytes were present,except in the northernmost portion.of Ditch D. Therefore, satisfaction of these criteria is marginally supported compared to Ditches A and B. Soils were determined to be hydrophytic based on low chroa and listing on the national and local hydric soils lists. There were no indicators of wetland hydrology present. Surface water was absent along the length of bitch C and for all but the northernmost 25 feet of Ditch D. Saturated soils and free water in soil pits were absent at the data points and there were no secondary indicators such as scour lines,incised banks,or defined channels present. These ditches receive surface runoff,but likely do not receive much in the way of subsurface flow as they are excavated at higher elevations than Ditches A and B. They do not hold water for a sufficient period of time to support obligate hydrophytes or to produce gleyed soils or anaerobic soil conditions. The preliminary site plan(Figure 3)indicates that approximately 450 linear feet of Ditch D would be filled as a direct result of project construction;however the jurisdictional portion of this feature will not be affected.Project construction will have no impact on Ditch C. Buchanan Field Airport Development Project 4-2 Routine wetland Delineation 5.0 REPORT AUTHORS AND REFERENCES 5.1 REPORT AUTHORS Environmental Science Associates 436 i4`h Street, Suite 600 225 Bush Street Oakland,CA 94612 San Francisco,CA 94104 Project Director: Dan Wormhoudt Project Manager: Jyothi Iyer Report Preparation: Martha Lowe Graphics: Linda Uehara 5.2 REFERENCES AND SOURCES CONSULTED Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual,January 1987,Final Report,Department of the Army Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg, Mississippi. Environmental Science Associates(ESA). April 2002.Field Survey. Environmental Science Associates. May 2002a. Buchanan Field, Concord, California: Federal Protocol-level California Red-legged Frog Survey Results. Hall TC. 1997.An Ecological Study of Wildlife Hazards at Buchanan Field Airport. Sacramento,CA: US Department of Agriculture. Hickman,J.C.,(Ed.) 1993. The Jepson manual:Higher plants of California. University of California Press,Berkeley, California. Holland,R.F. 1986.Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Department of Fish and Game,Sacramento,CA. 156 p. Munsell Soil Calor Charts. 1994. Revised edition. Munsell Color,Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation, New Windsor,NY. National Resources Conservation Service(NRCS, formerly U.S.D.A Soil Conservation Service). 1995. Hydric Soils of the United States. U.S.Department of Agriculture,NRCS. Available online: http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/hydric/natlist,html. Buchanan Field Airport Development Project 5-1 Routine Wetland Delineation APPENDIX E 5.0 REPORT AUTHORS ANIS REFERENCES NRCS. 1993. Field Office Official List of Hydric Sail Map Units far Contra Costa County. Available from: Contra Costa County NRCS Field Office, 5552 Clayton Road,Concord, CA 94521. MRCS. 1977.Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,University of California Agricultural Experiment Station.U. S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988.National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary. U.S. Government Printing Office. Buchanan Field Airport Development Project 5-2 Routine Wetland Delineation APPENDIX E.1 FIGURES Buchanan Field Airport Development Project Routine Wetland Delineation VAGAVILt R F77 k (,YWTAx Qn f l E BANTA PASA .:,'� AxTXBYHAlKA`f a •„" V*' `Ci`�� XiB ) \� a8 FAKKFfEt4 CPN Y:{!St �/ .,,.✓'. 4`Yri n5 .Uhm. .w \ tb P ra ''ttNRA xfCAy y z :,. .f'moi`:. ...... _ Na c -FS< i3JET '♦ nrrx n £ �.,'i.0 \t y, wr � w ti:S iiw s pICNrapwo SlTE'`� Ct7NCORn WALNUT �! Project LOCBt#Ot1 k.� y� " -•� BUCI lAhdAN t ha ° _. BAN s..au p x 't" MANCtµ } ,�' rMA`.r �� t n"A �{ �1 8 E _ rc s as x 1 -t sr+oy /AtRI�CiRT ls yM. 41,ty ur• . ( 8t36r5 f i A r eft ''4d 1 . tt� +1'' {{ j 1 acs 1 w". til �. i.....;?». �.. t.'....-s-`' A, A�(�,r> � sa �R s a(ACHANAAJ • r I t � tl & e atiy"`� ✓''� _` r.:y`' R rw est .., d %ow 4S t1 x. r:) a� AY. .. 4¢l G Ai''• ✓ �gc,4k' ys(S +3f.. �".: 'fry l yrkuob aoe,,. .a*s� w"<,.as r. w - ay 7,4r,�r,x 'r.° '@', �t,. •s 'bra.".cen< sS,s R, Rory A.;, 01 �r ! vex trocsv PD ..,j t2t;g,:eu Wr 't' Yt �.. - ~ •i't 't 1. "�Fi, X< 5: LVAft0 VALLEY 041, j///ff{ zxalb'+nate h xr , �! �S�' 1 �.'f� ,r� ��. .�,� :� dF'�� SY �A•��t,.Y. (�: aaar« " wra;�• n ,�` g \ .. a r' a t �., �f.i E COLLEti, SUWAIE'Y ! MALL a� zart 'X' s� �W a Y � r ti PLEAS,/�j� p "AS�R .gi A cJill � ILL e, «. { tt WGi*9 �fN � q �,j b^ ✓ 0. �� AJ4..+ ■ '-' Ike { h ! 0 2200 WA r '� y Feet r., fj, x 0 VIP, i � ¢ — --Buchanan Field Airport Development Project Wetland Delineation ■ SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates Figure I Traject Location _. r w° ! ° _moi.« : nv •wry 'z�1 d a ° rte.,,, �XF IJ IQQV + Cr 'Ft'eter3'� � t Now ■ate t z 1 Project Bo�ndgry " IA r Px ! s w 0 4 r 1 c. t r + f f t Go"C ot s d f 4 1400 N. Feet f Buchanan Field Airport Development Project Wetland Delineation ■ SOURCE: USGS,Walter E.Eagle&Associates,Inc. Figure Project Boundary ■ cn �~ j � U v , s i Y � I X 7 d 41 F- r1 Ile 3-AdMIXrl iI ,K� ` I a �.\ ONlrara I�raoalr 1 - NONar 1S3M ONIISIX3 , , , , Y � J ' (Y V ' �} AIOU L 75 � 'G Wh4.. 3 6 us cph�+� ti �^ C} i Y aM�N VI11') j,. �m W U� Z._a� W W SLE < Y� UW06 K �6UU :tl K m C7 Z �(7�.o ZZti 'Z L1 d S 1n C? SII O J d In 0 V) ^d c o � a�F • d � 1 s a x � a3 w iA. 8 cq F09 fail A Awl "IN .01 c ,r c d Ya F - v nit/ f> L �' It �• s r f / ti l " - Isms F F }r, SM OW: F . X r 3} t t• � i r r � r♦ !• r r r r r l r � 1 t ti r f , r R. yx z f ITT MR: "Shy Y �o X gi s f z 0 Y f 'Fi,d` .. a ,1• �.��.��3Y a , k z- ' r;� � =r✓ rTsoy�,� �"� h b. .., y s � y..... fl 4 N }r # KILL } ,rf f ik 5 � f2 fr �f lri fi:fc fAs- f a h: $ N ow r i fi $ � 5 t a t i x•' f �rfy,;�. f r Y' � yy' 'f r v/ f�f S X0, 'WI '�: {�"- Kfc�,r ,syy x>� d<aK rr�q,^�YS�;�•�6,cx fr{ '�P{a� '2' Y+� ,6! J1JF y^rte.' "19^. J J Rry JfJJ its rfrt�'>¢ES• �J S S 9�>f J'CSs y6. Z J tC>I !� r 5 d s sY f1 o£SJ', jr pf,t ,G JTow Y ARA >cS 6^ S} Yrs$.{��fj^'^ �{!3�/ }` %yq K.� {{�2 4.2„Y/�'f•(U'�J k ✓ men 4 o-i�hw' a JS''•i f�XC�{C,<<iSb�J. s� - p�y`x > _ .J'a} y�tt'�"� .:L PAIN— 9r +y;S°�.�i'>{J,t,•$ uJc f! +t �S,' jSS bt} 7?,q0' f' ti F 3 {. a }{'� { . } �', : one- ` Jb APPENDIX E.2 WETLAND DELINEATION FIELD DATA SHEETS Buchanan Field Airport Development Project Routine Wetland Delineation DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DELINEATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site:Buchanan Field Airport Date:05/09/02 Applicant/Owner:Contra Costa County County:Contra Costa Investigators:Martha Lowe,Environmental Science Associates State: CA Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:Seasonal freshwater wetland Is the site significantly disturbed(Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:n/a Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Data Point: 1 VEGETATION Dominant Species Present %Cover Stratum Indicator Subdominant Species Present %Cover Stratum Indicator 1. Scirpus sp. 20 herb OBL 1. Lolium multiflorum 5 herb FAC(1) 2. Distichlis spicata 60 herb FACW 2. Atriplex triangularis 1 herb OBL(2) 3. 3. 4. 4. 5. 5. 6. 6. 7. 7. 8. 18. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL,FACW or FAC(excluding FAC-): 100% Remarks: (1)Species not on National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (USFWS 1988),wetland indicator status from CalFlora Online Database. (2)Wetland indicator status inferred from habitat description in the Jepson Manual:Higher Plants of California (Hickman 1993). Vegetation in ditch sprayed annually/manually removed every several years. HYDROLOGY _Recorded data(describe in remarks) Wetland Hydrology Indicators x No recorded data available Primary Indicators: _ inundated Field Observations: x saturated in upper 12 inches _ water marks Depth of surface water: none (inches) x drift lines Depth to free water in pit: 6 (inches) _ sediment deposits Depth to saturated soil: I (inches) x drainage pattern in wetlands Secondary Indicators: _ oxidized root channels in upper 12 inches water stained leaves local survey data FAC neutral test _ other(see below) Remarks: Data point 1 appears to be a ditch excavated through basically upland habitat.However,the presence of saltgrass and Atriplex throughout the"upland" areas surrounding the ditch suggests that wetlands may have occupied this area historically. LI—_. III Environmental Science Associates SOILS Map Unit Name: Omni clay loam/Omni silty clay Drainage Class: A Series and Phase: Soil type confirmed in field? No Taxonomy(Subgroup): Flava uentic Ha la uolls Profile Description: Depth Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle(abundance, Soil texture,concretions, (inches) Horizon Munsell-moist Munsell-moist size,contrast) structure,etc. 5 B IOY 3/1 none n/a Silty clay muck Hydric Soil Indicators _ histosol _ concretions �histic epipedon high organic content in surface layer in sandy soils x sulfidic odor _ organic streaking in sandy soils aquic moisture regime x listed on local hydric soils list reducing conditions x listed on national hydric soils list x gleyed or low chroma _ other(see below) Remarks: Omni clay loam is mapped as occurring in the Buchanan Field area,the Omni silty clay was not mapped by the MRCS (SCS 1977)but is described as occurring on the lower edges of the Grayon Creek and Walnut Creek floodplains.Both soils are slisted on the national and local hydric soils lists.It is assumed that soils at the project site belong to one or another of these subseries.These are floodplain soils formed in alluvium derived form sedimentary rock.Soil sampled at data points generally seemed to have a silty component. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes Is this sampling point within a wetland? Wetland Hydrology present? Yes Yes Hydric soils present? Yes Remarks: Environmental Science Associates DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DELINEATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site:Buchanan Field Airport Date:05/09/02 Applicant/Owner:Contra Costa County County:Contra Costa Investigators:Martha Lowe,Environmental Science Associates State: CA Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:Mixed grassland Is the site significantly disturbed(Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:n/a Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Data Point:2 VEGETATION Dominant Species Present %Cover Stratum Indicator Subdominant Species Present %Cover Stratum Indicator L Lolium multiflorum 50 herb FAC 1. Bromus diandrus 30 herb UPL(1) 2. Distichlis spicata 40 herb FACW 2. 3. 3. 4. 4. 5. 5. 6. 6. 7. 7. 8. 18. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL,FACW or FAC(excluding FAC-): 100% Remarks:(1) Species not on National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (USFWS 1988),wetland indicator status inferred from habitat description in the Jepson Manual.Higher Plants of California (Hickman 1993). This is an area of higher ground between the two ditches on the northern edge of the project site.This area is,however,lower lying than surrounding upland areas and may collect sheet flow from higher ground during rainfall events. HYDROLOGY _Recorded data(describe in remarks) Wetland Hydrology Indicators x No recorded data available Primary Indicators: _ inundated Field Observations: saturated in upper 12 inches water marks Depth of surface water: none (inches) _ drift lines Depth to free water in pit: none (inches) sediment deposits Depth to saturated soil: none (inches) _ drainage pattern in wetlands Secondary Indicators: oxidized root channels in upper 12 inches water stained leaves local survey data FAC neutral test other(see below) Remarks: No evidence of wetland hydrology at this data point. Environmental Science Associates SOILS Map Unit Name: Omni clay loam/Omni silty clay Drainage Class: A Series and Phase: Soil type confirmed in field? No Taxonomy(Subgroup): Fluva uentic Ha la uolls Profile Description: Depth Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle(abundance, Soil texture,concretions, (inches) Horizon Munsell-moist Munsell-moist size,contrast) structure,etc. 6 B 2.5 Y 3/2 none n/a Silty clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators _ histosol _ concretions histic epipedon high organic content in surface layer in sandy soils sulfidic odor _ organic streaking in sandy soils aquic moisture regime x listed on local hydric soils list —reducing conditions x listed on national hydric soils list _gleyed or low chroma :. other(see below) Remarks: No hydric soils field indicators were present but the soil series is listed on the national and local hydric soils lists,which, in and of itself is a weak indicator.Listing simply indicates that it is likely for a soil to be hydric,based on criteria developed by the NRCS. A series that is designated as hydric can have phases that are not hydric depending on local variations in hydrology. However,the Field Office Official hist of Hydric Soil Map Units for Contra Costa County, California (MRCS 1993)footnotes the Omni series with the following: 'Hydrology has been altered in some or all areas of this map unit through drainage and/or protection from flooding. Soil characteristics indicate that hydric soil conditions existed prior to alteration of drainage. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes Is this sampling point within a wetland? Wetland Hydrology present? No No Hydric soils present? Yes Remarks: The lack of wetland hydrology at this data point indicates that the point is not located within a wetland.In addition, although the sampling area is dominated by hydrophytic vegetation,the species are designated as FAC and FACW,making the meeting of this parameter less conclusive than if the species were dominated by obligate hydrophytes. Environmental Science Associates DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DELINEATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site:Buchanan Field Airport Date:05149102 Applicant/Owner:Contra Costa County County:Contra Costa Investigators:Martha Lowe,:Environmental Science Associates State: CA Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:Seasonal freshwater wetland Is the site significantly disturbed(Atypical Situation)? Yes Transect ID:nta Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Data Point: 3 VEGETATION Dominant Species Present %Cover Stratum Indicator Subdominant Species Present %Cover Stratum Indicator 1. Typha latifolia 15 herb OBL 1. Lolium multiflorum 30 herb FAC 2. Epilobium sp. 30 herb n/a 2. 3. 3. 4. 4• 5. 5. 6. 6. 7. 7. &. 8. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL,FACW or FAC(excluding FAC-): 50-100% Remarks: The Epilobium was unidentifiable at the species level. However, the Typha is an obligate wetland species,therefore the data paint meets the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. HYDROLOGY _Recorded data(describe in remarks) Wetland Hydrology Indicators x No recorded data available Primary Indicators: _ inundated Field Observations: xsaturated in upper 12 inches ® water marks Depth of surface water: none (inches) x drift lines Depth to free water in pit: 6 (inches) sediment deposits Depth to saturated soil: 4 (inches) drainage pattern in wetlands Secondary Indicators: oxidized root channels in upper 12 inches water stained leaves local survey data FAC neutral test .�.. other(see below) Remarks: Environmental Science Associates SOILS Map Unit Name: Omni clay loam/Omni silty clay Drainage Class: A Series and Phase: Soil type confirmed in field? No Taxonomy(Subgroup): Fluva uentic Ha la uoils Profile Description: Depth Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle(abundance, Soil texture,concretions, (inches) Horizon Munsell-moist Munsell-moist size,contrast) structure,etc. 6 10 Y 3/1 Silty clay Hydric Soil Indicators _ histosol _ concretions _histic epipedon high organic content in surface layer in sandy soils x sulfidic odor _ organic streaking in sandy soils —aquic moisture regime x listed on local hydric soils list _reducing conditions x listed on national hydric soils list x gleyed or low chroma other(see below) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes Is this sampling point within a wetland? Wetland Hydrology present? Yes Yes Hydric soils present? Yes Remarks: Environmental Science Associates DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DELINEATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site:Buchanan Field Airport Elate:05/09/02 Applicant/Owner:Contra Costa County County:Contra Costa Investigators:Martha Lowe,Environmental Science Associates State: CA Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:Mixed grassland Is the site significantly disturbed(Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:n/a Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Data Point:4 VEGETATION Dominant Species Present %Cover Stratum Indicator Subdominant __Species Present %Cover Stratum Indicator 1. Distichlis spicata 50 herb FACW 1. Geranium dissectum 15 herb UPL(1) 2. Lolium multii locum 30 herb FAC 2. Avena fatua 5 herb UPL(1) 3. 3. 4. 4. 5. 5_ 6. 6. 7. 7. 8, 8. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL,FACW or FAC(excluding FAC-): 100% Remarks: (1)Species not on National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (USFWS 1988),wetland indicator status inferred from habitat description in the Jepson Manual:Higher Plants of California (Hickman 1993). HYDROLOGY —Recorded data(describe in remarks) Wetland Hydrology Indicators x No recorded data available Primary Indicators: _ inundated Field Observations: saturated in upper 12 inches _ water marks Depth of surface water: none (inches) drift lines Depth to free water in pit: none (inches) sediment deposits Depth to saturated soil: none (inches) drainage pattern in wetlands Secondary Indicators: oxidized root channels in upper 12 inches water stained leaves ® local survey data FAC neutral test ® other(see below) Remarks: No standing water,soil moist within pit but not saturated. Environmental Science Associates SOILS Map Unit Name: Omni clay loam/Omni silty clay Drainage Class: A Series and Phase: Soil type confirmed in field? No Taxonomy(Subgroup): Fluva uentic Ha la uolls Profile Description: Depth Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle(abundance, Soil texture,concretions, (inches) Horizon Munsell-moist Munsell-moist size,contrast) structure,etc. 8 10 YR 3/1 Silty clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators _ histosol _ concretions _histic epipedon high organic content in surface layer in sandy soils —sulfidic odor _ organic streaking in sandy soils —aquic moisture regime x listed on local hydric soils list reducing conditions x listed on national hydric soils list x gleyed or low chroma ` other(see below) Remarks: See remarks for data point 2 WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes Is this sampling point within a wetland? Wetland Hydrology present? No No Hydric soils present? Yes Remarks: Environmental Science Associates DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DELINEATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site:Buchanan Field Airport Date:05/09102 Applicant/Owner:Contra Costa County County:Contra Costa Investigators:Martha Lowe,Environmental Science Associates State: CA Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes Community ID:Mixed grassland Is the site significantly disturbed(Atypical Situation)? No Transect ID:n/a Is the area a potential Problem Area? No Data Point:5 VEGETA'T'ION Dominant Species Present %Cover Stratum Indicator Subdominant Species Present %Cover Stratum Indicator 1. Lolium multi,florum 50 herb FAC 1. Geranium dissectum 15 herb UPL 2. Epilobium sp. 15 herb n/a 2. 3. 3. 4. 4. 5. 5. 6. 6. 7. 7. 8. 18. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL,FACW or FAC(excluding FAC-): 50-100/0 Remarks: The Epilobium was unidentifiable at the species level.However,Lolium is a facultative wetland species,therefore the data point meets the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation. HYDROLOGY —Recorded data(describe in remarks) Wetland Hydrology indicators x No recorded data available Primary Indicators: _ inundated Field Observations: _ saturated in upper 12 inches _ water marks Depth of surface water: none (inches) drift lines Depth to free water in pit: none (inches) ._ sediment deposits Depth to saturated soil: none (inches) drainage pattern in wetlands Secondary Indicators: oxidized root channels in upper 12 inches water stained leaves local survey data FAC neutral test other(see below) Remarks: No hydrology indicators evident. Appears to be an excavated ditch through basically upland habitat. L_ - Environmental Science Associates SOILS Map Unit Name: Omni clay loam/Omni silty clay Drainage Class: A Series and Phase: Soil type confirmed in field? No Taxonomy(Subgroup): P'luva uentic Ha la uolls Profile Description: Depth Matrix color Mottle colors Mottle(abundance, Soil texture,concretions, (inches) Horizon Munsell-moist Munsell-moist size,contrast) structure,etc. 12 lb YR 311 Silty clay loam Hydric Soil Indicators _ histosol _ concretions histic epipedon ` high organic content in surface layer in sandy soils sulfdic odor _ organic streaking in sandy soils aquic moisture regime x listed on local hydric soils Iist reducing conditions x listed on national hydric soils list x gleyed or low chroma other(see below) Remarks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic vegetation present? Yes Is this sampling point within a wetland? Wetland Hydrology present? No No Hydric soils present? Yes Remarks: While this ditch conveys water evidence is weak that it holds water for a sufficient period of time to be determined a wetland.Lolium is a relatively weak wetland indicator species as it is equally likey to occur in uplands. Therefore the determination that hydrophytic vegetation occurs at this sampling point is not as convincing as it could be.Only a small part of this ditch provides aquatic habitat,located at its northernmost end at the confluence with,and downstream from ditch B.The project is not expected to impact this part of the ditch. Environmental Science Associates APPENDIX F Results of the Records Search rom the Northwest Information Center CALIFORNIA z?i `,=.':w ALAMEDA MARIN SAN MATEO Northwest information Center <s<:: HISTORICAL '�_,-`: CdLUSA MENDOCINO SANTA CLARA Sonoma State University >, CONTRA COSTA MONTEREY SANTA CRUZ 1343 Maurice Avenue f=' ti,. LAKE NAPA SOLANO RESOURCES s:=<;>: :_*.:. SAN BENITd SONOMA Rohnert Park.California 94928-3649 Tel:747.664.4894+Fax:747.664.4894 INFORMATION SAN FRANCISCO YdLd SYSTEM ;=`rkF::'. E-mail:nwic0sonoma.edu October 28, 2002 File No: 02-249 Jyothi Iyer Environmental Science Associates 436 14t' Street Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94612 Re: Record Search Results for 550 Sally Ride Drive Dear Ms. Jyothi Iyer: Per your request received by our office on 23 September 2002, a complete records search for the above referenced project was conducted by reviewing the State of California Office of Historic preservation records, base maps, historic maps, and literature for Contra Costa County on file at this office. Review of this information indicates that the proposed project area contains no recorded Native American or historic-period archaeological resources listed with the Historical Resources Information System. This office has no record of an archaeological study of the project area. State and federal inventories list no historic properties within the proposed project area At the time of Euroamerican contact the Native Americans that lived in the area spoke, Karkin, one of the Costanoan languages (Levy 1978:485). Native American archaeological sites in this portion of Contra Costa County tend to be situated along ridgetops, midslope terraces, alluvial flats, near ecotones, and near sources of water including springs. The project area is situated on a broad alluvial plain south of the historic marsh margins, and a fair distance from a freshwater source. Given the environmental setting, there is a low potential for Native American sites in the project area. Review of historical literature and maps on file in this office gave no indication of historic archaeological sites in the project area. With this in mind, there is a low possibility of identifying historic-period archaeological deposits in the project area. In addition to the state and federal inventories, the other sources consulted did not show the presence of any historic-period buildings or structures. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) There is a low possibility of identifying Native American and historic-period cultural resources in the project area, therefore, no further archival and field study by an archaeologist is recommended at this time. 2) Review for possible historic structures has included only those sources listed in the attached bibliography and should not be considered comprehensive. The Office of Historic Preservation has determined that buildings, structures, and objects 45 years or older may be of historical value. ff the area of potential effect contains such properties not noted in our research we recommend that the agency responsible for section 106 compliance consult with the Office of Historic Preservation regarding potential impacts to these properties. Project Review and Compliance Unit Office of Historic Preservation P.O. Box 942895 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 (916) +653-6624 3) If cultural resources are encountered during theroiect, avoid altering the materials and their context until a cultural resource consultant has evaluated the situation. Proiect personnel should not collect cultural resources. Prehistoric resources include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. Historic resources include stone or adobe foundations or wails; structures and remains with square nails; and refuse deposits or bottle dumps, often located in old wells or privies. 4) Identified cultural resources should be recorded on DPR 523 (A-J) historic resource recordation forms. Thank you for using our services. Please contact our office if you have any questions, (707) 664-0880. Sincerely, Damon ark Haydu Researcher 11 LITERATURE REVIEWED In addition to archaeological maps and site records on file at the Northwest Information Center of the Historical Resources Information System, the following literature was reviewed: Contra Costa County Planning Department 1976 Preliminary Historic Resources Inventory, Contra Costa County, Califomia. Prepared by Contra Costa County Planning Department, n.p. Cook, S.F. 1957 The Aboriginal Population of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. University of Califomia Anthropological Records 16{4}:131-156. Berkeley and Los Angeles. General Land Office 1858 Survey Plat for Rancho Monte Del Diablo. Gudde, Erwin G. 1969 Califomia Place Names. The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names. Third Edition. University of Califomia Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Hart, James D. 1987 A Companion to California. University of Califomia Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Helley, E.J., K.R. Lajoie, W.E. Spangle, and M.L. Blair 1979 Flatland Deposits of the San Francisco Bay Region - Their Geology and Engineering Properties, and Their Importance to Comprehensive Planning. Geological Survey Professional Paper 943. Unites! States Geological Survey and Department of Housing and Urban Development. Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, and Ethel Rensch, revised by William N. Abeloe 1963 Historic Spots in California. Third Edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, and Ethel Rensch, William N. Abeloe, revised by Douglas E. Kyle 1990 Historic Spats in Califomia. Fourth Edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Kroeber, A.L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of Califomia. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (Reprint by Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1976) Levy, Richard 1978a Costanoan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Roberts, George, and.fan Roberts 1988 Discover Historic Calftmia. Cern Guides Book Co., PicoRivera, California. Sanborn Map Company 1900 Antioch, California. State of California Department of Parrs and Recreation 1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. State of California Department of Paries and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation 1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California. State of California Department of Paries and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. State of California Office of Historic Preservation** 2001 Historic Properties Directory. Listing by City(through June 2001). State of California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. Welch, Lawrence E. 1977 Soils Survey of Contra Costa County, Callfomia. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, in cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station. n.p. Works Progress Administration 1984 The #NPA Guide to Califomia. Reprint by Pantheon Books, New York. (Originally published as California: A Guide to the Golden State in 1939 by Books, Inc., distributed by Hastings House Publishers, New York.) "Note that the Office of Historic Preservation's Historic Properties Directory includes National Register, State Registered Landmarks, and Historic Points of Interest. Aircraft Noise Analysis Federal Aviation Administration 3r12J2003 Office of Em Aronment and Energy Area Equivalent Method (AEM) Version 6.Oc Ai ort Name/Code: ( ntrr EiaEet At: tt Baseline Alternative Change in Area Area Area DNL dBA s .mi. s .rni. mi. sF.. BASF Case ALTE=RNATIVE Case Aircraft Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Type LTO cEes LTC 24cles LTO Cycles LTD cies 707#20 707320 707 :N 717200 70 72 B 7271013 727200 27D15 . 7 D17 727EM 1 ::. 727 ... Z"715 7 7 77 737 737300 .ZU3 7375(x3 737 Ota ......... 737 17 737 17 :... 737'9 .......;:......... 747100 Z4,ZLO 74 200 747 0A -:77:777:77:77:777777 7 47R 747400 AEM 6.0c f Federal Aviation Administration 3112J2003 Office of Environment and Energy BASE Case ALTERNATIVE Case Aircraft daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Type LTC) Iles LTC) Cycles .LTC?Cycles LTC) cies 747SP 757PW 757RR 76731 767CF6 6 JT9 6 4tJ{3 ......... .... 7 Oil 777300 A3t0 A310 A319 A80 A32M3 A330 `.>: A340 A7 ACI 11 R&F,146 BAE300 C58P ..... b. .. .......: ..... 3;8 ... C130 AMINNIANKA— C130E MT-3 C 6_00 .!# C 601 „:, 0+ CNA1 OA 06 2U&4_41 ;:i::i::::it{ L!)Y � :. 0A750 CO JET C P CONCRI . CVR580 jC1010 U C10�.0 DC3 C6 DCg20 DC85(3 DC360 0870 _ . DC8 N DC010 AfM 6.dc 2 Federal Aviation Administration 3/12/2003 Office of Environment and Energy BASF Case ALTERNATIVE Case Aircraft Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Type__ LTO C cies LTO Iles LTO cies LTC) Iles DC9 {7 292&W---W CC;95t5 13C95HW >:: L)C9 7 :I C9Q9 ; :::::.::::> OHC6 ... a t DH P :... ..... :.::..;...:.:.. : dHC7 ,:.:....,. .: LHCB :..:: MOW ::..... ... .:.::. ... .: :: _11-11 ......r: ....... ... #vMB fit} EM-BI 45 MB14L F1 t�662 ..: F1fl065 ...... .... . F#6 :.:.:.::. F16{ E FifiP: C3 : : F16PW9 ...::.. . F M ": ..........................,..-.............................,.'................................ .........._.... ..._.._....... ..._......._.._._. . ._._.._....._......... _............................._..... I. F28MK4 :.....:. .... F4CI. I. ; GAS PV ....... .:....I. :,......W... -. ...... ..:..:. 6.1 Q. --- __............................................ ... .......................I 11 1. 1. Gil :....:.>.: .... .............................I...... ..... .. OIIB O{V F HS745A IAi 1 5 :. ......... ...... % -., KC135 KC1356 C#.35R L1011 ..< .. LiQ#'#5 .. :......... L 88 ::: ......: ::::< :: EA 3; ,.% ..7 ' ..;:.::..::.:. .....i , 4 o.' I.1.Qr .. Di E _.. MI?11 PW :<` . : M1�81 Mb MID M , q25 Ml)9{?28 M133Ut?# 1 C1 . REM 6.Oc 3 Federal Aviation Administration # Office of Environment and Energy BASE Case ALTERNATIVE Case Aircraft laytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Type LTD Cycles LTC?Cycles LTO Cycles LTO cies SAS 8t} SD336 SE34C1 Total LTD's 263.14 5.66 264 41 5.68 AEM 6.Oc 4 � �.W ,,,"�• a..�C C N Kii m ao d0 R G6 Crt o3 ob F F�Ctf 9C o0 ati a5 N�00 50 V N1 V M ui G� tip„,� N y� aC oo c6.P+b8 YS 00 00 F f"60 66 di 1U a�DU iT�y 06 00 Q T 1`p b a N i BO OB!�` W h�F 00 MW OMD W O m m pp b 7 •+bL}F t'!O b d OV N t'S, vj V��'^W'i P O�w G f3'P't Pi M M C: .-�M O e�yi . pao M xri ° 'a m . W F 06 00'OO m W^y �rl Yr M NNN ty tV m 00 m h 00 00 fT 05 06 F m m 60 aD 00 "�'y LT 4'1 t."•I yy U GN'N;l6'd;N 0h 00 N V5 F^: F ,b DD N N � m Da oD F m x th sn OD F m m oa x Du oD B a a a. � o � {'t]C;m Do Do a`sem j 6.6 tJ Z 3 £.✓ A � cbj,� y 49-C+�.m=a•C'+F"'.N.r tJ O vy Y a w N � k b+� W'1 `R Wl >CS ."'7• WS 4'i F R F R R '1J � w CD "" `� M uti h '� Cit Ca CS t= 992 7��Mj t5+ tpp+5 N +N�pp N .N�pp N +�N N.Nr�ryry N +p/�i a N 6MG +Xi w a h O. L5h � W 9 w OFD w ORD m�W�w o GD w m Ci M @y� W7 •t �+'l T IIT F C 43 C9 d C5 47 W�,t ORD OMC 6RD GNC ih OdD OBD O6 W W OHO Rw ORD d�3 Rw W OwC OMt'+ jd2 C;t O d b .••b tl d GS 47 CS d O y OO .0 00 00GmO 00 a, 6L R U�w� � w w ORG DD Rw 000 GRD m W� G+ 00ad m 3 m 0T C•� V3 C`• CT l+ Ch R OO M 4G Q1; a^o o°D a°'o o` ama GND a v0G o cc 000 ORO Gmo c"o ww GRD M of oe3 w h Ll.WS VS _.. V1 h F F F t`; R ti3 C G:N W'4 N F VS CT C3 fvTs G V'i M g til g M g "d .6 Rr� No R C7 d © ,•; ®C � o C'>C5 C C: m m w as m x `tA �� � w o6 oC Gc aD woD a6 0o m w m cry Cs at g V5 W9 W1 W5 .•+ w7 v`i}'- F R F R b � i`; W7 W �{i .+ Vl d C7 d. aq WS.•+ h w M M. M M M M M M .•. 6A t7. C7 m cscic o Citi moa o mFwmm GMD oc ��aDRGODOFOoc ' oozD G°a8'o$c ' o�Dn"D £�' `9 � c o Sb W'1 W7 K7 ••. �# d R F R {"�R �tO O C7 Q d i7+ R N !`�i`i N C'+f N th �•+ M �-+ �MGy �-•rM� .+ppM 4Jx. N V5 3� G'G C5 C .•»Ct d Ci d d O d d j OR6 m m cea O ca w awaD { 9 Qti Oi tX CT. O' OB D D Ch Ot w N G'1 OC O'� OD Vl Ofi 0� pNp VR M 8O d tl d C7 -+ 6 d C3 d O C3 d tl 0 owo G w t3.. 4i DD w ch OT Cit Cfl N v5 OD t„1 F7i m 6O m OG OT -tA � P w uJ a/5 V1 W'1 .•. R F P R .'+O t0 rt •y R .•• l`^ F N CT b ri: a Iry C•: WS R t�� V5 `C Vt SIT VY'7 n N OC q" U" d C5 d .:C C CJ CY D] 6i tl d OwD Oh oN+ C1Rt AO H w O�8 m tT C1+ p+ Gfi +Jt CN. C9t Ch CT GVO rA N w F � w }may 1*� xO at V7 •+V5 W'1 F R F F OC W1 {�. NN �} ��..yy ^ O a m 1 H OY et rat OBD Ch �'rh ' f3+ a vim, ORO i« $ '� tT tT OD Ch w � m wt 61 CT w a OC @• 8`. � Cri OA Clt cT'. .T � CT CT OG eC, 3`3 hai � w V Q> � vti.vi vi g .H Q � � v � � d �y � y M �n ve �n �'� a� �„ g •� ra a -It tl E-' ., •.:. 5c � � xr�u as � c� � a� �. � � � � x c� ra Exhibit C COMMENT LETTERS CITY OF CONCORD CITY COUNCIL 1950 Parkside Drive,MS/01 ' / / Mark A.Peterson,Mayor Concord,California 94519-2578 Helen M.Allen,Vice Mayor FAR; (925) 798-0636 Susan Bonilla /� Laura M.Hoffineister C23AM 10: 2fill McManigal OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 1 I7 Mary Rae Lehman,City Clerk Telephone: (925) 671-3158 oneThomas Wending,City Treasurer Edward R.James,City Manager December 18, 2002 Fax: 335-1222 Catherine Kutsuris, Deputy Director Community Development Department County Administration Building 651 Pine Street 4th Floor, North Wing Martinez, California 94553-0095 RE: City of Concord's Comments on the Buchanan Field Airport Development Project,Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Ms. Kutsuris: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration that describes the environmental impacts of the proposed Buchanan Field Airport Development Project. The proposed project consists of the development of vacant land at Buchanan Field Airport that includes construction of additional hangar and service facilities, additional aircraft parking, ramp and taxi pavement, a new fuel storage facility, and additional office and support facilities including 74 parking spaces. The City has reviewed this proposal and has no comments with regard to the environmental documents. However, the City would not support any future access to the proposed hangar and service facilities, nor any other future development in the vicinity of the airport that requires the extension of Diamond Boulevard to the north. If you have any questions regarding these comments, or would like to discuss them further, please contact me at 671-3284. Very truly yours, C4 - uo Phillip Woods, Principal Planner cc: Concord City Council Ed James,City Manager Lydia DuBorg,Assistant City Manager Jim Forsberg,Director of Planning and Economic Development Deborah Raines,Planning Manager John Templeton,Transportation Manager Pat Howlett,Aviation Advisory Committee e-mail: cityinfo@ci.concord.ca.us • website: www.cityofconcord.org STATE OF CALIFORNIA a Governor's Office of Planning and Reser,�, State Clearinghouse 1 Gray Davis Governor QL DEC 23 AM 10; 29 Interim Tal Director December 19,2002 Chatherine Kutsuris Contra Costa County Community Development 651 Pine Street 4th Floor North Wing Martinez,CA 94553 Subject: Buchanan Airport Development Project SCH#: 2002212078 Dear Chatherine Kutsuris: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on December 18,2002,and the comments from the responding agency(ies)is(are)enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c)of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need. more information or clarification of the enclosed comments,we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0623 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, T�Rr!�� Director,State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 1400 TENTH STREET P.O.BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 (916)445-0613 FAX(916)323-3018 www.opr,ca.gov - ze Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2002112078 Project Title Buchanan Airport Development Project Lead Agency Contra Costa County Community Development Type Nag Negative Declaration Description The proposed project consists of the development of vacant land at Buchanan Field Airport in Contra Costa County to accommodate demenad at theAirport for additional general aviation aircraft facilities and services. The proposed project may include some or all of the following project elements: construction of additional hanger and service facilities capable of handling aircraft up to and including the Gulfstream V aircaft;additional aircraft parking, ramp and taxi pavement;a new fuel storage facility;and additional office and support facilities,including 74 automobile parking spaces Lead Agency Contact Name Chatherins Kutsuris Agency Contra Costa County Community Development Phone 925-335-1210 Fax email Address 651 Pine Street 4th Floor North Wing City Martinez State CA Zip 94553 Project Location County Contra Costa City Concord Region Cross Streets Sally Ride Dr Parcel No. 125-010-023 Township 2N Range 2W Section Base G14 Proximity to: Highways 1-680,SR 4, SR 242 Airports Buchanan Airfield Railways Waterways Walnut Cr.,Gayson Cr. Schools Land Use LU:Unclassified Zoning: Unrestricted GP: Public-Semi Public Project issues Air Quality;Noise;Toxic/Hazardous;Wildlife Reviewing Resources Agency;Department of Fish and Game,Region 3;Department of Parks and Recreation; Agencies Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics;California Highway Patrol;Caltrans, District 4;Caltrans,Division of Transportation Planning;Air Resources Board,Transportation Projects;Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2;Department of Toxic Substances Control;Native American Heritage Commission; State Lands Commission Date Received 11/19/2002 Start of Review 11/19/2002 End of Review 12/18/2002 Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. ............................................... _._................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ...................................................................................................................................... ...... ........... _ _ __ M T ` Department of Toxic Substances Control s Edwin F. Lowry, Director ° 700 Heinz Avenue, Suite 200 Winston H. Hickox Berkeley, California 94710-2721 Gray Davis Agency Secretary Governor California Environmental Protection Agency 0 �j U December 4, 2002DEC y 9 2002 Mr. Keith Freitas Contra Costa County Public Works Department TATE cLEARING 550 Sally Ride Drive �{ }� ` Concord CA 94520 Dear Mr. Freitas: ] `3 Com' Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Buchanan Field Airport Development Project. As you may be aware, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) oversees the cleanup of sites where hazardous substances have been released pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.8. As a potential Resource Agency, DTSC is submitting comments to ensure that the environmental documentation prepared for this project to address the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) adequately addresses any rewired remediation activities that may be required to address any hazardous substances release. We recommend that if any off-site soil is used for backfill that it be certified clean or sampled to determine if it contains any hazardous substances. These results should be compared with residential cleanup standards, not the hazardous waste criteria such as the-total threshold limit concentration (TTLC). DTSC can help your agency in overseeing characterization and cleanup activities through our Voluntary Cleanup Program. A fact sheet describing this program is enclosed. We are aware that projects such as this one are typically on-a compressed schedule, and to use the available review time efficiently, we request that DTSC be included in any meetings where issues on our statutory authority are discussed. Please contact Claude Jemison at (510) 540-3808 if you have any questions. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take Immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs,see our Web-site at www.dtsc.ca.gov. 0 Printed on Recycled Paper Mr. Keith Freitas December 4, 2002 Page 2 Sincerely, Barbara J. Cook, P.E., Chief Northern California - Coastal Cleanup Operations Branch cc; Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 Guenther Moskat CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812-0806 __.... �. P`xeR rye �,�CIF..rtq Q. a STATE OF CALIFORNIA s Governor's Office of Planning an I es t�¢h State Clearinghouse Gray Davis 02 DEC 26 PM 2: 39 IntTal erim Finney Governor Director December 23,2002 Chatherine Kutsuris Contra Costa County Community Development 651 Pine Street 4th Floor North Wing Martinez,CA 94553 Subject: Buchanan Airport Development Project SCH#: 2002112078 Dear Chatherine Kutsuris: The enclosed comment(s)on your Negative Declaration was(were)received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period,which closed on December 18,2002. We are forwarding these comments to you because they provide information or raise issues that should be addressed in your final environmental document. The California Environmental Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies to respond to late comments. However,we encourage you to incorporate these additional comments into your final environmental document and to consider them prior to taking final action on the proposed project. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions concerning the environmental review process. If you have a question regarding the above-named project,please refer to the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number(20102 1 1 207 8)when contacting this office. Sincerely, Terry berts Senior Planner,State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 1400 TENTH STREET P.O.BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 (916)445-0613 FAX(916)323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov zr 12/20%02 13:26 FAX $102865513 TRANS PLANNING B STATE CLEARINGHO 0001/001 ,;TATF,b� C,AT.ZxiORTiSA—STiSLNES, TR$t�TBt TATTUN 13n Ht?tJ�,TNf�A(#£�NCY GRAYDa.VI3 Gavera©r DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.0.BOX 23660 d OAKLAND,CA 94623-0660 (510)2$6.4444 n-im your power! (510)286-4454 TDD Be enemy ejTcient! t�1 15 U ll i5 �J� [:DEEC2 2002 f r December 20, 2002 tgw STATE CLEARING HOUSE SCC-242-1.47 CC242015 SCH 2002112078 Ms. Catherine Kutsuris Contra Costa County Community Development 651 Pine Street North Wing, 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Ms. Kutsuris: Buchanan Airport Development Project - Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation in the environmental review process for the proposed project. We have examined the above-referenced document and are satisfied that the project will not have a significant impact to State highway facilities. Should you require further information or have any questions regarding this letter, please call Tom Holley, of my staff at (510) 622-8706. Sincerely, TIMOTHY . SABLE District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA c: Gregoria Garcia (State Clearinghouse) "Caltrans improvea mobility acroas California ARE or Fs "C' 19 A H 8: 5 7 PEOPLE OVER PLANES,INC. December 19, 2002 Hand Delivered Catherine Kutsuris Conga Costa County Community Development Department 651 fine Street,North`ging,Fourth.Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Buchanan Field Airport-Development Project,W05340 APN No. 125-010-023 Dear lids. Kutsuris: People Over Planes, Inc. submits the following comments on the above-identified Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. People Over Planes, Inc, was formed in 1987 in opposition to the introduction of air carrier service at Buchanan Field. Air carrier service lasted 6 years, and fell victim to airline deregulation in 1991. We are confident that air carrier service is no longer economically viable at the Airport, and have geared down our efforts to oversight and archiving activities. In this letter, we detail a number of defects in the Initial Study, and a number of liability issues associated with the proposed project. The proposed project,if implemented, will increase certain risks and liabilities to the Airport,will require additional insurance coverage, and may expose the Airport to greater financial risks if the lease agreement with the project Applicant is not structured to account for the liability issues, specifically loss-o business claims. The project Sponsor has moral, et/tical, and legal obligations tofully ally disclose these defects and liabffity issues to all prospective project Applicants,as well as to the Airport's current and future insurance underwriters, insurance carriers, and debt holders. As we understand,the Airport currently does not have an applicant for this project, and will advertise this project for development. Like the project Sponsor,the project Applicant who accepts this project.has a duty to disclose the defects and liability_issues noted herein to its current and future insurance underwriters,insurance carriers, and debt holders. In view of the project Sponsor's history of deception and lack of candor, the prospective Applicant would be well advised to conduct a comprehensive and thorough due-diligence investigation of the site. The major defects and.fiabili1y issues that we have found fail into these areas: • Failure to properly study the earthquake liquefaction risks,and the resulting liability to loss of business claims against the Airport(the real project Sponsor in interest). • Failure to study groundwater conditions(e.g,,high groundwater levels). • Failure to study risk of upset due to bird strike hazards,the main one of which was created by the Airport itself and remains unmitigated to date. This risk of upset carries certain liabilities to Airport. P.C . Box 2336 * Pleasant Hill, CA * 94523 Catherine Kutsuris December 19, 2002 Page 2 of 13 + Failure to study the most intensive use of the project. Defects: 1. Failure to study the most intensive use. The Initial Study only analyzes the least intensive use of the project, that of storing jets and turboprops for individual corporate clients (i.e., one client per plane). This type of activity generally generates 3 operations per week per plane. The most intensive use of the project would be that of a fraction jet ownership facility(i.e., multiple clients per plane),where it can be expected that each plane would generate 12 operations per week, and where all of the planes are jets. Thus, the noise impacts,pollution impacts, and liability risks can be up to four times the amount studied. In it important to note that the project Sponsor initially prepared this Initial Study for a specific Applicant,who has since withdrawn interest in the project. That Applicant had proposed the storage of corporate jets having low-noise and low-pollution characteristics, not a fractional- ownership jet operation, which may operate aircraft having significantly higher noise and pollution characteristics. Now that the project Sponsor is offering this project on the open market to all potential Applicants, it mast redo the analysis to reflect the most intensive worse-case use of the project, including the re-doing of the pollution and noise analyses. 2. Failure to properly stud earthquak"Ii uefaction risks. The Initial Study relies upon the Safety Element map of the County General Plan to conclude that the project location is the "generally moderate to low" category of liquefaction potential. The date of this map was not specified by the Initial Study. After warning the reader that there is a 15% to 50% chance of a 6.0 - 7.0 earthquake occurring on the Concord fault in the next 30 years, the Initial Study concludes that the "alluvial soils of the Diablo Valley are considered to possess only a moderate potential for damage as a result of ground motion" (page 32, first full paragraph of the Initial Study). These conclusions are in conflict with the Earthquake liquefaction map from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), which indicates that the entire Airport, including the project location,is located in one of the highest liquefaction zones for an earthquake on the Concord fault. (This fault runs under the eastern side of the Airport.) This ABAG map is reproduced on the next page. Oddly,the Initial Study's bibliography section for its "Geology and Soils" section does not list the County General Plan as a reference, but does list the ABAG liquefaction map,which the Initial Study has ignored. As noted in the paragraph bridging pages 32 and 33 of the Initial Study,there is a high potential of foundation damage,utility disruption, and roadway damage from liquefaction and associated ground failures for areas underlain by bay fills,bay mud, and unconsolidated alluvium with earthquake intensities greater than a Modified Mercalli intensity of V1 (moderate intensity). The above ABAG map indicates a significantly higher Modified Mercalli intensity of X(very violent)for the project site for the maximum credible magnitude earthquake on the Concord Fault(magnitude 6.8). In a separate airport study, ABAG predicts a 6% of a magnitude 6.8 earthquake occurring in the next 30 years. The ABAG map also indicates extreme damage to structures in the Modified Mercalli X zone ("Most masonry and frame structures destroyed with their foundations. Some well-built wooden structures and bridges destroyed. Serious damage to dams, dikes,embankments. P.O. Box 2336 • Pleasant Hill, CA • 94523 Catherine I£utsuris December 19, 2002 Page 3 of 13 Large landslides. Water thrown on banks of canals,rivers, lakes, etc. Sand and mud shifted horizontally on beaches and flat land. hails bent slightly."). Concord-Gruen Valley Earthquake Magnitude 6.8 f Modified Mercalli Intensity Shaking Severity Level ■ X Very Violent a IX-Violent Vill--Very Strong VU-Strang 0 VI-Moderate 0 'V'-tight Highways Streets Source:Al1AG,1999 The map is Intended for planning only. Intensities may be incorrect by one unit higher or layer.Current version of map available on Internet at h4:/Jqu ake.abag.ca.gov ABAG'Earthguake Man for a Maximum Credible Earthquake. Concord Fault We have little doubt that the project Sponsor will argue to prospective project Applicants that other airports like SFO, OAK, and SJC are build on similar or worse bay fills as Buchanan., and in this regard Buchanan is no worse than these airports. However,the ABAC earthquake maps show that these other airports have lesser degrees of ground shaking (MM intensity LX)than Buchanan for maximum credible earthquakes on their nearby faults. One significant difference is that these other airports are located further away from earthquake faults than Buchanan. On page 33,the Initial Study states that"the shallower the groundwater,the higher the potential for liquefaction." On this point,the prospective Applicant should be informed that the project site lies over shallow ground water, and that there may be active buried streambeds below the site. During the 1990's, the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District buried a new main sewer intercept pipe under the western segment of Marsh Drive, less than 600 feet from the project site. Enormous amounts of both shallow and deep ground water were encountered during the excavation and tunneling operation. Moreover, from various written and oral' histories,we understand that the airport is located over a prior wash basin of the Walnut Creek. At least three major floods occurred in the northern.Diablo Valley from 1862 to 1940,which deposited approximately 12 to 15 feet of flood debris in this wash basin. Daring this time span,the watercourse for Walnut Creek moved from the west side of the Airport to the east side of the Airport,near to its current s Oral histories provided by Norman Vecchi,now deceased,and Alberta Boelger,Pachaco Historians;written histories provided by Concord Historical Society,the Contra Costa Historical Society,and Alberta Boelger. P.O. Bax 2336 • Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Catherine Kutsuris December 19, 2002 Page 4 of 13 channelized location. Below,we have reproduced a section of the 1908 Official Map of Contra Costa Countyz, which shows both Grayson Creek and Walnut Creep on the west side of the Airport site. Of course,the Airport did not exist in 1908, and so was have superimposed an airport layout map over the 1908 map. We use a 1951 map of the Airport's layout because the locations of the roads on it proved to be a better match to the 1908 map than present day maps.3 Nonetheless,the 1951 map shows the locations of runways 19R and tY 9 �X kny k' 4A z J s � le.'tt � 1 \�t 1908 Map of Airport Vicinity with 1951 Airport Map Overlay. z This map is available in the Map Room of the County Central Library,Oak Park Road,Pleasant Hill,Map#4. In order to line up the 1951 map to the 1908 map,we had to draw in(with a light gray line)the location of Arnold Industrial Highway,which subsequently became state highway 4. Decades after it was build,highway 4 was widened. In the vicinity north of the Airport,a new roadbed was build rather than widening the existing road bed. The original road bed of Arnold Industrial Highway became the northern segment of Marsh Drive. The astute observer will also note that we have placed the southern end of Runway 19R down on the main road between Pacheco and Concord. This is,in fact,shown in the 1951 map,and it was common practice for automobile traffic to stop at this end of the runway during the 1940's and look for oncoming planes before crossing the runway. The Airport's local Historian(Bill Larkins)has a photograph of this stop sign,which he showed at the 50-th anniversary celebration of the Airport. R0, Box 2336 • Pleasant Hill, CA • 94523 Catherine Kutsuris December 19, 2002 Page 5 of 13 32R runways 19R.and 32R, which have not substantially changed over the last 50 years, and the prospective project Applicant will be able to determine the location of the project site in related to the runways. The gradual movement of the Walnut Creek watercourse from west to east with intervening floods implies that there are several old watercourses buried under the Airport, with one possibly being located under the project site. If these old watercourses had any substantial amount of sand,rock,and/or organic material deposited in them, they probably are still conducting subterranean water,and thereby continually feeding the underlayer of the airport(and passible the project site)with water throughout the year. We also understand from written and oral histories that, in 1860, the prior owner of the airport's main parcel (Mr. Hook)dredged a shipping canal on that parcel from a warehouse located on Warehouse Street in Pacheco to "deep water." The possible locations of this canal are indicated in the shaded area of the above figure. The written history indicates that the canal was filled in by flood debris from the flood of 1862. This canal may be conducting subterranean water throughout the year as well. Thus,the project Applicant should consider employing project constructions that take into account the above noted liquefaction and groundwater hazards. The project Applicant should also consider that 6.0-to 7.0-magnitude earthquake on the Concord fault will most likely severely damage the Airport's runways and taxiways, and render them in an unusable state for an unknown but temporary amount of time. During such time,the Applicant may not be able to conduct business until the runways and taxiways are repaired. Since the project Sponsor has been in debt for the last decade,the Applicant should also assess the Sponsor's ability to make repairs in this possible situation. Potential Liabilities to the Airport. If its lease with the project Applicant is not properly structured,the Airport risks loss-of-business claims from the project Applicant if the Airport is unable to quickly repair airport runways and taxiways after a major earthquake. Given the recent geological history of the project site as detailed above, there is a high probability of a great spatial variation in the groundwater and soils conditions around the project site, and that just one core survey will not accurately portray the conditions of the site. The project Sponsor would be well advised to: (1) inform the project Applicantof of high variability of the conditions, (2) make no warranties on the conditions of the site, and(3)transfer all responsibility for surveying the site and all potential liabilities associated with the site conditions to the project Applicant. Due Diligence Advice to Prospective Applicants The project Sponsor's clear lack of candor about the liquefaction potential of the site in view of readily available ABAG reports is very disturbing. We see it as yet one more incident of deliberate deception and lack of candor in a long history of such conduct. In 1997,the project Sponsor failed to inform the public of, or seek approval from the Board of Supervisors for, the extension of the takeoff distance available (TODA)for the main runway (runway 19R). In 1994, the project Sponsor presented a traffic analysis to a funding agency (MTC)which was contrary to actual facts, and contrary to a traffic P.O. Box 2336 • Pleasant Hill, CA • 94523 Catherine Kutsuris December 19, 2002 Page 6of13 analysis it had previously performed in 1989.4 In 1992,the project Sponsor was not candid with the residents of Pacheco about its intentions for placing Pacheco in a redevelopment district along with the Airport. In 1990, while in litigation, the project Sponsor failed to disclose receipt of a key FAA memorandum and copy thereof to opposing counsel despite a requirement to do so. In view of the project Sponsor's history of deception and lack of candor, the prospective Applicant would be well advised to conduct a comprehensive and thorough due-diligence investigation of the site. (Related to this,the project Applicant should also consult with Travis RAPCON to determine the level of IFR.services that it can expect to receive in view of the recent staffing difficulties at that facility.) 3. Failure to properly account for the effects of earthquakes on the risk of upset to fuel storms. In view of the above information,the risk of upset to the fuel storage facilities due to an earthquake needs to be updated to determine if additional mitigation measures are needed. In the event of a magnitude 6.0 to 7.0 earthquake on the Concord fault, the further analysis needs to determine: (1)whether or not the fuel tanks will topple over, (2) whether or not pipes connected to the tanks will break open, (3) whether or not the pipes of any underground fuel distribution will break open, (4) whether or not the surrounding concrete-block retaining wall and berm will crack open, (5)whether or not any surface or groundwater contamination will result from any of the above, and(6)whether or not any released fuel will ignite. 4. Potential need to study corrosion of underground pipes by excess ground water. If the project Applicant intends to install underground piping, particularly fuel carrying underground piping, the Initial Study should be augmented to study and mitigate the potential of excess groundwater(as detailed above) corroding underground pipes. Mitigation of potential groundwater pollution through corroded pipes should be considered. 5 Failure to clearly state number of aircraft associated with the project. Related to defect#1,the initial study fails to explicitly state the number of planes to be based at the project(cf.,page 6, first full paragraph). The number of expected operations per year is stated at page 6,but this number alone is insufficient to allow the public to verify the accuracy of the initial study. The square footage of the project can accommodate at least 14 jet aircraft(mixed fleet), with a corresponding minimum operations per year of 2,184 (corporate clients) and a maximum operations per year of at least 8,736(fractional jet operation). 4 The Project sponsor omitted existing lanes on 1-680 from its traffic analysis in 1994 to demonstrate a °congestion problem"in order to obtain congestion relief funding. The project Sponsor also omitted a key through lane on Concord Ave.at the intersection of Contra Costa Blvd.to demonstrate another congestion problem. The Project Sponsor had previously relied upon this key through lane in its 1989 E1R for the development of Parcel A to show that the development of Parcel A would not degrade the level of service (LOS)of this intersection. P.O. Box 2336 • Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Catherine Kutsuris December 19, 2002 Page 7 of 13 6. Failure to study the risk of upset due to bird "Myth-Bird strikes are no strike hazards. A bit of history is in order on this point. In an more of a problem today than effort to generate much needed revenue for the Airport,the 20 or 30 years ago. 1990 Airport Master plan included a golf course at the main Fact-in North America, bird departure end of Runway 1912.,the main airport runway. In strike hazards are Increasing. 1992, a 30-year lease was signed with a golf course operator. Because of outstanding Over the Inst decade,the golf course,life most golf courses on wildlife conservation andenvironmental programs in the west-coast flyway,has became a magnet for Canadian North America, populations geese. Initially there were only migratory flocks. We of many bird species have understand from the golf course operator that there are now increased dramatically since permanent resident Canadian geese on the golf course, and that the 1970s. Millions of acres have been set aside as the migratory flocks of Canadian geese have increased in wildlife refuges and strong volume over recent years. In the mid 1990's,the FAA became environmental laws such as very concerned about; (1)bird strike hazards(particularly from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act large dense birds like Canadian geese), (2)the potential for and the Federal Insecticide, damage to aircraft from bird strikes, and(3)the potential for Fungicide and Rodenticide Act have protected birds and crashes from bird strifes. In May of 1997,the FAA issued other wildlife.As a result, Airport Advisory Circular No. 150/5200-33, which strongly species like non-migratory cautions against the location of golf courses.near the ends of Canada Cees,which runways, and which strongly recommends mitigation measures frequent urban areas such as for existing golf courses located near runways. The Airport"s golf courses,h v parks,and airports, have quadrupled in Wildlife Hazard Management Policy, as stated in the Airport's number from 1985 to 2002. Airport Certi.f"reation Manual(ACM), does not acknowledge As another example,the the existence of Canadian geese on the golf course, does not double-crested cormorant acknowledge the new concerns of the FAA, and does not population on the Great include any of the mitigation measures indicated in the above- Lakes has increased over 1,000fold,from 89 nesting noted advisory circular. As indicated in the Airport's ACM,the pelts in 1972 to 115,000 pairs last wildlife hazard management study for the Airport was in 2000.These increases conducted at some time prior to 1987, more then ten years have led to an Increase In the before the issuance of the above FAA advisory circular. Since number of birds In the 1985, the number of Canadian Geese and other waterfowl of vicinity of both large and small airports and greater concern have dramatically increased in this country. opportunities for birds, In 1997, despite the warnings and cautions of the FAA especially larger birds,to hit aircraft.' advisory circular, the-Airport extended the-takeoff distance available (TODA)for Runway 19R,thus allowing planes to --Bird Strike Committee USA carry more weight and fly lower over the golf course (i.e.,to fly wvvw.birdstrike.org/commlink lower into the bird strike hazard that the Airport has created). /topoten.htm The planes which are most susceptible to damage and crashing from bird strikes are turbofan jet powered aircraft,the mainstay of corporate and fractional jets. This is because the turbofan jet engine ingests substantially more air(3 to 4 times more)than the old pure jet engines, and thus have a greater potential of sucking in birds. Given their greater fuel efficiency, turbofan jet engines have now supplanted pure jet engines for nearly all commercial jet applications. Yet, it is this very type rr,f'planes that the project intends to attract to the Airport, and thus attract to the bird strike hazard that the Airport has itself created. P.O. Box 2336 * Pleasant Hill, CA * 94523 Catherine Kutsuris December 19, 2002 Page 8 of 13 b e i Thus, the project will increase the risk of upset(engine damage and Tx r potential crash of a fuel-laden plane)at M `� ` w }k"� "� h " * `w �*tk u 4a•' x �«.};wta,{}}� +r }}}ria}}aa.k}°}4 ir4+F°�Y^r&�;�,i `�`�,srLpc}•� a.��, .a:.:: or in the vicinity of the airport. There F r Fret�4wb war^ §��-kj;.:^ r w 3^t«^ M •E4^h}4r T 4�44k4,* d;. are a number of buildings and : } �f � •� , �� }� �} � :. structures having high human densities TIT rF ¢�w p}�kkµctbPfi�+rig r•P that lie beyond the golf course,within w. 1.5 miles of the departure end of , -� .. runway 19R. These include a highly traveled interstate highway,two major g arterial road ways, four major fi shopping centers ajunior college a 3 high school, a middle school, a high density apartment complex and several Source: USDA National Wildlife Research Center low density apartment complexes. If a crash results from a bird strike incident at the end of Runway 19R,the Airport and County should expect to be sued for liability since the Airport has created the bird strike hazard in the first place, has allowed planes to fly lower into it, and has substantially failed to mitigate it. If the Airport implements this project, which could end up increasing turbofan jet operations at the Airport by 35%to 140%, it should consider increasing its insurance coverage. The current$100 million coverage would be insufficient to cover the liability of a crash into, for example,the Toys-R-Us store,the Target store,the Kmart store, or the high- density apartment complex. A crash of this type could have a liability of$500 million or more for the Airport. Any insurance payment beyond$100 million would have to be paid by the County's self insurance fund. Given the rich bird habitat provided by the nearby rivers "The resident Canada goose (Grayson Creek and Walnut Creek)and wetland pastures population in the USA more immediately north of the airport, it will be a difficult task to than tripled from 1985-1998 to mitigate the birdstrike hazard at the end of runway 19R without almost 3 million birds.These mitigating these other areas. Canadian geese are highly geese are extremely adaptive adaptive, and will simply move to other runway ends or to and readily establish nesting territories on golf courses, nearby building rooftops (of which there are many)in response urban ponds,;airports or even to noise makers or other mitigation measures. The failure of the fiat roofs. From 1990 to 1998, Airport to mitigate this problem in its early stages has allowed geese were Involved in 19%of the establishment of a resident population of Canadian geese all reported bird strikes that which have grown highly accustom to the Airport vicinity, and caused damage." are highly motivated to stay. Thus,the costs to the Airport for --Chapter 3 of Wildlife hazard supporting this project not only include the costs of providing Management At Airports,Joint conventional airport services,but include significant mitigation ' FAA-USDA manual, 1999. costs and insurance costs, P.O. Box 2336 - Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Catherine Kutsuris December 19, 2002 Page 9 of 13 For the project sponsor's convenience,we have attached our marked-up copy of Advisory Circular 150/5200-33 as Appendix A, and Chapter 3 of the FAA.-USDA manual: Wildlife I-lazard Management at Airports, as.Appendix B for a resource guide. We note that while Circular 150/5200-33 lists golf courses under the heading of"Land uses That May Be Compatible with Safe Airport Operations," that listing is predicated upon there being no large waterfowl like Canadian geese or gulls, and that they be mitigated immediately when they attempt to inhabit the area. We also nate that Circular 150/5200-33 provides specific cautions with respect to wastewater treatment plants. The project Sponsor is well aware of the fact that Central Contra Costa Sanitary District(CCCSD)is within 2,000 feet of the airport, and that it has numerous settling ponds and overflow ponds. We are not aware of any effort by the Airport to study the potential bird strike hazards from this facility, or the adjoining composting facility. Therefore, the Sponsor's response to this letter should respond to our marred-up sections of the Advisory Circular, and to all of our.Appendices (A-D) generally. 7. Failure to Study Anti-icing and Deicing and its Impacts. The initial study fails to account for the wintertime anti-icing and deicing of aircraft, and for the associated water pollution impacts if the toxic anti-icing and deicing fluids are not properly contained and disposed of. Deicing is commonly preformed on aircraft operating in snow and freezing rain conditions, which occasionally occur in the Diablo Valley. Anti-icing is commonly performed on aircraft in these conditions, as well as on aircraft,that take off in cold rain, mist, or fog conditions and rapidly ascend into sub-zero altitudes. Cold rain,mist and fog conditions with sub-zero temperatures above 3,000 feet occur more frequently at the Airport than snow and freezing-rain conditions. Finally,there is a phenomenon called "cold-soaking at altitude" in which the internal wing components(e.g., wing structure,jet fuel tanks, and jet fuel)of a landing aircraft are cooled to temperatures below freezing, and can allow rain,mist, and fog to freeze onto the wing structure during landing, and during a subsequent takeoff after a short stop. It is our understanding that no deicing or anti-icing operations currently occur at the Airport, and that visiting planes and the small number of existing jet aircraft operators wait for ice-forming conditions to pass before taking off. Icing conditions can often be mitigated by rapidly descending and ascending through altitudes that-have weather conditions(generally 0 to 18,000 feet). However,the Airport has a peculiar aspect which hinders this mitigation. The Airport is currently not included within the:northern California control airspace(Bay TRACON. , and its successor organization), but rather is included within Travis RAPCON. The Airspace of Travis RAPCON is subordinated to that of Bay TRACON, and traffic to and from the Airport and Travis must wait for Bay TRACON traffic to clear before being allowed to descend from,or ascend to flight levels above 18,000 feet. During congested air traffic conditions,aircraft landing or departing Buchanan can potentially spend longer than normal amounts of time at altitudes below 18,000 feet(anal thus longer time in potential ice forming conditions)before being cleared to depart or enter flight levels above 18,000 feet. In addition, aircraft waiting to depart Buchanan could wait longer periods of time after anti-icing operations for clearance to depart. The subordination and delay aspects associated with Buchanan Field are more fully P.O. Box 2336 - pleasant Hill, CA • 94523 Catherine Kutsuris December 19, 2002 Page 10 of 13 described in a report prepared for the Regional Airports Planning Commission(RAPC)of the Metropolitan Commission(MTC),relevant portions of which are attached herewith as Appendix C (Regional Airport System Plan Update 2000: Sensitivity Analysis - Factors Affecting Airport Demand and Capacity).s Given the high construction costs of this project, and given the relatively high ground rents the Airport is seeking from the project,the project Applicant will necessarily have to charges rate that are commensurate with 24/76 on-demand service. Having to wait out hazardous ice-forming conditions (because of the lack of anti-icing and deicing capabilities) will not be an option for the Applicant's business model,particularly for a factional jet operator. The Airport must expect that the Applicant will provide anti-icing and deicing services to its clients. Accordingly,the Initial Study must anticipate that the project Applicant will conduct anti-icing and deicing operations, and must include mitigation measures that prevent pollution of local creeks and groundwater. The introduction of glycol runoff from deicing/anti-icing operations can impose a significant impact on adjacent water systems. Glycol contaminated storm water runoff can deplete dissolved oxygen levels and threaten aquatic life. Additionally,these fluids contain corrosion and rust inhibitors that are considered toxic to biological systems. We note that several airports have recently been sued and found liable for violations of the Clean Water Act on the basis of improper containment and disposal of anti-icing and deicing fluids. Above,we noted the phenomenon of"cold-soaking at altitude". This phenomenon poses a significant concern to non-local air charter operators during wintertime operations. These operators can drop off passengers at a fixed base operator(such as the project Applicant) after a trip through freezing temperatures, and then wish to take off immediately for another charter flight or to return to home base. Departure of these planes during rain, mist, and/or fog are very susceptible to ice formation due to cold-soaking, and would present a high demand for anti-icing services, such as by the project Applicant. We do not believe that such charter operations are frequent at the Airport. However,the consultant(Economic Research Associates) who recently prepared an Economic Impact Report for the Airport stated its belief that this type of charter activity is very common at the Airport. The Airport (project Sponsor) concurred with that belief.? Accordingly, the Airport's own beliefs of the transient charter activity at Buchanan lead to the conclusion that the project Applicant will see a large demand for anti-icing services, and that the project Applicant would be very likely s Given the short time for public comment on this initial study(30 days)we were only able to lay hands on our Draft copy of this report. However,we do know that the cited portions of the Draft version were not altered for the final version. 6 24 hours per day/7 days per week. 'To remind the Airport,we stated our belief that the number of visitors projected by ERA would require over 240 transient parking spaces at the airport for their average 2.2-day stays,assuming the passengers were flying by conventional General Aviation means(i.e.,visitors are owners of the single and twin piston planes that fly in). The Airport does not have more than 65 transient parking spaces,and many of these are not filled during the day or night. Thus,we thought that ERA's projections were overstated. ERA.and the Airport countered our assertions by stating that the passengers are being dropped off and picked up at the Airport by non-local charter companies which do not park in transient parking spots. We remind the Airport that the revenues generated by the local charter companies were not commensurate with the level of charter activity projected by ERA,which implied substantial non-local charter activity in ERA's assessment. P.O. Box 2336 • Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 ...................................................................._................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................... . .......................... Catherine Kutsuris December 19, 2002 Page 11 of 13 to implement those services. This is yet another reason why the project Sponsor must study and mitigate anti-icing and deicing activities. Additional Liabilities not already Noted L The proiect Xrouoses to provide facilities to aircraft which cannot safely use the Airport's runways. The initial study indicates that the intent of the project is to service aircraft up to and including the Gulfstream V. This would include the following smaller aircraft: VREF Landing Speed Bombardier Canadair CL-601SE 125 knots Bombardier CRJ-100 137 knots Gulfstream GIV 127 knots Bombardier Learjet 55155BI55C 143 knots Bombardier Learjet 60 128 knots Bobadier CR.J 200 137 knots The airport reference code (ARC)for Buchanan Field is B--II/B-III,meaning that the Airport is only designed to accommodate aircraft having VREF approach speeds of less than 121 knots. Each of the above aircraft have VREF speeds in excess of 121 knots,and therefore cannot use the airport within acceptable safety margins over the long term. While the project Sponsor may claim that pilot agility can address this limitation, the following negative factors must be considered in calculating the odds of successfully addressing the limitation over the term of the lease: (1) The Airport does not have a prevailing wind runway, but rather has two cross-wind runways; (2)there is an elevated freeway overpass(> 35 feet) in front of the principal approach end of the main runway(19R), another elevated freeway overpass (> 30 feet)in front of the secondary approach end of the main runway (1L); (3) there are bird-strike hazards present at both ends of the main runway (19R/1 L); (4)winter- timefog conditions are often thick enough to make the runways slick; (5)the extreme summertime heat will necessitate the increase of approach speeds; (6)the longest available landing distance at the Airport is only 4,410 feet. In addition,the Western Pacific Region Office prominently lists the Airport on its "HOT Spots" list of airports having runway incursion hazards (see b.ttp://www.qwpov/ops/awp600/runwav/). The hazard sheet for the Airport is attached herewith as Appendix D. Note particularly: "Aircraft frequently line up for Runways 14 when Runways 32 are the active Runways," aircraft failing to hold short of Runway 19RI01L after taxiing from Taxiway J,the mistaking of cement drainage pavement for held short bars in the approach to runway 32R., Vehicle crossing at the end of Runwy 1 L,helicopter operations, opposite direction approaches on runways 19RAL, and airport signage not well marred. All of these create hazards for landing planes, in which the decision time would be significantly reduced at higher VREF speeds. The project Sponsor must also recognize that Contra Costa County and surrounding counties have very high costs of living. This means that any project Applicant will find it difficult to recruit and retain experienced pilots (whose skills would increase the chances of P.O. Box 2336 • Pleasant Hill, CA • 94523 Catherine K.utsuris December 19, 2002 Page 12 of 13 beating the approach speed limitation over the long term), and may have to resort to employing less experienced pilots working their way up the career ladder. Further Risk of Upset not studied by the Initial Report: As the Airport should well know,most aircraft accidents(i.e.,risks of upset)occur when more than "one thing goes wrong," or when extra difficulties are encountered when"one thing goes wrong." The above factors listed above provides the potential for several things to go wrong, as well as several extra difficulties to compound upon one thing that has gone wrong. These sources of upset must be disclosed to the project Applicant, and studied by the Initial Study. 2. Exposure of Adjacent Neighborhoods to Carcinogens. Regrettably,the short 30-day comment period for the Initial Study did not allow us to fully study this matter, and thus our comments on this matter are incomplete. Nonetheless, since this is at least a liability issue, we will be able to provide more studied comments to the Airport(the real project Sponsor in interest) at a later date,who will then have to share those comments with its insurers, underwriters, and debt holders, and with the project Applicant. It is known that incompletely burned jet aviation fuel, such as found in the exhaust stream of taxiing jet aircraft,has an unusually high concentration of hydrocarbons,many of which are carcinogenic. This project, if implemented,will create a significant amount of carcinogenic pollution that will affect several Concord neighborhoods that are in very close proximity to the Airport. The FAA and the Federal government have been negligent in not earnestly studying this matter. The matter is, however, gradually being studied by state and private entities and,within the next 20 years, cause-and-effect relationships related specific to airport jet operations may be quantified by these entities. Nonetheless, the gross negligence of the Federal Government in this matter will not absolve the Airport for its negligence in not studying this matter, nor absolve the Airport for its liability if certain cause- and-effect relationships are later quantified. (We remind you that it is the Airport that is seeking this project and is actively offering it for bid on the open market; it is no longer a project sought by outside market demands.) The Airport may find itsself in a bind on this matter at a later date, which has financial liabilities. One the one hand,having taken FAA money,the Airport will be barred from preventing operations that generate carcinogens. Yet, on the other hand, it may be forced by a court to stop or mitigate the generation of carcinogens. At this point,we can generally quantify the generation of hydrocarbons based on FAA data(which is likely an understatement given that the FAA's main mission of promoting aviation presents it with a serious conflict of interest). Using data present in Appendix B of Initial Study, an average 10-minute taxi operation over a 2-mile distance would roughly generate between 0.266 kg and 4.23 kg of hydrocarbons (nominally 0.667 kg), depending upon the aircraft type. In comparison,a diesel transit bus generally generates about 6.5 g per mile traveled&. Thus,the 10-minute taxi would be roughly equivalent to exposing the Concord neighborhoods to the exhaust of 20 to 325 transit buses (nominally 51 buses)running at once (12 MPH) for 2 minutes. s See Appendix E,D.W.Lyons, "Biodiesel Fule Comparison Final Data Report," Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority,West Virginia University, http://www.afdc,doe.gov/pdfs/wvu—biodiesel—report.pdf P.C . Box 2336 Pleasant Hill, CA • 94523 Catherine Kutsuris December 19, 2002 Page 13 of 13 We also note that these Concord neighborhoods are located on hills that gently slope upward from the airport,in the direction of the prevailing winds. Given that jet exhaust from taxiing aircraft tends to stay low to the ground, and given that the prevailing winds are relatively gentle most of the time,it can be expected that the jet exhaust will not readily disburse, and that these neighborhoods will be exposed to concentrated amounts of carcinogens. Absent full study,the Airport and County will proceed at their own risk with this project. Final Remarks. We have no doubt that the majority of airport users (pilots of single and twin piston engine planes), will view our comments as being 'anti-airport," and as being directed against them personally. We would disagree. We view these users as being the best suited users of the Airport given the airport's many natural defects and problems, and the users whose operations present the least liability to the Airport and to the County. Related to this,we see a fundamental financial conflict with this project. On the one hand,the project Applicant will need a low ground rent to build the project in view of the earthquake and liquefaction risks. On the other hand,the Airport will need to charge a high ground rent in order to support and mitigate the project. In the end,when push comes to shove, it will probably be the existing users who will subsidize the support and mitigation of the project. XRespec1ysubmi d, Hal R. Yeag r, h.D. President, People Over Planes (415) 351-5735 P.O. Box 2336 Pleasant Hill, CA • 94523 Advisory U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Circular Administration Subject: HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS ON Date: 5/1/97 AC No: 150/5200-33 OR NEAR AIRPORTS Initiated by: Change: AAS-310 and APP-600 1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) last few years. Some of these species are able to provides guidance on locating certain land uses adapt to human-made environments, such as exist having the potential to attract hazardous wildlife to on and around airports. The increase in wildlife or in the vicinity of public-use airports. It also populations, the use of larger turbine engines, the ,/ provides guidance concerning the placement of increased use of twin-engine aircraft, and the new airport development projects (including airport increase in air-traffic, all combine to increase the construction, expansion, and renovation) pertaining risk, frequency, and potential severity of wildlife- to aircraft movement in the vicinity of hazardous aircraft collisions. wildlife attractants. Appendix 1 provides definitions of terms used in this AC. Most public-use airports have large tracts of open, unimproved land that are desirable for added mar- 2. APPLICATION. The standards, practices, gins of safety and noise mitigation. These areas and suggestions contained in this AC are can present potential hazards to aviation because recommended by the Federal Aviation they often attract hazardous wildlife. During the Administration (FAA) for use by the operators and past century, wildlife-aircraft strikes have resulted sponsors of all public-use airports. In addition, the in the loss of hundreds of lives world-wide, as well (� standards, practices, and suggestions contained in as billions of dollars worth of aircraft damage. this AC are recommended by the FAA as guidance Hazardous wildlife attractants near airports could for land use planners, operators, and developers of jeopardize future airport expansion because of projects,facilities,and activities on or near airports. safety considerations. 3. BACKGROUND. Populations of many species of wildlife have increased markedly in the 61/L"I( P_L_� DAVID L.BENNETT Director,Office of Airport Safety and Standards ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5/1/97 AC 150/5200-33 SECTION 1. HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS. 1-1. TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE 1-2. LAND USE PRACTICES. Land use ATTRACTANTS ON OR NEAR AIRPORTS. practices that attract or sustain hazardous wildlife Human-made or natural areas, such as xro..-°- l:- populations on or near airports can significantly in- drained areas,retention ponds,roosting habitats on crease the potential for wildlife-aircraft collisions. \_ builbuil Landscaping, putrescible-waste disposal FAA recommends against land use practices, within operations, wastewater treatment plants. the siting criteria stated in 1-3,that attract or sustain tJ agricultural or aquacu lural activities, su ace populations of hazardous wildlife within the mining, or wetlands,may be used by wildlife for vicinity of airports or cause movement of haz- escape, feeding, loafing, or reproduction. Wildlife ardous wildlife onto, into, or across the approach or use of areas within an airport's approach or depar- departure airspace, aircraft movement area, loading ture airspace, aircraft movement areas, loading ramps,or aircraft parking area of airports. ramps, or aircraft parking areas may cause condi- tions hazardous to aircraft safety. Airport operators, sponsors, planners, and land use developers should consider whether proposed land All species of wildlife can pose a threat to aircraft uses, including new airport development projects, safety. However, some species are more would increase the wildlife hazard. Caution should commonly involved in aircraft strikes than others. be exercised to ensure that land use practices on or V Table 1 lists the wildlife groups commonly reported near airports do not enhance the attractiveness of as being involved in damaging strikes to U.S. the area to hazardous wildlife. aircraft from 1993 to 1995. 1-3. SITING CRITERIA. FAA recommends Table 1. Wildlife Groups Involved in Damaging separations when siting any of the wildlife Strikes to Civilian Aircraft,USA,1993-1995. attractants mentioned in Section 2 or when planning new airport development projects to Wildlife Percent involvement in accommodate aircraft movement. The distance Groups reported damaging between an airport's aircraft movement areas, strikes loading ramps, or aircraft parking areas and the Gulls 28 wildlife attractant should be as follows: Waterfowl 28 a. Airports serving piston-powered Raptors 11 aircraft. A distance of 5,000 feet is recommended. Doves 6 b. Airports serving turbine-powered Vultures 5 aircraft. A distance of L u=_ eet is recommended. Blackbirds- 5 Starlings c. Approach or Departure airspace. A distance of 5 statute miles is recommended, if the Corvids 3 wildlife attractant may cause hazardous wildlife Wading birds 3 movement into or across the approach or departure Deer 11 airspace. Canids 1 1 (and 2) 5/1/97 AC 150/5200-33 SECTION 2. LAND USES THAT ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH SAFE AIRPORT OPERATIONS. 2-1. GENERAL. The wildlife species and the b. Existing wastewater treatment size of the populations attracted to the airport facilities. FAA recommends correcting any environment are highly variable and may depend wildlife hazards arising from existing wastewaterjQ+' on several factors, including land-use practices on treatment facilities located on or near airports or near the airport. It is important to identify those without delay, using appropriate wildlife hazard land use practices in the airport area that attract mitigation techniques. Accordingly, measures to 7 hazardous wildlife. This section discusses land use minimize hazardous wildlife attraction should be practices known to threaten aviation safety. developed in consultation with a wildlife damage management biologist. FAA recommends that 2-2. PUTRESCIBLE-WASTE DISPOSAL wastewater treatment facility operators incorporate OPERATIONS. Putrescible-waste disposal appropriate wildlife hazard mitigation techniques operations are known to attract large numbers of into their operating practices. Airport operators wildlife that are hazardous to aircraft. Because of also should encourage those operators to this, these operations, when located within the incorporate these mitigation techniques in their separations identified in the sitting criteria in 1-3 operating practices. are considered incompatible with safe airport operations. c. Artificial marshes. Waste-water treatment facilities may create artificial marshes FAA recommends against locating and use submergent and emergent aquatic putrescible-waste disposal operations inside the vegetation as natural filters. These artificial separations identified in the siting criteria marshes may be used by some species of flocking mentioned above. FAA also recommends against birds, such as blackbirds and waterfowl, for new airport development projects that would breeding or roosting activities. FAA recommends increase the number of aircraft operations or that against establishing artificial marshes within the would accommodate larger or faster aircraft, near separations identified in the siting criteria stated in putrescible-waste disposal operations located 1-3. within the separations identified in the siting criteria in 1-3. d. Wastewater discharge and sludge disposal. FAA recommends against the discharge r,$m 2-3. WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILI- of wastewater or sludge on airport property. TIES. Wastewater treatment facilities and Regular spraying of wastewater or sludge disposal CA associated settling ponds often attract large on unpaved areas may improve soil moisture and �S numbers of wildlife that can pose a threat to aircraft quality. The resultant turf growth requires more + safety when they are located on or near an airport. frequent mowing, which in turn may mutilate or 'F v flush insects or small animals and produce straw. rev a. New wastewater treatment facilities. The maimed or flushed organisms and the straw FAA recommends against the construction of new can attract hazardous wildlife and jeopardize wastewater treatment facilities or associated settling aviation safety. In addition, the improved turf may ponds within the separations identified in the siting attract grazing wildlife such as deer and geese. criteria in 1-3. During the siting analysis for wastewater treatment facilities, the potential to Problems may also occur when discharges saturate attract hazardous wildlife should be considered if unpaved airport areas. The resultant soft, muddy an airport is in the vicinity of a proposed site. conditions can severely restrict or prevent Airport operators should voice their opposition to emergency vehicles from reaching accident sites in such sitings. In addition, they should consider the a timely manner. existence of wastewater treatment facilities when evaluating proposed sites for new airport e. Underwater waste discharges. The development projects and avoid such sites when underwater discharge of any food waste, e.g., fish practicable. processing offal, that could attract scavenging wildlife is not recommended within the separations identified in the siting criteria in 1-3. 3 AC 150/5200-33 5/1/97 2-4. WETLANDS. identified in the siting criteria in 1-3. Wetland mitigation banks meeting these siting criteria offer a. Wetlands on or near Airports. an ecologically sound approach to mitigation in these situations. W4� (1) Existing Airports. Normally, wetlands are attractive to many wildlife species. (2) Exceptions to locating mitigation .Airport operators with wetlands located on or activities outside the separations identified in the nearby airport property should be alert to any siting criteria in 1-3 may be considered if the wildlife use or habitat changes in these areas that affected wetlands provide unique ecological d f�f could affect safe aircraft operations. functions, such as critical habitat for threatened or endangered species or ground water recharge. (2) Airport Development. When Such mitigation must be compatible with safe practicable, the FAA. recommends siting new airport operations. Enhancing such mitigation RO Y4 airports using the separations identified in the siting areas to attract hazardous wildlife should be o`r4 criteria in 1-3. Where alternative sites are not avoided. On-site mitigation plans may be reviewed practicable or when expanding existing airports in by the FAA to determine compatibility with safe or near wetlands, the wildlife hazards should be airport operations. ,ts evaluated and minimized through a wildlife management plan prepared by a wildlife damage (3) Wetland mitigation projects that are is management biologist, in consultation with the U.S. needed to protect unique wetland functions (see Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the U.S. 2-4.b.(2)),and that must be located in the siting cri- Army Corps of Engineers(COE), teria in 1-3 should be identified and evaluated by a wildlife damage management biologist before NOTE. If questions exist as to whether or not an implementing the mitigation. A wildlife damage area would qualify as a wetland, contact the U.S. management plan should be developed to reduce Army COE, the Natural Resource Conservation the wildlife hazards. Service, or a wetland consultant certified to delineate wetlands. NOTE: AC 150/5000-3,Address List for Regional Airports Division and Airports District/Field b. Wetland mitigation. Mitigation may Offices, provides information on the location of be necessary when unavoidable wetland these offices. disturbances result from new airport development projects. Wetland mitigation should be designed so 2-5. DREDGE SPOIL CONTAINMENT it does not create a wildlife hazard. AREAS. FAA recommends against locating dredge spoil containment areas within the (1) FAA recommends that wetland separations identified in the siting criteria in 1-3, if mitigation projects that may attract hazardous the spoil contains material that would attract wildlife be sited outside of the separations hazardous wildlife. 4 5/1/97 AC 150/5240-33 SECTION 3. LAND USES THAT MAY BE COMPATIBLE WITH SAFE AIRPORT OPERATIONS. 3-1. GENERAL. Even though they may, under a. Composition of material handled. certain circumstances, attract hazardous wildlife, Components of the compost should never include the land use practices discussed in this section have any municipal solid waste. Non-food waste such as flexibility regarding their location or operation and leaves, lawn clippings, branches, and twigs may even be under the airport operator's or generally are not considered a wildlife attractant. sponsor's control. In general, the FAA does not Sewage sludge, wood-chips, and similar material consider the activities discussed below as are not municipal solid wastes and may be used as hazardous to aviation if there is no apparent attrac- compost bulking agents. tion to hazardous wildlife, or wildlife hazard mitigation techniques are implemented to deal b. Monitoring on-airport composting op- effectively with any wildlife hazard that may arise. erations. If composting operations are to be located on airport property, FAA recommends that 3-2. ENCLOSED WASTE FACILITIES. the airport operator monitor composting operations Enclosed trash transfer stations or enclosed waste to ensure that steam or thermal rise does not affect handling facilities that receive garbage indoors; air traffic in any way. Discarded leaf disposal bags process it via compaction, incineration, or similar or other debris must not be allowed to blow onto manner; and remove all residue by enclosed any active airport area. Also, the airport operator vehicles, generally would be compatible, from a should reserve the right to stop any operation that wildlife perspective, with safe airport operations, creates unsafe, undesirable, or incompatible provided they are not located on airport property or conditions at the airport. within the runway protection zone (RPZ). No putrescible-waste should be handled or stored 3-5. ASH DISPOSAL. Fly ash from resource outside at any time, for any reason, or in a partially recovery facilities that are fired by municipal solid enclosed structure accessible to hazardous wildlife. waste, coal, or wood, is generally considered not to be a wildlife attractant because it contains no Partially enclosed operations that accept putrescible matter. FAA generally does not putrescible-waste are considered to be incompatible consider landfills accepting only fly ash to be with safe airport operations. FAA recommends wildlife attractants, if those landfills: are these operations occur outside the separations maintained in an orderly manner; admit no putres- identified in the siting criteria in 1-3. cible-waste of any kind; and are not co-located with other disposal operations. 3-3. RECYCLING CENTERS. Recycling centers that accept previously sorted, non-food Since varying degrees of waste consumption are items such as glass, newspaper, cardboard, or associated with general incineration, FAA classifies aluminum are, in most cases, not attractive to the ash from general incinerators as a regular waste hazardous wildlife. disposal by-product and, therefore, a hazardous wildlife attractant. 3-4. COMPOSTING OPERATIONS ON AIRPORTS. FAA recommends against locating 3-6. CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION composting operations on airports. However, when (C&D) DEBRIS LANDFILLS. C&D debris they are located on an airport, composting (Class M landfills have visual and operational operations should not be located closer than the characteristics similar to putrescible-waste disposal greater of the following distances: 1,200 feet from sites. When co-located with putrescible-waste any aircraft movement area, loading ramp, or disposal operations, the probability of hazardous aircraft parking space; or the distance called for by wildlife attraction to C&D landfills increases airport design requirements. This spacing is because of the similarities between these disposal intended to prevent material, personnel, or activities. equipment from penetrating any Obstacle Free Area (OFA), Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ), Threshold FAA generally does not consider C&D landfills to Siting Surface (TSS), or Clearway (see be hazardous wildlife attractants, if those landfills: AC 150/5300-13, Airport Design). On-airport are maintained in an orderly manner; admit no disposal of compost by-products is not putrescible-waste of any kind; and are not co- recommended for the reasons stated in 2-3.d. located with other disposal operations. 5 AC 150/5200-33 5/1/97 3-7, WATER RETENTION OR RETENTION course construction or expansion on or near �f PONDS. The movement of storm water away from airports. Golf courses should be monitored on a 1� runways, taxiways, and aprons is a normal function continuing basis for the presence of hazardous on most airports and is necessary for safe aircraft wildlife. If hazardous wildlife is detected, operations. Detention ponds hold storm water for corrective actions should be implemented r short periods, while retention ponds hold watermmediat�. indefinitely. ;Both types of ponds control runoff, o protect water quality, and can attract hazardous 3-10. AGRICULTURAL CROPS. As noted wildlife. Retention ponds are more attractive to above, airport operators often promote revenue- hazardous wildlife than detention ponds because generating activities to supplement an airport's they provide a more reliable water source. financial viability. A common concurrent use is agricultural crop production. Such use may create To facilitate hazardous wildlife control, FAA potential hazards to aircraft by attracting wildlife. recommends using steep-sided, narrow, linearly- Any proposed on-airport agricultural operations shaped, rip-rap lined, water detention basins rather should be reviewed by a wildlife damage than retention basins. When possible, these ponds management biologist. FAA generally does not should be placed away from aircraft movement object to agricultural crop production on airports areas to minimize aircraft-wildlife interactions. All when: wildlife hazards are not predicted; the vegetation in or around detention or retention guidelines for the airport areas specified in 3-10.a-f. basins that provide food or cover for hazardous are observed; and the agricultural operation is wildlife should be eliminated. closely monitored by the airport operator or sponsor to ensure that hazardous wildlife are not at- If soil conditions and other requirements allow, tracted. FAA. encourages the use of underground storm water infiltration systems, such as French drains or NOTE: If wildlife becomes a problem due to on- buried rock fields, because they are less attractive airport agricultural operations, FAA recommends to wildlife. undertaking the remedial actions described in 3-10.£ 3-8. LANDSCAPING. Wildlife attraction to landscaping may vary by geographic location. a. Agricultural activities adjacent to FAA recommends that airport operators approach runways. To ensure safe, efficient aircraft Iandscaping with caution and confine it to airport operations, FAA recommends that no agricultural areas not associated with aircraft movements. All activities be conducted in the Runway Safety Area landscaping plans should be reviewed by a wildlife (RSA),OFA,and the OFZ(see AC 150/5300-13). damage management biologist. Landscaped areas should be monitored on a continuing basis for the b. Agricultural activities in areas presence of hazardous wildlife. If hazardous requiring minimum object clearances. Restricting wildlife is detected, corrective actions should be agricultural operations to areas outside the RSA, implemented immediately. OFA, OFZ, and Runway Visibility Zone (RVZ) (see AC 150/5300-13) will normally provide the 3-9. GOLF COURSES, Golf courses may be minimum object clearances required by FAA's beneficial to airports because they provide open airport design standards. FAA recommends that space that can be used for noise mitigation or by facing operations not be permitted within areas aircraft during an emergency. On-airport golf critical to the proper operation of localizers, glide courses may also be a concurrent use that provides slope indicators, or other visual or electronic income to the airport. navigational aids. Determinations of minimal areas Because of operational and monetary benefits, golf that must be kept free of farming operations should courses are often deemed compatible land uses on be made on a case-by-case basis. If navigational or near airports. owever waterfowl (especially aids are present, farm leases for on-airport agri- Canad�,eese) and some species of moults are cultural activities should be coordinated with FAA`s Airway Facilities Division, in accordance with attracted to the large, grassy areas and open water FAA Order 6750.16, Siting Criteria for Instrument found on most golf courses. Because waterfowl Landing Systems. and gulls occur throughout the U.S., E&A recom- Memds-that ort operators exercise caution an NOTE: Crop restriction lines conforming to the consult with a wildlife amage management dimensions set forth in Table 2 will normally biologist when considering proposals for golf provide the minimum object clearance required by 6 5/1197 AC 150/5200-33 FAA airport design standards. The presence of e. Agricultural activities in areas navigational aids may require expansion of the adjacent to taxiways and aprons. Farming restricted area. activities should not be permitted within a taxiway's OFA. The outer portions of aprons are frequently c. Agricultural activities within an used as a taxilane and farming operations should airport's approach areas. The RSA, OFA, and not be permitted within the OFA. Farming OFZ all extend beyond the runway shoulder and operations should not be permitted between into the approach area by varying distances. The runways and parallel taxiways. OFA normally extends the farthest and is usually the controlling surface. However, for some f. Remedial actions for problematic runways, the TSS (see AC 150/5300-13, agricultural activities. If a problem with Appendix 2) may be more controlling than the hazardous wildlife develops, FAA recommends that OFA. The TSS may not be penetrated by any a professional wildlife damage management object. The minimum distances shown in Table 2 biologist be contacted and an on-site inspection be are intended to prevent penetration of the OFA, conducted. The biologist should be requested to OFZ,or TSS by crops or farm machinery. determine the source of the hazardous wildlife attraction and suggest remedial action. Regardless NOTE: Threshold Siting standards should not be of the source of the attraction, prompt remedial confused with the approach areas described in actions to protect aviation safety are recommended. Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 77, The remedial actions may range from choosing (14 CFR 77), Objects Affecting Navigable another crop or farming technique to complete Airspace. termination of the agricultural operation. d. Agricultural activities between Whenever on-airport agricultural operations are intersecting runways. FAA recommends that no stopped due to wildlife hazards or annual harvest, agricultural activities be permitted within the RVZ. FAA recommends plowing under all crop residue if the terrain is sufficiently below the runway and harrowing the surface area smooth. This will elevation, some types of crops and equipment may reduce or eliminate the area's attractiveness to be acceptable. Specific determinations of what is foraging wildlife. FAA recommends that this permissible in this area requires topographical data. requirement be written into all on-airport farm use For example, if the terrain within the RVZ is level contracts and clearly understood by the lessee. with the runway ends, farm machinery or crops may interfere with a pilot's line-of-sight in the RVZ. 7 AC 150/5200-33 5/1/97 3 � CPKs � � v°'Oicxa � � vooiao � � � > S o v a a -r u7 as ,� v do 0 w. P, y v 00 u oar c� ar r � o `" cxto .., m Uy. 4:4 '� .r ttt c� ctl t�tl w G -8 e 70 � V � st � •t vs v� v5 +n v1 +n bh vY ad s.. U , _5_ ch v, rnrnrnrnm t� .. ar <C tw w � > u Al A 8 5/1/97 AC 150/5200-33 SECTION 4. NOTIFICATION OF FAA ABOUT HAZARDOUS WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS ON OR NEAR AN AIRPORT. 4-1. GENERAL. Airport operators, land does not attract hazardous wildlife and does not developers, and owners should notify the FAA in threaten aviation, the developer must establish writing of known or reasonably foreseeable land convincingly that the facility will not handle use practices on or near airports that either attract putrescible material other than that as outlined in or may attract hazardous wildlife. This section 3-2. FAA requests that waste site developers discusses those notification procedures. provide a copy of an official pen-nit request verifying that the facility will not handle 4-2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS putrescible material other than that as outlined in FOR WASTE DISPOSAL SITE OPERATIONS. 3-1 FAA will use this information to determine if The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the facility will be a hazard to aviation. requires any operator proposing a new or expanded waste disposal operation within 5 statute miles of a 4-3. NOTIFYING FAA ABOUT OTHER runway end to notify the appropriate FAA Regional WILDLIFE ATTRACTANTS. While U. S. EPA Airports Division Office and the airport operator of regulations require landfill owners to provide the proposal (40 CFR 258, Criteria for Municipal notification, no similar regulations require Solid Waste Land(ills, section 258.10, Airport notifying FAA about changes in other land use Safety). The EPA also requires owners or operators practices that can create hazardous wildlife of new municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF) attractants. Although it is not required by units, or lateral expansions of existing MSWLF regulation, FAA requests those proposing land use units that are located within 10,000 feet of any changes such as those discussed in 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5 airport runway end used by turbojet aircraft or to provide similar notice to the FAA as early in the within 5,000 feet of any airport runway end used development process as possible. Airport operators only by piston-type aircraft, to demonstrate that become aware of such proposed development successfully that such units are not hazards to in the vicinity of their airports should also notify aircraft. the FAA. The notification process gives the FAA an opportunity to evaluate the effect of a particular a. Timing of Notification. When new or land use change on aviation safety. expanded MSWLFs are being proposed near airports, MSWLF operators should notify the The land use operator or project proponent may use airport operator and the FAA of this as early as FAA Form 74$0-1, Notice of Proposed Con- possible pursuant to 40 CFR Part 258. Airport struction or Alteration, or other suitable documents operators should encourage the MSWLF operators to notify the appropriate FAA Regional Airports to provide notification as early as possible. Division Office. NOTE: AC 150/5000-3 provides information on It is helpful if the notification includes a 15-minute these FAA offices. quadrangle map of the area identifying the location of the proposed activity. The land use operator or b. Putrescible-Waste Facilities. In their project proponent should also forward specific effort to satisfy the EPA requirement, some details of the proposed land use change or putrescible-waste facility proponents may offer to operational change or expansion. In the case of undertake experimental measures to demonstrate solid waste landfills, the information should that their proposed facility will not be a hazard to include the type of waste to be handled, how the aircraft.To date,the ability to sustain a reduction in waste will be processed, and final disposal the numbers of hazardous wildlife to levels that ex- methods. isted before a putrescible-waste landfill began operating has not been successfully demonstrated. 4-5. FAA REVIEW OF PROPOSED LAND For this reason, demonstrations of experimental USE CHANGES. wildlife control measures should not be conducted in active aircraft operations areas. a. The FAA discourages the development of facilities discussed in section 2 that will be C. Other Waste Facilities. To claim suc- located within the 5,000/10,000-foot criteria in 1-3.. cessfully that a waste handling facility sited within the separations identified in the siting criteria in 1-3 9 AC 150/5200-33 5/1/97 b. For projects which are located outside FAA recommends against the placement of airport the 5,000/10,000-foot criteria, but within 5 statute development projects pertaining to aircraft miles of the airport's aircraft movement areas, movement in the vicinity of hazardous wildlife loading ramps, or aircraft parking areas, FAA may attractants. Airport operators, sponsors, and review development plans, proposed land use planners should identify wildlife attractants and any changes, operational changes, or wetland mitigation associated wildlife hazards during any planning plans to determine if such changes present potential process for new airport development projects. wildlife hazards to aircraft operations. Sensitive airport areas will be identified as those that lie b. Additional coordination. If, after the under or next to approach or departure airspace. initial review by FAA, questions remain about the This brief examination should be sufficient to existence of a wildlife hazard near an airport, the determine if further investigation is warranted. airport operator or sponsor should consult a wildlife damage management biologist. Such questions e. Where further study has been conducted may be triggered by a history of wildlife strikes at by a wildlife damage management biologist to eval- the airport or the proximity of the airport to a uate a site's compatibility with airport operations, wildlife refuge, body of water, or similar feature the FAA will use the study results to make its known to attract wildlife. determination. c. Specialized assistance. If the services d. FAA will discourage the development of a wildlife damage management biologist are of any excepted sites (see Section 3) within the required, FAA recommends that land use criteria specified in 1-3 if a study shows that the developers or the airport operator contact the area supports hazardous wildlife species. appropriate state director of the United States Department of Agriculture/Animal Damage Control 4-6. AIRPORT OPERATORS. Airport (USDA/ADC), or a consultant specializing in operators should be aware of proposed land use wildlife damage management. Telephone numbers changes, or modification of existing land uses, that for the respective USDA/ADC state offices may be could create hazardous wildlife attractants within obtained by contacting USDA/ADC's Operational the separations identified in the siting criteria in Support Staff, 4700 River Road, Unit 87, 1-3. Particular attention should be given to Riverdale, MD, 20737-1234, Telephone proposed land uses involving creation or expansion (301)7347921, Fax (301) 734-5157. The ADC of waste water treatment facilities, development of biologist or consultant should be requested to wetland mitigation sites, or development or identify and quantify wildlife common to the area expansion of dredge spoil containment areas. and evaluate the potential wildlife hazards. a. AIP=funded airports. FAA d. Notifying airmen. If an existing land recommends that operators of AIP-funded airports, use practice creates a wildlife hazard, and the land to the extent practicable, oppose off airport land use practice or wildlife hazard cannot be immedi- use changes or practices (within the separations ately eliminated, the airport operator should issue a identified in the siting criteria in 1-3) that may Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) and encourage the attract hazardous wildlife. Failure to do so could land owner or manager to take steps to control the place the airport operator or sponsor in wildlife hazard and minimize further attraction. noncompliance with applicable grant assurances. 10 5/l/97 AC 150/5200-33 Appendix 1 APPENDIX I, DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THIS ADVISORY CIRCULAR. 1. GENERAL. This appendix provides j. Putrescible-waste disposal operation. definitions of terms used throughout this AC. Landfills, garbage dumps, underwater waste discharges, or similar facilities where activities a. Aircraft movement area. The include processing, burying, storing, or otherwise runways, taxiways, and other areas of an airport disposing ofputrescible material,trash,and refuse. which are used for taxiing or hover taxiing, air taxiing, takeoff, and landing of aircraft exclusive of k. Runway protection zone (RPZ). An loading ramps and aircraft parking areas. area off the runway end to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground (see b. Airport operator. The operator(private AC 154/5300-13). The dimensions of this zone or public)or sponsor of a public use airport. vary with the design aircraft, type of operation, and visibility minimum. c. Approach or departure airspace. The airspace, within 5 statute miles of an airport, 1. Sewage sludge. The de-watered through which aircraft move during landing or effluent resulting from secondary or tertiary takeoff. treatment of municipal sewage and/or industrial wastes, including sewage sludge as referenced in d. {Concurrent use. Aeronautical .property U.S. EPA's Effluent Guidelines and Standards, used for compatible non-aviation purposes while at 40 C.F.R.Part 441, the same time serving the primary purpose for which it was acquired, and the use is clearly bene- m. Shoulder. An area adjacent to the edge ficial to the airport. The concurrent use should of paved runways, taxiways, or aprons providing a generate revenue to be used for airport purposes transition between the pavement and the adjacent (see Carder 5190.6A, Airport Compliance surface, support for aircraft running off the Requirements,sect.5h). pavement, enhanced drainage, and blast protection (see AC 154/5300-13). e. Fly ash. The fine, sand-like residue resulting from the complete incineration of an n. Turbine-powered aircraft. Aircraft organic fuel source. Fly ash typically results from powered by turbine engines including turbojets and the combustion of coal or waste used to operate a turboprops but excluding turbo-shaft rotary-wing power generating plant. aircraft. L Hazardous wildlife. Wildlife species that o. Turbine-use airport. Any airport that are commonly associated with wildlife-aircraft ROUTINELY serves FIXER-WINIG turbine- strike problems, are capable of causing structural powered aircraft. damage to airport facilities, or act as attractants to other wildlife that pose a wildlife-aircraft strike p. Wastewater treatment facility. Any hazard. devices and/or systems used to store, treat, recycle, or reclaim municipal sewage or liquid industrial g. Piston-use airport. Any airport that wastes, including Publicly (awned Treatment would primarily serve MED-WING, piston- Works (POTW), as defined by Section 212 of the powered aircraft. Incidental use of the airport by Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92-500) turbine-powered, MED-WING aircraft would not as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 affect this designation. However, such aircraft (P.L.95-576) and the Water Quality Act of 1957 should not be based at the airport. (P.L. 100-4). This definition includes any pretreatment involving the reduction of the amount h. Public-use airport, Any publicly of pollutants, the elimination of pollutants, or the owned airport or a privately-owned airport used or alteration of the nature of pollutant properties in intended to be used for public purposes. wastewater prior to or in lieu of discharging or otherwise introducing such pollutants into a i. Putrescible material. Rotting organic POTW. (See 40 C.F. R. Section 403.3 (o), (p), & material. (q)). 1 AC 150/5200-33 5/1/97 Appendix 1 q. Wildlife. Any wild animal, including r. Wildlife attractants. Any human-made without limitation any wild mammal, bird, reptile, structure, land use practice, or human-made or fish, amphibian, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod, natural geographic future, that can attract or coelenterate, or other invertebrate, including any sustain hazardous wildlife within the landing or part, product, egg, or offspring there of departure airspace, aircraft movement area, loading (50 CFR 10.12, Taking, Possession, ramps, or aircraft parking areas of an airport. Transportation, Sale, Purchase, Barter, These attractants can include but are not limited to Exportation, and Importation of Wildlife and architectural features, landscaping, waste disposal Plants). As used in this AC, WILDLIFE includes sites, wastewater treatment facilities, agricultural or feral animals and domestic animals while out of the aquacultural activities,surface mining,or wetlands. control of their owners (14 CFR 139.3, Certification and Operations: Land Airports s. Wildlife hazard. A potential for a Serving CAB-Certificated Scheduled Air Carriers damaging aircraft collision with wildlife on or near Operating Large Aircraft (Other Than an airport(14 CFR 139.3). Helicopters)). 2. RESERVED. 2 Chapter 3 21 CHAPTER 3 AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS IMPACTING WILDLIFE HAZARD MANAGEMENT AT AIRPORTS C }...., r`�twSkrr"4g,,9r^dt ¢s�. ,� � F E The pilot of this NATO Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft {modified Boeing-7117} rejected takeoff following a bird ingestion at Aktion Air Force Base in Greece, July 1996. The plane slid off the runway, suffering extensive damage. 3.1. INTRODUCTION Wildlife management is a complex mixture of science, experience and art, regulated and implemented by various federal, state, and local governmental agencies. Wildlife and associated wildlife habitat often are protected by overlapping federal, state, and local regulations that are enforced by various governmental organizations. This chapter provides an overview of the roles and responsibilities of various agencies and organizations that influence wildlife management at or near airports. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........................................................................................................................................ _. _ _ __ Chapter 3 22 3.2. FEDERAL AGENCIES' 3.2.a. Federal Aviation Administration 3.2.a.i. mission The mission of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is to provide a safe, secure, and efficient global aviation system that contributes to national security and the promotion of U.S. aviation. As the leading authority in the international aerospace community, the FAA is responsive to the dynamic nature of customer needs, economic conditions, and environmental '' ' concerns. ' 3.2.a.ii. Authority Since 1970, Section 812 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, (49 U.S.C. 1432) has empowered the FAA Administrator to issue airport operating Following a gird ingestion, National certificates to airports serving Certain air Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) inspectors used a mirror to examine the constant speed carriers, and to establish minimum safety drive (CSD) oil cooler in this engine on a Boeing- standards for the operation of those 737. Note the feathers shown in the mirror and airports. Some of these regulations and the damaged compressor blade in the policies directly involve the management of background. (Photo courtesy NTSB) wildlife and wildlife hazards on and/or near airports. 3.2.a.iii. Rosie, and Responsibility The FAA is responsible for enforcement of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations, part 139 (14--CFR--139). To -carry out this role,_the FAA has responsibilities for various aspects of aviation which include air navigation, air traffic control, aviation certification and regulation, aviation security, environmental impact minimization, and aviation research and development. The FAA roles and responsibilities relating to wildlife hazards and their associated human health and safety concerns are addressed in 14 CFR 139.337. The FAA's Office of Airport Safety and Standards has published Advisory Circulars (AC 150/5000 t Much of the information in this section was adapted from Chapter 2 of Managing Wildlife Hazards at Airports, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, June 1998 (used with permission). Chapter 3 23 series), Certalerts, and Program Policy and Guidance Directives which further clarify this information. 3.2.a.iil.a. Office of Airport Safety and Standards A staff wildlife biologist is assigned to the Office of Airport Safety and Standards, Washington DC. The biologist works with airport operators and certificate holders through the FAA regional and district offices in matters related to wildlife hazards at airports. Responsibilities of the staff wildlife biologist include. reviewing development plans for certificated airports to minimize wildlife hazards; managing the wildlife aircraft strike database designed to document the history of reported strikes at airports throughout the United States and its territories; and serving as an internal consultant to the FAA regarding the appropriateness of Wildlife Hazard Management Plans, wildlife hazard research, and other wildlife management issues of concern to the FAA. The FAA staff wildlife biologist examines all wildlife aircraft strike reports submitted to the FAA. Copies of significant strike reports (see Chapter 6 and 14 CFR 139.337[a][1-3]), together with the strike history for the particular airport, are forwarded to the appropriate FAA regional personnel. See also FAA, Office of Airport Safety and Standards' Policies and Program Guidance Policy No. 64, Review of Airport Wildlife Hazard Management Plans (Appendix D). 3.2.a.iii.b. Wildlife Hazard Assessments Certificated airports are required by regulation to conduct an Ecological_Study2 when specific wildlife events occur as discussed in Chapter 6 (14 CFR 139.337[a][1-3]). FAA, Office of Airport Safety and Standards' Program Policy and Guidance No. 53 (Appendix D) establishes the procedures that FAA Airport Certification Safety Inspectors should follow when it is determined that an airport needs to conduct a Wildlife Hazard Assessment. Under terms of the Memorandum of Understanding between the FAA and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services (USDA/WS, Appendix G), the USDA/WS program can provide assistance with the conduct of Wildlife Hazard Assessments and the development of Wildlife Hazard Management Plans. FAA Office of Airport Safety and Standards' Certalert No. 97-02 (Appendix E) further clarifies the roles of, and relationship between the FAA and USDA/WS with regard to wildlife hazards on or near airports. -See Chapter 6 for a discussion of the contents of a Wildlife Hazard Assessment. 2 USDA, Wildlife Services, uses the term "Wildlife Hazard Assessment." 14 CFR 139.337(x) uses the term "Ecological Study." In this context the two terms should be considered synonymous. Wildlife Hazard Assessment is the preferred term because it is more descriptive of what is actually being done. _.. Chapter 3 24 3.2.a.iii.c Wildlife Hazard Management Pians The FAA considers the Wildlife Hazard Assessment, aeronautical activity at the airport, views of the airport operator and its users, and other pertinent factors in determining whether or not a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan is needed (14 CFR 139.337[c]C1-51). See Chapter 6 for a discussion of the contents of a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. 3.2.a.ii'i.d Advisory Circulars, Policy Statements, and Certalerts Advisory Circulars (ACs) are issued to provide guidance and information in a designated subject area or to show a method acceptable to the Administrator for complying with a related Federal Aviation Regulation. The FAA issues ACs to inform the aviation public in a systematic way of non-regulatory material. Unless incorporated into a regulation by reference, the contents of an AC are not binding on the public. Policy Statements provide FAA headquarters' guidance on interpretation of the regulatory requirements and provide background on the meaning of sections of the regulations. Certalerts provide timely information to Airport Certification Safety inspectors and airport operators on a broad range of safety and airport certification related subjects. They are advisory in nature, non-directive, and have no regulatory authority. FAA Advisory Circulars, Policy Statements, and Certalerts germane to airport wildlife issues can be found in Appendices C, D, and E, respectively. 3.2.b. U.S. Department of Agriculture/Wildlife Services 3.2.b.i. Mission The mission of U.S. Department of Agriculture/Wildlife Services (USDANVS) is to prciVide federal leadership in managing problems caused by wildlife. USDA/WS helps manage wildlife to reduce damage to agriculture, natural resources and roe USDA, Wildlife Services personnel will provide property;rty; minimizes assistance in evaluating and reducing wildlife potential threats to human health and hazards at and in the vicinity of airports. (Photo by safety; and assists in the protection of E. C. Cleary, PAA) threatened and endangered species. Chapter 3 25 3.2.b.1ii. Authority The primary statutory authority for the USDA/WS program is the Animal Damage Control Act of 2 March 1931, as amended (7 U.S.C. 426-426c; 46 Statute 1468)(See Appendix B). USDANVS has the authority to manage migratory bird damage only as specified in the Code of Federal Regulations and under permits issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (50 CFR 21). USDA/WS does not have the authority to issue migratory bird depredation permits. 3.2.b.iii. Role and Responsibility Wildlife is a public resource greatly valued by the citizens of the USA. However, wildlife can cause damage to agricultural and industrial resources, pose risks to human health and safety, and impact other natural resources. USDA/WS has the federal responsibility to help resolve conflicts that occur when human activity and wildlife are in proximity to one another. USDA/WS has primary responsibility of responding to threats caused by migratory birds. ADC Directive 2.305, Wildlife Hazards to Aviation, (Appendix F) provides guidance for USDANVS wildlife biologists in providing technical assistance or direct control to airport managers, state aviation agencies, the aviation industry, the FAA, and the Department of Defense (DOD) regarding hazards caused by wildlife to airport safety. USDANVS assists federal, state, and local agencies, airport managers, the aviation industry, and the military in reducing wildlife hazards on and in the vicinity of airports and air bases according to the Memoranda of Understanding with FAA and Department of Defense, and guidelines published elsewhere. In addition, it is the responsibility of USDA/WS personnel that observe existing or potential wildlife hazards at airports or air bases to immediately notify the appropriate aviation authorities. USDANVS may enter into cooperative agreements to develop Wildlife Hazard Assessments;Wildlife HazardManagement Plans, and to conduct direct wildlife hazard reduction programs. These activities are performed pursuant to agreements that are funded by cooperating entities. USDA(WS biologists may provide training for airport and air base personnel in wildlife hazard identification and the safe and proper use of wildlife control equipment and techniques. USDANVS biologists may provide recommendations and assistance to airport managers and air base commanders in obtaining federal, state, and local permits to remove protected wildlife species. ..................................... _ ......... ......... ................................................................................................................ . ................................................................................................................................. ..................................................................................... Chapter 3 26 3.2.c. U.S. Department of Defense 3.2.c.i. Mission The Department of Defense (DOD) is responsible for providing the military fortes needed to deter er war and protect the security of the United States. 3.2.c.ii. Authority The DOD is the successor agency to the National Military Establishment created by the rational Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401). It was established as an execrative department of the Government by the National Security Act .gx.. . Amendments of 1949 with the Secretary A gull Was ingested into this engine on a USAF of Defense as its head (5 U.S.C. 101). KC-10 aircraft during taxiing. The engine, The DOD's primary authority is although not damaged, had to be disassembled established Lander 32 CFR 1-2900. and inspected. {Photo courtesy NTSl3} 3.2.c.111: Role and Responsibility Each military department (Department of the Navy includes the U.S. Marine Corps).is separately organized under its own Secretary and functions under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense. The commanders of unified and specified combat commands are responsible to the President and the Secretary of Defense for accomplishing the military missions assigned to them and exercising command authority over forces assigned to there. The U.S. Air Force's (USAF) Bird Aircraft Strike Hazard (BASH) Team, HQ Air Force Safety Center, Kirtland Air Farce Base, New Mexico, oversees the USAF wildlife strike reduction-efforts.- The BASH -team maintains a wildlife strike database for strikes involving USAF aircraft (www.afsc.saia.af/mil/AFSC/Bash) similar to the database maintained by the FAA for civil aircraft (Chapter 2). Chapter 3 27 3.2.d. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 3.2.d.l. Mission The mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is to safeguard the nation's environment. 3.2.d.ii. Authority The USEPA was established in 1970 in response to concerns about polluted air and rivers, unsafe drinking water, endangered species, and waste disposal. The USEPA"s primary Landfills often attract birds, such as these turkey regulatory responsibilities are vultures, that pose hazards to aircraft. The USEPA established under 44 CFR 1-799. requires that certain landfills be operated in a manner that does not pose a bird hazard to aircraft (see Chapter 4). (Photo by E.A. LeBoeuf, USAF) 3.2.d.iii. Role and Responsibility USEPA functions include setting and enforcing environmental standards and regulations related to air and water pollution, hazardous wastes, pesticides and toxic substances. The USEPA's mission is accomplished through partnerships with state and local governments. USEPA responsibilities include pesticide registration and regulation, siting and construction of wastewater treatment and solid waste disposal facilities, which are permitted through state and local agencies. FAA and USDA/WS may be consulted by airport authorities or state and local agencies to review impacts of proposed USEPA- regulated projects on aviation safety. 3.2.d.iii.a Landfills Approval or disapproval of a landfill site is the responsibility of the USEPA, state and local governing bodies, and zoning boards. Other federal agencies, such as the FAA, may only comment as to whether or not they would consider the proposed landfill to be compatible or non-compatible with their mission requirements. 3.2.d.iii.b. Pesticides Before any pesticide may be used, it must be registered with the USEPA, and with the appropriate state pesticide regulating authority. Pesticides are generally classified as either restricted use or general use. Restricted-use pesticides may only be sold to and used by Certified Applicators or persons under their direct supervision and only for those uses covered by the Certified Applicators certification. There are few restrictions on who may purchase or use general use pesticides. Persons who want to use restricted-use pesticides, or apply any pesticide to the land of another, or apply any pesticides for hire must be a Certified Applicator, or working under their direct Chapter 3 28 supervision, and then may only use pesticides covered by the Certified Applicator's certification (see state EPA below). 3.2.e. U.S. Department of Interior/Fish and Wildlife Service .2.e.i. Mission The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; (USFWS) is to conserve, protect, and enhance the nation's fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of all people. 3.2.e.ii. Authority The USFWS has management authority for migratory birds and federally listed The resident Canada goose population in the threatened and endangered wildlife USA more than tripled from 1985-1998 to species. The USFWS primary regulatory almost 3 million birds. These geese are responsibilities are established Under 50 extremely adaptive and readily establish nesting CFR 1-199. territories on golf courses, urban ponds, airports or even flat roofs. From 1990 to 1998, geese were involved in 19% of all reported bird strikes 3.2.e.iii. Rote and Responsibility that caused damage. (Photo by E. C. Cleary, FAA) The USFWS is responsible for the conservation and enhancement of migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, certain marine mammals, freshwater and anadromous fishes, and wetlands. The USFWS also manages the National Wildlife Refuge System, enforces federal wildlife laws, and conducts biological reviews of the environmental impacts of development projects. The USFWS renders biological opinions on proposed federal activities that may impact federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated or proposed critical, habitat. These opinions are solicited through..-a "Section 7_ consultation as....required. under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Statute 884, as amended). Chapter 3 29 3.2.f. U.S. Army Carps of Engineers 3.2.f.i. Mission The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CUE) is charged with a wide range of water resources related functions. Among these are the protection ofF„* navigation and safeguarding the nation's water resources. 3.2.f.11. Authority Regulatory authorities of the CUE include Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) which prohibits the obstruction or This C-141 struck numerous herring gulls during takeoff from Travis AFB, California, 20 January 1993. alteration of navigable waters of the The plane suffered $175,000 in damage: (Photo U.S. without a CUE permit; Section courtesy USAF) 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) which regulates the excavation and discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the U.S.; and Section 103 of the Marine protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 which regulates deposition of fill material into ocean waters. 3.2.f.iii. Role and Responsibility The CUE regulatory branch administers a permit system under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. All proposed management actions involving any wetland habitat modification or excavation of fill material from or discharged into waters of the U.S. must be evaluated for Section 404 applicability and permit requirements. Projects requiring permits may require mitigation for impacted resources. 3.3. STATE AGENCIES Specific state regulations and their enforcement are not addressed in this manual because of their wide variability. The following general comments are provided as background information. State and local regulatory agencies that should be consulted when working with airport wildlife issues are those with jurisdiction over wildlife and natural resources, environmental protection, health, law enforcement, transportation and others, as applicable. Chapter 3 30 3.3.a. State Wildlife Management Agencies Wildlife management authority for resident nonmigratory birds, terrestrial mammals, freshwater fish, amphibians, and reptiles rests with state wildlife management agencies. These agencies establish the take and possession regulations for all state-protected species. States set their migratory game-bird hunting seasons and bag limits within the guidelines established by the USI=WS. States also may list certain wildlife and plant species as threatened It may be necessary to obtain both a federal and or endangered that are not considered as a 'state Wildlife depredation Permit before taking such at the federal level. any migratory birds as part of an airport wildlife management program. (Photo by E. C. Cleary, FAA) Persons needing to tape state-protected species outside of the legal hunting season or beyond the established bag limits to promote airport safety must first secure a state depredation permit. Contact the nearest USDA/WS office (Appendix A) for assistance in obtaining any necessary state depredation permits. 3.3.b. 'State Environmental Protection Agencies 3.3.b.i. Landfill Siting Permits, Inspections With concurrence from the USEPA, state EPAs and Local governing bodies have the final responsibility for issuing landfill permits. It is also a state responsibility to inspect all landfills to insure compliance with all applicable federal and state regulations. 3.3.b.11. Pesticide Registration Before a pesticide may be sold or used, it must be registered with the USEPA and with - the respective state's pesticide regulatory agency. -Special Local Need (SLN)-registered pesticides may only be used in the state, and in some cases the specific geographical location, for which the SLN registration has been issued. 3.3.b.iii. Pesticide Applicator Licensing With USEPA concurrence, each state is responsible for establishing pesticide applicator licensing requirements and applicator training procedures. The retail sale and use of restricted use pesticides is limited to Certified Applicators or persons working under their direct supervision and only for those uses covered by the Certified Applicator's certification. Chapter 3 31 Any person who uses restricted-use pesticides, applies any pesticides for hire, or applies any pesticide to the land of another, must be a Certified Applicator or working under the direct supervision of a Certified Applicator and may only use pesticides covered by the Certified Applicator's certification. 3.4. AIRPORTS 3.4.a. Airport Operator The operator of a certificated airport must demonstrate that the airport is properly and adequately equipped and programs are in place to provide a safe airport-operating environment in accordance with all sections of 14 OFR 139 subpart D. Included in this regulation is the need to address wildlife hazard issues, conduct Wildlife Hazard Assessments, and develop Airport operators must take immediate action to Wildlife Hazard Management Plans as eliminate wildlife hazards any time they are detected. conditions dictate. (Photo by E.A. LeBoeuf, USAF) Notwithstanding other requirements, each certificate holder must take immediate measures to alleviate wildlife hazards whenever they are detected (14 CFR 139.337(f)). The airport operator should establish procedures for airport employees or tenants to report hazardous wildlife on or near aircraft movement areas to the appropriate airport personnel. 3.4.b. Air Traffic Control To the extent permitted by higher priority duties and other circumstances, air traffic controllers are required to: • Issue advisory information on pilot-reported, tower-reported, or radar-observed and pilot-verified bird activity; • Delay bird activity information to adjacent facilities and to Flight Service Stations - (FSS) whenever it appears the wildlife hazard will become a factor in their area. (FAA Order 7110.65, 2-1-22) 3.4.c. Pilots Pilots have a responsibility to report all unsafe conditions on or near an airport, including birds or other wildlife that could pose a threat to aircraft safety. Pilots and other airline or airport personnel should report all known wildlife strikes. Strikes can be reported by completing and mailing FAA Form 5200-7 BirdlOther Wildlife Strike Report (Appendix G). No postage is required if this form is mailed within the United States. This form Chapter 3 32 may be duplicated as needed. Strikes can also be reported electronically at http://wildlife.pr.erau.edu/strikeform/birdstrikeform.htmi. All strike reports are closely screened and edited to prevent duplicate entries in the database. 3.5. BIRD STRIKE COMMITTEE - USA Bird Strike Committee-USA (BSC-USA) was formed in 1991 to facilitate the exchange of information, promote the collection and analysis of accurate wildlife strike data, promote the development of new technologies for reducing wildlife hazards, promote professionalism in wildlife management programs at airports through training and advocacy of high standards of conduct of airport biologists and bird patrol personnel, and be a liaison to similar organizations in other countries. Bird Strike Committee USA is directed by an 8-person steering committee consisting of 2 members each from the FAA, USDA/WS, DOD, and the aviation industry's Wildlife Hazards Working Group. The organization meets annually in conjunction with Bird Strike Committee Canada (BSCC). The meeting site alternates between Canada and the USA. There are generally 4 parts to a BSC-'' USA/BSCC meeting. Part 1 consists of presentations of papers or reports. Part 2 is a vender and poster session. Part 3 is a training session on wildlife control at airports which covers both civil and military aviation. Part 4 is a field trip which generally covers the host airport and areas off the airport which pertain to aviation or aviation safety. This pilot suffered severe head lacerations when a gulf Participation in the annual meetings is open to an interested in penetrated the canopy of his aircraft shortly after p y person takeoff from a California airport, November 1998. reducing wildlife hazards to aviation (Photo by J. R. Dodd,Airport Manager) and in wildlife management at airports. BSC-USA does not charge membership fees; however, a nominal registration fee is charged for attendance at annual meetings. Additional information about BSC-USA can be found at BSC-USA's web site: htto.Uwww.birdstrike.org. �1► r � ,� � � � �� : �.� _ . � ,,,� ��� ! r' ��� �ti r r� 4'x4 } "� .a.. a Y �: ,�., � 1 w # ------------- w Safety Buchanan Field - CCR (Concord Tower) ATIS—(925)685-4567 Average Daily Operations—740 Normal Operations--Parallel Runways 32/14 & 19/01 Tower(925)685-5743 For more infbnnation about this airport contact:jillian.purdy(@,faa.gov M bd-fbfe crossing Runway 32L. E . A 1a to Tavay ,to Ytildv flf Runway 19�Z10 I L. to � & VaI 3 t ME"W 1; Aircraft'ttn�ar1�anti�"a1 to'ltri'1�i°short ... Runwav 32L runway environment., . : . . s . :. =.; R way OIL at Taxies. .. G. _. a-y The Run-up area for runway 32L is difficult to find. There are numerous helicopter operations on or in vicinity of the runways. Caution for banner tow operations (Runway 19R/01L&Runway 32R.114L). Opposite direction approaches are conducted to runway 19R while runways 01 are in use. Airport signage not well marked. 6 DI ' W.Scott Wayne,Ph.D.,Director West��Y igi i UnMysity West Virginia University Department ofMechanical and Aerospace Engineering Trarg)orbbie Heavy Vevde Enissions Testing Labaatap P.o.so><6106 Morgantown WV 26506-6166 Phone:(304)293-3111 ext.2323;Fax:(304)293-6689 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority BIOdle'se duel Ccimparisan:final Date Report 4' Presented to: Harpal S. Kapoor Assistant Manager, Bus Engineering Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 225026 Ih Street, NE Washington DC 20018 Prepared by: Donald W. Lyons National Research Center for Alternative Fuels, Engine and Emissions West Virginia University August 15, 2002 Y TrarsportableHeavy Vel" >amm&qomTeeingLab� The West Virginia University measured the exhaust emissions from a Flxible Transit bus with a 1990 Cummins L10 engine operated on standard federal type-1 diesel fuel (Dl), ultra-low sulfur type-1 diesel fuel (ULSDI) and on a blend or 20% biodiesel and 800/0 ULSD1 fuel (BD20). During the ULSD1 and BD20 tests the transit bus was equipped with an Engelhard DPX catalyzed particulate filter. The vehicle was exercised over a chassis dynamometer test cycle that was developed from data logged from. WMATA buses during normal passenger service in the Washington D.G. Metropolitan Area.. All measurements were made in accordance with the guidelines set forth the Code of Federal Regulations CFR40 Part 86 Subpart N. Oxides of nitrogen emissions (NOx) are plotted in Figure 1. Each bar represents the average of three consecutive test nuns. The error bars represent the maximum and minimum test nun valines. There was no significant change in the NOx emissions as a result of changing from standard D1 fuel to ultra-low sulfur Dl. As expected, NOx emissions increased slightly from 26.74g/rnile to 28.98g/mile when switching to the BD20 blend. Although the NOx emissions for the U''LSD1/DPX configuration appears to show a reduction in NOx, the catalyzed particulate filter does not affect generally affect NOx ernissions. However, it does aMet the balance of NO and NO2 in the exhaust. The apparent reduction in NOx emissions is most likely due to differing ambient temperature and humidity. Particulate (PM) emissions are shown in Figure 2. There was no significant change in. PM emissions as a result of switching to the BD20 blend. The catalyzed particulate trap reduce PM emissions by greater than 98%. The ULSD 1 fuel showed slightly higher PM emissions than those produced by the D 1 fuel. Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions are plotted in Figure 3 and hydrocarbon (HC) emissions are shown in Figure 4. The catalyzed particulate filter also oxidizes carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. Switching to the BD20 blend caused an apparent reduction in CO emissions of approximately 90%. The BD20 fuel blend also produced a reduction in HG emission of approximately 92%. Fuel economy results are plotted in Figure S. Within the bounds of measurement error, fuel economy was not significantly affected by any of the furls tested in this study.. Based on the results of this limited investigation, switching to a 20% biodiesel blend produced a small increase in NOx emissions and reductions in CO and HC emissions. The use of ultra-low diesel fuel or a blend of biodiesel and ultra-low sulf'tur diesel fuel in conjunction with catalyzed particulate filters can substantially reduce PM, CO and HC emission without any significant affect on fuel economy. 2 IV Transpot#abie Heavy Veh'ide Emissains Testing laborabry 35 - 30 - 25 - 20 - 0 53025 20 d 15 w x z 10 5 0- Fed. D1-Muffler ULSD1-Muffler ULSD1-DPX BD20-DPX Figure I.-Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions 0.8 - 07 0.6 0.639 -E�, 0.5 (1.576 v !2 0.4 E 0.3 0.2 - 0.1 0.009 0.013 0 Ped. D1-Muffler ULSD1-Muffler ULSD1-DPX BD20-DPX Figure 2:Particulate Emissions TranTortab}e Heavy Vehde Bnls�Testing Labrar y 20 - 16 - 14 - E 016 14E 12 2 10 W U 6 4 1.75 2 0.17 0 Fed. DI-Muffler UL.SD1-Muffler ULSD1-DPX BD20-DPX Figure 3: Carbon Monoxide Emissions 7 - 6 - 6A3 as 5 - 4 - 0 40 4 3 - w 2 - 0.13 0.01 0 Fed. D1-Muffler ULSd1-Muffler ULSD1-DPX BD20-DPX Figure 4:Hydrocarbon Emissions 4 Trac cable Heavy Wide Emissi Tesfipg l.abeaay 3.5 v 3 3.22 3.2ti x,34 rn 2,5 E >, 2 E O 5 1.5 u LU � 1 LL 0.5 0 Fed, D1-Muffler ULSD1-Muffler ULSDI-DPX BD20-DPX Figure 5:Fuel Economy 5 TransporWJe Heavy Vehide Emissions Tesling Laboiaby Test Sequence Number: 3784 WVU Test Reference Number: WMATA-9456-U LSD I-2WMATA Fleet Owner Full Dame 'Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Fleet Address 3500 Pennsy Drive Fleet Address (City, State, Zip) Landover, MD 20784 Vehicle Type Transit Bus Vehicle ID Number(VIN) 1GF5BAEK6LD101818 Vehicle Manufacturer Fixible Corp. Vehicle Model Year 1990 Gross Vehicle Weight(GVW} (lb.) 89550 Vehicle Total Curb Weight(lb.) 27000 Vehicle Tested Weight(lb.) 32100 Odometer Reading(mile) 49802 Transmission Type Automatic Transmission Configuration 3 Number of Axles 2 Engine Type Cummins L10 Engine 1D Number 84678506 Engine Displacement(Liter) 10 Number of Cylinders 6 Engine Stated Power(hp) 240 Primary Fuel ULSD1 Particulate Trap Manufacturer Engelhard Test Cycle 2WMATA Test Date 5/30/02 Engineer A. Williams Driver J.England Emissions Res Its lmile Fuel Econorn 3784-2 2.13 2:3.2 c 0.30 0.0057 2798 3.52 3 246 8.59 3784-3' 2.33 24.9 c 0.10 0.0105 2812 3.51 36417 8.59 3784-4 0.79 22.8 c e 0.0102 2821 3.50 3 503 8.68 3784 Average 1,76 23:f c 1 0.20 0.0088 1 2810 3.51 3 389 I 8.59 Std.Dev. 0.84 1.1 c 0.14 0:003 12 0.01 131 0.01 CV°!u 47.9 4.7 59.3 d 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 t pu=sw WMATA Transit Bus running on ULSD with an Engelhard DPX aftertreatment device. Special P, e,dum: Runs 2, 3, &4 are double WMATA cycles. Run 5 is the background. Qbserva fans: NOx 2 analyzer removed and sent to California Analytical for repairs. 6 Transportable Heavy Vehide Emw ons Testing Laboratory Test Sequence Number: 3809 WVU Test Reference Number: WMATA-9456-ULSDI-WMATA Fleet Owner Full Name Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Fleet Address 3500 Pennsy Drive Fleet Address (City, State, Zip) Landover, MD 20784 Vehicle Type Transit Bus Vehicle ID Number(VIN) 1GF5BAEK6LD101818 Vehicle Manufacturer Ftxible Corp. Vehicle Model Year 1990 Gross Vehicle Weight(GVW) (lb.) 39500 Vehicle Total Curb Weight(lb.) 27000 Vehicle Tested Weight(lb.) 32100 Odometer Reading (mile) 49802 Transmission Type Automatic Transmission Configuration 3 Number of Axles 2 Engine Type Cummins L10 Engine ID Number 34678506 Engine Displacement(Liter) 10 Number of Cylinders 6 Engine Rated Power(hp) 240 Primary Fuel ULSD1 Test Cycle WMATA Test Date 6/14/02. Engineer S. Rosepiler Driver J. England Emissions Results !mile Fuel Economy 3809-2 17.8 25.6 25.3 4.72 0.59 2826 3.44 37105 4.30 3809-4 19.0 27.4 27.0 4.36 0.69 3007 3.24 39483 4.20 3809-5 17.0 27.5 27.2 5.10 0.64 3051 3.19 40021 4.19 3809 Average 17.9 26.8 c 4.89 0.64 2961 3.29 38870 1 4.23 Std.Dev. 1 1.0 1.0 c 0.19 0.05 119 0.13 1552 0.06 CV°l. 5.6 3.9 4.0 8.1 4.0 4.1 4.0 1.5 Test Pur2ose: WMATA Transit bus running on ULSD1 with standard muffler. S12eci t Procedures: Run 1 is morning background, Runs 2,4, and 5 are good runs. '1 Transportable Heavy VeNde Emissions Testing Laboratory Test Sequence Number: 3810 WVU Test Reference Number: WMATA-9456-DI-WMATA Fleet Owner Full Mame Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Fleet Address 3500 Pennsy[Drive Fleet Address (City, State, Zip) Landover, MD 20784 Vehicle Type Transit flus Vehicle ID Number(VIN) 1GF5SAEK6LD101818 Vehicle Manufacturer Fixible Corp. Vehicle Model Year 1990 Gross Vehicle Weight(GVW) (lb.) 39500 Vehicle Total Curb Weight(lb.) 27000 Vehicle Tested Weight(lb.) 32100 Odometer Reading (mile) 49802 Transmission Type Automatic Transmission Configuration 3 Number of Axles 2 Engine Type Cummins L10 Engine €D Number 34678506 Engine Displacement(Liter) 10 Number of Cylinders 6 Engine Rated Power(hp) 240 Primary Fuel D1 Test Cycle WMATA Test Date 6114102 Engineer S. Rosepiler Driver J. England Emissions Results mile Fuel Econ my EMEM smog= 3610-2 17.1 26.7 26.3 6.63 0.57 2925 3.24 3 854 4.29 3810-3 16.6 26.5 26.0 6.29 0.56 2933 3.24 3 937 4.28 3810-4 16.3 27.0 26.6 6.38 0.60 2974 3.19 39469 4.27 3810 Average 16.7 2€+.7 c 6.43 0.68 2944 3.22 39087 4.28 Std. ev. 0.4 0.3 c 0. 8 0.02 26 0.03 3341 0.01 CVvfo 2.5 1.0 2.$ 3.6 0.9 110.9 0.9 0.2 Test Purpose: WMATA Transit bus with standard muffler running on D1 Secial Procedures: Faun 1 is evening background for 611412002, Runs 2, 3,and 4 are good runs. 8 A Transportable Heavy Vehide Emissions Testing Laboratory Test Sequence Number: 3846 WVU Test Reference Number: WMATA-9458-BD20-WMATA Fleet Owner Full.Name Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Fleet Address 3500 Pennsy Drive Fleet Address (City, State, Zip) Landover MD 20784 Vehicle Type Transit Bus Vehicle ID Number(VIN) 1GF5BAEK6LD101818 Vehicle Manufacturer Flxible Corp. Vehicle Model Year 1990 Gross Vehicle Weight(GVW) (lb.) 39500 Vehicle Total Curb Weight(lb.) Not Available Vehicle Tested Weight(lb.) 32100 Odometer Reading(mile) 51283 Transmission Type Automatic Transmission Configuration 3 Number of Axles 2 Engine Type Cummins 1-10 Engine ID Number 34678506 Engine Displacement(Liter) 10 Number of Cylinders 6 Engine Rated Power(hp) 240 Primary Fuel BD20 Particulate Trap Manufacturer Engelhard Test Cycle WMATA Test Date 7117/02 Engineer Barnett, Ryan Driver Leasor, Curtis Emissions Results !mile Fuel Economy suffAffilm 3846-2 0:25 29.5 29.8 X 0.011 3035 3.35 38222 4.26 3846-3 0.15 28.9 14.5 0.018 0.011 3028 3.36 38134 4.24 3846-4 0.11 28.6 14.6 X 0.017 3058 3.32 38513 4.26 3846 Average 0.17 29.0 19.6 0.018 0.013 3040 3.34 38290 4.25 Std.Dev. 0.07 0.5 8.8 0.000 0.004 16 0.02 199 0.01 CV% 41.1 1.7 0.0 27.1 0.5 Test Purpose: - testing of WMATA biodiesel bus 9456 Special Procedures: run 'I is conditioning, runs 2, 3, and 4 are the good ones, 9 network or point to paint carrier,but that does not rile out commuters ora new entrant. Major carriers prefer service at established airports to maximize their potential to fill seats. Initiating service at a new airport would involve considerable financial risk and could be expensive to provide,particularly if they do not have the type of aircraft suited to this service on hand. Because of the economics of this type of operation (airline and airport related costs),the fares may be higher than those offered by the established carriers at the existing airports. The viability of service would depend largely on the convenience offered,both is terms of shortened ground access titres and the availability of an adequate choice of departure and arrival times. Airline service initiated at Long Beach, for example,while surrounded by a large population,has not matched expectations largely it is believed due to the lack of added convenience when matched against LAX. The same could be said of the Hypothetical service at Moffett when matched against SFO and SJC. Noise is obviously a concern in all locations. Looking at airspace issues from a Bay Area perspective,there are potential benefits from removing aircraft from the crowded terminal area airspace used by SFO, OAK., and SJC. While up to 169 daily flights by regional jets would be added at the various satellite airports,only 64(20 10)to 76 (2020)'daily flights might be eliminated at OAK, SFO,and SJC due to the larger aircraft in service at these airports. Also, as explained below there would still be airspace interactions between a few of these satellite airports and operations at the existing airports. From a more global airspace management perspective, the large increase in overall number of flights in the already crowded California corridor could exacerbate enroute congestion between the Bay Area and Southern California. These additional flights could also exacerbate airspace conflicts within the Southern California airspace. Finally, it should be noted that the historic role of general aviation airports has been to relieve the major air carrier airports,which is to say,to provide an attractive alternative to entice small aircraft fusers to these facilities. This may well continue to be the most effective role these airports can play,particularly in the growing corporate aircraft market. Moffett Airfield,in particular,may be a useful addition to the South Bay aviation system for corporate users if SJC becomes congested in the long term due to higher levels of air passenger and air cargo flights. - - Airport-by-Airport Airspace Assessment Because of the importance of airspace issues in the regional context,we have also reviewed the specific airspace interactions at each satellite airport discussed above. Buchanan Field(CCR): The commuter aircraft type will probably advance to 50 to 90 passenger regional turbojet aircraft by 2010 and would be the most suitable equipment for the type of shuttle service discussed in this scenario. The length of Runway 19R/lL at 5,010 feet may be inadequate for fully loaded regional jet aircraft operations at Buchanan. The runway may have to be extended beyond 6,000 feet toward the nearby freeways. LA Basin-bound departures will encounter delays because of the eastbound departures off SFO and OAK. Those departures off Buchanan may have to be"tunneled" out toward the Manteca VORTAC,at low altitudes,until clear of the SFO and OAK eastbound departure routes. A new southbound route may be possible via Skaggs VORTAC to Point Reyes VOR then direct WAGES (Watsonville).Northbound regional jet departures to Portland or Seattle(if there are any)would be subject to similar delays and subsequently be blended into the SFO and OAK northbound departures routed over Red Bluff. Commuter arrivals from the LA Basin into Buchanan would likely be routed over Panoche and north of Sunol direct to the Buchanan VOR_ They would receive the same enroute and terminal radar services as those arrivals being routed over Panoche to OAK. Regional jet commuter operations out of and into Buchanan will encounter daily delays during the peak Bay Area traffic hours because of the necessity to weave those operations through the SFO,OAK, and SJC arrival and departure flows. Radar coverage is attainable at approximately 1,000 feet over Buchanan from the Travis RAPCON and Bay TRACON radar sites. Gnoss Field(056): Gnoss Field has a single runway(31/13)that is 3,300 feet long by 60 feet wide and would have to be extended to at least 6,000 feet for fully loaded regional jet operations. LA-bound commuter departures may have to be routed over the Point Reyes VORTAC and tunneled out at lower altitudes until clear of the SFC}and SJC arrivals from Seattle,Portland., and Canada that are routed over Point Reyes to the Woodside VOR. These departures would likely encounter significant delays and be forced to operate below 11,000 feet until clear of the Point Reyes-Woodside traffic. Commuter arrivals from the LA Basin to Gnoss may have to be routed either over Big Sur and west of the coastline toward Sausalito or over Panoche and east of Buchanan Field to Gnoss. Either route would present numerous conflict resolution challenges for Oakland Center and Bay TRACON. Operating regional jet commuters in and out of Gnoss to east or southbound destinations would be very difficult operationally and result in major delays during peak Bay Area traffic periods. Presently,radar coverage is nonexistent below approximately 3,000 feet in the vicinity of Gnoss Field from the Bay TRACON and Oakland Center radar sites. Livermore Municipal Airport{LVID): Livermore Airport's Runway 2517L is 5,255 feet long and may have to be extended to accommodate fully loaded regional jet operations. The airport is ideally located for commuter arrivals from the east and from the LA Basin. The LA Basin turboprop or regional jet commuters would be routed over Panoche along the same routing for arrivals into OAK from over Panoche. Arrivals from the east(SAC, RNO, SCK.,.MOD)would be routed toward Tracy to Livermore Airport. Southbound departures would be routed toward Manteca to the LA Basin or Salinas-Santa Barbara and may be tunneled eastbound until clear of SFO and OAK departures routed over Linden and Stockton VORTACs. Departures would be subject to individual releases during peak Bay Area traffic periods,but would not encounter abnormal delays as those likely at Gnoss or Buchanan Field airports. Remote radar coverage is attainable down to approximately 1;000 feet in the vicinity of Livermore Airport from the Bay TRACON radar site. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... A copy of the mitigated negative declaration and all documents referenced in the rnd ne tv, declaration may be reviewed in the offices of the Community Development Depe t, Application and Permit Center at the McBrien Administration Building,Forth Wigg,Secort r, 651 Pine Street Martinez, during normal business hours. 10,0 A k` tff:� Public Comment Period-The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environ�tal documents extends to 5.00 P.M., Thursday, December 19, 2002. Any comments should be in Writing and submitted to the following address: Larne: Catherine Kutsuris Community Development Department Contra Costa County 651 fine Street,North Wing, 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 It is anticipated that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be considered for adoption at a meeting of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors (meeting date to be scheduled). The hearing is anticipated to be held at the McBrien Administration Building,Room 107,pine and _Escobar Streets, Martinez. C,4-4e r c,n e )�U -Y�5v r 1,-5 r-p— Ppere Jeve (c dy*vot Catherine Kutsuris ' Deputy Director cc: County Clerks Office (2 copies) f e, d,4- -760 r S 0 V 0 Vic a fl _Ij x Co M Cc r c) 12•-17-02 Catherine Kutsuris Community Development Dept. Contra Casts. County 651 Pine St., N.Wing, 4,th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Dear Katherine,: Tr I would like to voice my opinion to the pr., id pro e t for the;Buchanan Field> Project, the additional fa.ciliies, and services. As a resident of Pleasant Hill, .I STRONGLY OBJECT to this plan. The noise level is already bad enough,1 and I feel that the increase will only,add to that already bothersome noise Many of the airplanes and helicopters fly very low, which of course, makes the noise level very intrusive* I know that all my neighbboss feel< the .same way as I do. We have had many discussions regarding this matter. I do hope that you will take my comments against the adoption of the plan into consideration! Thanking you in advance for your consideration. Linda Mann 371 Scottsdale Road Pleasant Hill; —9-4523-- (925)825-2181 --94523"(925)825-2181 02 DEC -9 Pm 4,- To MTo Catherine Kutsuris Bakri boustani Community Development Department 117 Via Mediae Lafayette ca 94549 Contra Costa County Tel. 925-283-8410 Would voice my strong object ion to the proposed expanding the current ;Buchanan. I owe residential home at 17.Duke circle PH. . receive continues complains from my Tenants about the level of noise that is produced by the air line plains. An increase this Level of pollution will not help the community. I oppose strongly to any expansion of the air Port. Sincerely Bakri boustani David Boninl December 19, 2002 Catherine K.utsuris Centra Costa County Community Development.Department 651 Fine Street,North Wing, Fourth Floor Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Buchanan Field Airport Development Project, W05340, APN.,Vo. 125-010-4.2.3 Dear Ms. Kutsuris: Thank your for sending me a copy of the above-described environmental impact study. I do not wish to be long. I do want to.note that the most serious public concerns about the project relate to noise and to increases gaseous and,particulate contaminants and their affect on human health. The passage of AB 2776 declaring that airports can significantly reduce home values was a milestone in portraying harm airports can do to the physiological and economic health of a community. While the current use of the airport meets FAA.standards,there have nonetheless been.. `innumerable' noise complaints(a term used by an FAA official). Not coincidentally,the east side of the airport is disproportionately riddled with asthmatic homeowners. In fact, the FAA's environmental standards are notoriously bad and have been challenged throughout the U.S and by foreign bodies. To propose a negative declaration which will add more aircraft and suggest that the incremental problems will be negligible is quite improper. To,propose that the County become the sponsor and allow unknown P parties to bid on and use the space with an unknown fleet of aircraft is not only improper but immoral. Sincerely, r- 825 Golf Club Circle Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Exhibit D MARCH 11 , 2003 ANALYSIS OF COMMENT LETTERS M E M 0 R A N D U M TO Catherine Kutsuris FROM Jyothi lyer DATE March 11,2003 SUBJECT Buchanan Field Airport Development Project-Response to Comments Response to Comments on the Draft Initial Study for the Buchanan Field Airport Development Project FINANCIAL LIABILITY AND OTHER NONT -CEQA ISSUES The comment letter from People Over Planes, Inc. raises a number of financial risk and liability issues that the author asserts may be associated with the proposed project. However, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15131, the focus of analysis in the Initial Study is on the physical changes to the environment due to the project;the social and economic effects of the project are not in themselves significant effects on the environment for purposes of CEQA review. CEQA requires analysis of the economic and social effects of a project only insofar as the economic and social effects of a project may result in adverse physical changes to the environment. Therefore,the Initial Study does not analyze the financial risk and liability issues raised by the commmentor. FAILURE TO STUDY MUST INTENSIVE USE The Initial Study analyzes the impacts of the project as described in the project description. Section 15064 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the analysis be based upon facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts and expert opinion supported by facts, CEQA does not require a worst-case analysis per se, or, in general, any analysis that is based on argument, speculation or unsubstantiated opinion or evidence. The projections of aircraft activity associated with the project were prepared by the original project applicant(Concord Jet services). The County, as the Lead Agency for CEQA documentation,has reviewed the projections provided by the original sponsor,has determined them to be reasonable and has accepted them as the basis for the analysis of operational impacts(e.g.,noise, air quality)of the proposed project in this Initial Study. If subsequent to completion of CEQA review for the project as described in this Initial Study, changes in the project were proposed that could materially alter the aircraft activity projections evaluated in the Initial Study, additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA could be required. In particular, if any future changes in the project description would result in new significant impacts not disclosed in this Initial Study, or in a substantial increase in the severity of any significant impact this Initial Study discloses,the County would prepare supplemental environmental analysis to address the new issues. Of the Fixed Base Operators (FBOs)currently operating at the Airport, only one business (APEX Aviation)reported a fractional ownership program involving aircraft based in its facilities at the Airport. The fractional ownership program reported by APEX involves two aircraft that are each owned and operated by more than one party. Information on the number of aircraft operations(an operation consists of a landing and take-off, or LTO) involving the aircraft in fractional ownership was not available. However, it is reported that these two aircraft each fly an average of 25 hours per month. It should be noted that fractional ownership of these 2 aircraft seems to be more an exception than a norm at the Airport. At this point, it is not known if project-related aircraft would be operated in fractional ownership and if so,how many aircraft and what their activity levels would be. Based on existing trends, the analysis assumes that it is not reasonably likely that the project would include aircraft operating in fractional ownership and the analyzed scenario represents a realistic and foreseeable scenario. However, assuming that as much as 50 percent of the project-related aircraft would be owned and operated fractionally, using statistical activity data from the Transportation Research Board that activity for aircraft owned in fractional ownership is 4 times those not within fractional ownership,the number of aircraft operations associated with the proposed project would be 100 percent more than that analyzed in the Initial Study(Transportation Research Board,Future Aviation activities— 1.2`h International Workshop, January 2003). Given that air quality and noise impacts are well below the significance thresholds, even an increase in activity of 100 percent is not likely to result in significant impacts. If subsequent to completion of CEQA review for the project as described in this Initial Study, changes in the project were proposed that could materially alter the aircraft activity projections evaluated in the Initial Study, additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA could be required. NOISE .Most of the comments on noise relate to existing noise conditions in the vicinity of the Airport. CEQA requires an evaluation of the change in the physical environment due to the project over baseline conditions, which are "normally"considered to be existing conditions at the time environmental analysis is commenced per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15125 and 15125.2. There are no issues raised in the comments that relate to the adequacy or accuracy of the evaluation of the project's impacts on the existing noise environment. The noise analysis for the project examined the impacts of increased aircraft activity to the existing 65 CNEL contour as well as a Time Above(TA) and Sound Exposure Level(SEL) analysis. The FAA's Area Equivalent Method(AEM)was used to assess the change in the 65 dBA CNEL contour due to the additional operations generated by the project using current operations at the airport and percent fleet mix from the INM input files that were used to generate noise contours in the ALUP. The analysis determined that the addition of the project- related operations to the Airport would increase the area within the 65 CNEL contour by approximately 2.6 percent. This would be well below the FAA threshold of 17 percent required 2 to produce a 1.5-dBA change in noise level due to the project at noise sensitive receptors within the 65 DNL contour. The integrated Noise Model (INM)was used to estimate the TA and SEL levels for the different types of aircraft expected to operate at the proposed project. Based on the results, the TA for 65 dBA is expected to increase by 1.4 minutes per day at nearby sensitive receptors due to the project related aircraft operations. Currently,the time above 65 dBA due to operations of the existing fleet at the airport is 180 minutes per day. Therefore,the project-related increase would be less than 1 percent. INM results also showed that SEL values for project aircraft would be similar or less than SEL levels for existing aircraft. Therefore, the project would not introduce aircraft noisier than those already in the existing fleet into the airport's airspace. AIRPORT REFERENCE CODE The statement made by People Over Planes, Inc. (POP) in regards to Buchanan Field Airport's reference code and the types of aircraft that can operate at the Airport are not supported by the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA). On a similar issue at the Santa Monica Airport,the FAA reiterated that the Airport Reference Code (ARC)design category of an airport cannot be used and is not intended to limit or regulate airport operations. The designated FAA design standards for the operation of aircraft at an airport is based primarily upon the characteristics of the aircraft actually utilizing, or expected to use, the airport. The aircraft are placed into categories under the ARC,which has two components: the first is depicted by a letter(A through E)indicating the aircraft's approach speed category(operational characteristics);the second component is depicted by a Roman.numeral (I through IV)relating to the wingspan of the aircraft group(physical characteristics). The Buchanan Field Airport's FAA designated ARC is a"Category B—Group III airport"(B-irl)based on a large business jet as the critical design aircraft identified for the airport. Linder the ARC,the critical design aircraft is defined as the most demanding category aircraft that conducts 500 or more operations per year(250 takeoffs and 250 landings). This however does not necessarily imply that use of the airport by aircraft larger than the critical design aircraft is unsafe. The FAA design category of an airport provides guidance in airport design and planning and is used by the FAA in its oversight of an airport's operations;however,the ARC is not prescriptive by itself and the FAA does not consider it inherently unsafe for an aircraft of a larger design category to utilize an airport that has been designed to accommodate a lesser design category-of aircraft. It should be noted that there are instrument approach procedures for Buchanan Field Airport published by the FAA for aircraft larger than those allowable under the B-III design category of the airport. EXPOSURE TO TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS(TACs) The following toxics analysis has been summarized in the air quality section of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the entire analysis has been included as Appendix C in the document. Introduction 3 Besides criteria air pollutants,the California Air Resources Board has identified a number of toxic air contaminants(TACs)that can be released from mobile and stationary sources. Pollutants are considered TACs if they are suspected human carcinogens, or if they can produce non-cancer health outcomes from either acute or chronic exposure. Carcinogenic and adverse non-carcinogenic human health effects potentially associated with exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs)emitted a result of project construction and/or operations are a potential public health issue. Although TACs are believed to have health impacts, ambient air quality standards for the pollutants have not been established. There are hundreds of different types of TACs, with varying degrees of toxicity. TACs are often part of both volatile organic compounds(VOCs) and particulate matter(PM). TAC species that are included as VOCs are substances such as benzene, formaldehyde, and toluene. TAC species that are contained in PM include toxic heavy metals, such as lead, cadmium, and mercury, as well as large organic molecules that can form in the combustion process. These include substances such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (soot). This section evaluates potential health risks from exposure to emissions of TACs related to the Buchanan Field Airport Development Project. The incremental risk of contracting cancer and the risk of adverse health effects from exposure to non-carcinogenic substances emitted from the project are reported.For toxic air contaminants linked to potential increases in cancer due to longterm exposure,the measurement of risk is generally calculated based on exposure over many years (e.g., 8 hours per day over 40 years for workers; continuous exposure over 70 years for residents), and is typically reported as an additional number of cancer cases, compared to the risk that would exist without exposure to the pollutant in question. This risk is reported as X chance in 1 million(or X cases per 1 million persons),where X is the number of additional cases of cancer that could be expected due to the pollutant in question. Typically, the reported risk level corresponds to the location, referred to as the "maximally exposed individual (MEI),"where the highest calculated risk from toxic air contaminants from a facility would occur. Risks from toxic air contaminants diminish at locations that are further from the facility than the MEI, The following discussion focuses on TACs that are a part of the VOCs and not PM-10 because of the lack of existing information on aircraft particulate emissions. Without adequate data and analysis methodologies available,analysis of impacts would thus be considered too"speculative" for evaluation under CEQA Guideline 15145. Existing TAC concentrations Ambient air levels of TACs are measured at several stations in the region by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD). The station nearest to the Buchanan Field Airport is in Concord. Table 1 summarizes measured concentrations of TACs at the Concord monitoring station for the year 2000,which is the most recent year for which certified data are available. These measured levels generally reflect TAC levels in the project area, although there may be some higher levels close to ground-level sources of TACs. However,residences and other sensitive receptors are usually not located close to such sources. 4 TABLE 1 AVERAGE AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS OF TOXIC AIR CONTAVIINANTS MEASURED IN CONCORD,ARNOLD INDUSTRIAL WAY,IN 2000 Concentration Cancer Risk Unit Risk (Chances in Compound (ppb)b (pg/m3), (pg/m3)-1b,c one million) Gaseous TACsa Acetaldehyde 0.73 1.34 2.70 x 10"6 3.6 1,3 Butadiene 0.14 0.32 1.70 x 104 54.5 Benzene 0.43 1.40 2.90 x 10`s 40.5 Carbon Tetrachloride 0.10 0.64 4.20 x 10"5 26.9 Formaldehyde 1.90 2.37 6.00 x 10-6 14.2 Perchloroethylene 0.05 0.34 5.90 x 10-6 2.0 Methylene Chlorideb 0.25 0.88 1.00 x 10-6 0.9 MTBE 0.59 2.16 2.60 x 10"7 0.6 Chloroforms 0.15 0.74 5.30 x 10'6 3.9 Trichloroethylenes 0.40 2.19 2.00 x 10"6 4.4 Particulate TACsa (ng/M3)" Chromium(Hexavalent) 4.11 1.12 x 10"4 0.150 16.8 olycyclic Aromadc 0.54 5,44 x 10-4 1.10 x 10'3 0.6 Hydrocarbonse Nickel 3.27 3.27x 10 2.60 x 10 0.8 Lead 7.04 7.04 x 10 1.20 x 10-5 0.1 Total Risk for All TACs 170 a All values are from BAAQMD monitoring equipment,except those in italics,which come from the average of the five GARB monitoring sites(San Francisco,San Jose,Fremont,San Pablo,and Concord). GARB values are from 2000 except for the Concord and San Pablo sites,where sampling was suspended in 2000. The concentrations used from these two sites are the means of daily samples collected during the period March 1, 1999,through February 29,2000. In calculating average concentrations,samples less than the limits of detection(LOD)were assumed to be equal to one-half of the LOD. Risks are calculated for the carcinogenic TACs for which routine sampling was performed by the BAAQMD and GARB, except for ethylene dihromide,ethylene dichloride,and vinyl chloride,which were excluded because none of these compounds were detected in any of the air samples taken in the Bay Area. b ppb is part per billion,(Fig/m3)is microgram per cubic meter or millionth of a gram per cubic meter,(ng/m3)is nanogram per cubic meter or billionth of a gram per cubic meter. c Unit Risk is the probability of contracting cancer if one is constantly exposed to an average concentration of one microgram per cubic meter of the specific substance. d Concentrations were below the detection limit. One-half of the detection limit was used to calculate cancer risks. c The PAH concentration represents the sum of the following species collected as PM-I0:benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,benzo(k)fluoranthene,dibenzo(a,h)anthracene,and indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene. 5 Table 1 also shows the carcinogenic health risks from exposure to existing(2000) concentrations. The health risks were estimated by applying the cancer unit risk factors to the measured concentration of each pollutant. The Unit Risk Values are established by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment(OEHHA). The total risk at the Concord monitoring station is estimated to be 170 in a million. Over half of the cancer risk is due to benzene and 1,3 butadiene, which are emitted principally from motor vehicles. These risks compare with the Bay Area average of 167 in a million(BAAQMD 2001). However,the risks do not include the entire risk from TACs, mainly because not all of the species contained in diesel particulate matter(diesel PM) are represented. Diesel PM is a mixture of over 30 different toxic chemicals, and only a portion, mainly polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs),may be reflected in the measurements reported in Table 1. The BAAQMD has estimated that the carcinogenic health risks from exposure to diesel PM in 2000 in the Bay Area region was about 450 in a million(BAAQMD 2001). These region-wide risks were estimated by deriving concentrations of diesel PM from ambient measurements of a surrogate compound. Most of the diesel PM risks are from exposure to exhaust from diesel trucks where the emission sources can be relatively close to receptors. A group of pollutants that have not been routinely monitored in ambient air are polychlorinated dioxins and furans,which are referred to as dioxins. Monitoring of dioxins has recently begun at stations in Crockett, Livermore, Oakland, Richmond, San Jose, and San Francisco,but data are not yet available. Significance Criteria There are no established quantitative, emissions-based significance thresholds for TACs. To ensure good ambient air quality for the state, the ARB has set emission limits known as trigger levels for TACs. Regulating TAC emissions in the nine county San Francisco Bay Area air basin is the responsibility of the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD uses these trigger levels in evaluating toxic air contaminant emissions and risk levels of sources within the San Francisco Bay Area. If the emissions from a source are less than the listed trigger-levels, it is assumed that the source would not fail a risk screen. If the emissions are equal to or greater than one or more of the trigger-levels, a risk screen should be completed to determine the source's exemption status. The trigger levels are based on the quantity of a particular TAC that may contribute to an additional cancer risk of 1 in a million, for toxics with carcinogenic effects. For toxics with non-carcinogenic effects, the trigger level represents a Hazard Index (HI)of one. The definition of HI is given below. Due to the absence of clear emissions based thresholds,the significance evaluation of health risks from a project is usually based on the chance of contracting cancer from exposure to the TACs or of having adverse health effects from exposure to non-carcinogenic TACs. Cancer Risk Cancer risk is defined as the lifetime probability of developing cancer from exposure to carcinogenic substances. Cancer risks are expressed as chances in one million of contracting cancer. Incremental cancer risks are determined for each TAC. The incremental risk for a 6 mixture of compounds is determined by summing the risk from each substance involved in the exposure. The accepted significance threshold for the maximum lifetime cancer risk has been established by several regulations and agencies to be an increase of 10 in one million. This includes the regulation under AB2588, as well as Proposition 65,both of which regulations require public notification if the incremental risk equals or exceeds 10 in one million. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines also recommend that the cancer risk significance threshold for a project be an increase of 10 in a million. Non-Cancer Health Risk Non-cancer adverse health risks are measured against a HI,which is the ratio of the predicted exposure concentration to a threshold level that could cause adverse health effects, as established by OEHHA. If the overall HI exceeds one,then the impact would be significant. The HI significance threshold of one is defined in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and is consistent with the value requiring public notification in the AB2588 regulation and in Proposition 65. Project Impacts As discussed earlier, IACs are often part of both volatile organic compounds(VOCs) and particulate matter(PM). ARB has published weight fractions of specific air toxics found in aircraft VOC emissions in their report--Identification of VOC,species Profiles. TACs from VOC emissions associated with increased aircraft activity due to the project at Buchanan Field are reported in Table 2. These emissions were estimated using the ARB speciation profiles for aircraft as well as projected increases in aircraft activity at Buchanan Field due to the proposed project. These emissions are products of incomplete combustion(PICs) from combustion sources,or they are evaporative emissions. Table 2 also shows the trigger levels for the listed TACs, as established by BAAQMD. TAC emissions from the proposed project would be well below the applicable BAAQMD trigger levels for each pollutant. These trigger levels correspond to a cancer risk of 1 in a million, assuming conservative dispersion conditions. Assuming that emissions at the trigger levels would result in a cancer risk of one in a million, the total incremental risk from carcinogenic toxics due to the project was estimated by scaling the TAC emissions from the project to the BAAQMD trigger levels. The incremental risk was estimated to be 0.162 in a million. Using this same approach for non-carcinogens, the HI from project-related non-carcinogens would be 0.039. These values are well below the 10 in a million threshold for carcinogens and the HI of 1 for non-carcinogens recommended by the BAAQMD. Therefore the TAC emissions and related health risk impacts of the project would be less than significant. 7 Statistically,the introduction of 1,872 new aircraft operations to the Airport due to the proposed project would increase the chances of a bird strike incident by 0.5 percent. This increase would be considered to be negligible and thus less than significant. ANTI-ICING AND DE-ICING IMPACTS As noted by the commenter and as confirmed in discussions with Fixed Based Operators at Buchanan Field,no de-icing or anti-icing operations are currently performed at the Airport. Due to the moderate weather regime in coastal areas of California and particularly in the Bay Area,these services are generally not necessary. It was reported that given the value of these jet aircraft, they are rarely left outside for extended periods of time. Typically these aircraft would be housed within the protection of an aircraft hangar. Also,the project does not propose to provide these services and project related aircraft would also follow the policy of waiting out any ice-forming conditions before take off. GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY The analysis of liquefaction potential in the Draft Initial Study was based on the Liquefaction Potential map contained in the Contra Costa County General Pian,dated July 1996. The map is not detailed enough to provide site specific information and the project site seems to be located partly within the "generally moderate to low"category and partly within the "generally high" category. The liquefaction maps available from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) are based on data from the California Geological Survey and provide more recent information on seismic hazards. The most recent ABAG liquefaction map for the area shows that the project site would be located in an area where the liquefaction potential is considered to be"high". Therefore, the County requires that a detailed, quantitative geological investigation with deep borings up to 250 feet be conducted for the project site as a condition of project approval prior to construction. The investigation would include an adequate seismic evaluation to assess potential seismic hazards, including liquefaction potential as well as any hazards from shallow groundwater. The evaluation would provide site-specific seismic parameters that characterize earthquake shaking conditions and that would then form the basis of specific design standards and recommendations for project structures (including storage tanks). Design of structures would also be subject to the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and California Building Code. Chapter 16 of the UBC contains seismic design standards specifically for aboveground fuel storage tanks. Compliance with these standards would reduce the risk of injury and property damage due to seismic hazards as well as the risk of upset to fuel storage to a less-than-significant level. 9 TABLE 2 PROJECT RELATED TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT EMISSIONS Emissions Source $AA(jiVID Trigger Level a Emissions by Pollutant(lbs Category per year) Carcinogens Acetaldehyde 72 0.31 Benzene 6.7 0.13 1,3 Butadiene 1.1 0.12 Fonnaldehyde 33 1.01 Non-Carcinogens Acrolein 3.9 0.15 Chlorobenzene 13,500 0.00 Ethyl Benzene 193,000 0.01 Hexane 83,000 0.00 Naphthalene 270 0.07 Phenol 8,690 0.02 Propionaldehyde NA 0.06 Styrene 135,000 0.03 Toluene 38,600 0.04 Xylenes 57,900 0.03 a Trigger levels correspond to a risk of I in a million for carcinogenic TACs and a Hazard Index of 1(one)for non-carcinogenic TACs. b Estimates based on weight fractions of specific air toxics from aircraft and on-road motor vehicles specified in ARB report:Identification of VOC Species Profiles,August 1991,and unpublished revisions to those profiles. NA=Not Available SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates,2003. BIRD STRIDE HAZARDS Buchanan Field Airport has adopted a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan to manage and mitigate the impacts of wildlife hazards at and around the Airport. The Plan was implemented following recommendations given by the United States Department of Agriculture in their Ecological Study of Wildlife Hazards at Buchanan Field Airport(An Ecological Study of Wildlife Hazards At Buchanan Field Airport,US Department of Agriculture, September 1997). There were only 14 reported bird strike incidents over the nine-year period from 1987 to 1996. Therefore the Study concluded that wildlife hazards at the Airport have been minimal compared to the total number of aircraft operations and recommended ways to further reduce wildlife hazards at the airport. The recommendations were made part of the Wildlife Hazard Management Plan that was adopted in 1997. Since its adoption, there have been only 6 reported bird strike incidents at the airport for the three year period from March 2000 to December 2002 (Wildlife Strike Log,Buchanan Filed Airport). The Airport has had a bird hazard patrol to haze birds from the airfield since 1989. The bird patrol responds primarily to large flocks of blackbirds and gulls with pyrotechnics. Airport personnel also manage the infield grass and mow it short in order to discourage wildlife from establishing habitat. Debris and rubbish piles and brushy habitat is systematically removed from the area, which has further helped in reducing wildlife hazards. 8